Multipoint Radiation Hybrid Mapping: Comparison of Methods, Sample Size Requirements, and Optimal Study Characteristics
dc.contributor.author | Lunetta, Kathryn L. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Boehnke, Michael | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-04-10T18:10:13Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-04-10T18:10:13Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1994-05-01 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Lunetta, Kathryn L., Boehnke, Michael (1994/05/01)."Multipoint Radiation Hybrid Mapping: Comparison of Methods, Sample Size Requirements, and Optimal Study Characteristics." Genomics 21(1): 92-103. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/31597> | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WG1-45PMSMN-K6/2/1d0af866d4c62c98520edfe9bf79e9d2 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/31597 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8088821&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | There are several statistical methods available for analyzing radiation hybrid (RH) data, but little is known about the ordering accuracy we can expect under common study conditions. Using analytic methods and computer simulation, we compared the ordering accuracy of three multipoint statistical methods: minimum breaks (MB), maximum likelihood (ML), and maximum posterior probability (PP). For 8, 12, and 16 markers and all combinations of numbers of hybrids, retention patterns, and marker spacings considered, the probabilities that the true order is identified as the best order were considerably higher with the ML and PP methods than with the MB method. ML and PP performed similarly, but PP tended to give slightly greater support for the best order than did ML. Our results can be used as guidelines for determining sample size requirements and optimal marker spacing for future RH mapping experiments. For equally spaced markers, intermarker spacing of 30 to 50 cR gave the highest probability of correctly ordering all the markers. For randomly spaced markers, 10-20 Cr average intermarker spacing resulted in the highest proportion of markers being placed in a 1000:1 framework map. Assuming equal retention in the analysis when a centromeric model would be more appropriate did not affect the ability of the ML method to accurately order the markers, but did influence the distance estimates obtained. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 725360 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.title | Multipoint Radiation Hybrid Mapping: Comparison of Methods, Sample Size Requirements, and Optimal Study Characteristics | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Genetics | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Biological Chemistry | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 8088821 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/31597/1/0000526.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/geno.1994.1229 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Genomics | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.