Skip Navigation


Bioinformatics Advance Access originally published online on February 5, 2004
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Print PDF) Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (Screen PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/7/1022    most recent
bth034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cutler, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Cutler, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Bioinformatics 20(7) © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved.

Discrepancies in dbSNP confirmation rates and allele frequency distributions from varying genotyping error rates and patterns

Adele A. Mitchell , Michael E. Zwick {dagger}, Aravinda Chakravarti and David J. Cutler *

McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Jefferson Street Building, 2-120, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA

Received on February 6, 2003; revised on October 13, 2003; accepted on October 21, 2003
Advance Access Publication February 5, 2004

Summary: Three recent publications have examined the quality and completeness of public database single nucleotide polymorphism (dbSNP) and have come to dramatically different conclusions regarding dbSNPs false positive rate and the proportion of dbSNPs that are expected to be common. These studies employed different genotyping technologies and different protocols in determining minimum acceptable genotyping quality thresholds. Because heterozygous sites typically have lower quality scores than homozygous sites, a higher minimum quality threshold reduces the number of false positive SNPs, but yields fewer heterozygotes and leads to fewer confirmed SNPs. To account for the different confirmation rates and distributions of minor allele frequencies, we propose that the three confirmation studies have different false positive and false negative rates. We developed a mathematical model to predict SNP confirmation rates and the apparent distribution of minor allele frequencies under user-specified false positive and false negative rates. We applied this model to the three published studies and to our own resequencing effort. We conclude that the dbSNP false positive rate is ~15–17% and that the reported confirmation studies have vastly different genotyping error rates and patterns.

Contact: dcutler{at}jhmi.edu

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

{dagger} Present address: Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Proc Am Thorac SocHome page
K. C. Barnes
Genetic Determinants and Ethnic Disparities in Sepsis-associated Acute Lung Injury
Proceedings of the ATS, October 1, 2005; 2(3): 195 - 201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Genome ResHome page
A. A. Mitchell, A. Chakravarti, and D. J. Cutler
On the probability that a novel variant is a disease-causing mutation
Genome Res., July 1, 2005; 15(7): 960 - 966.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BioinformaticsHome page
C. S. Carlson, M. J. Reider, D. A. Nickerson, M. A. Eberle, and L. Kruglyak
COMMENT ON 'DISCREPANCIES IN dbSNP CONFIRMATIONS RATES AND ALLELE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FROM VARYING GENOTYPING ERROR RATES AND PATTERNS'
Bioinformatics, January 15, 2005; 21(2): 141 - 143.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.