Genome Research cityscape

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Research Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weeks, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Gorin, M. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weeks, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Gorin, M. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Vol. 12, Issue 3, 430-435, March 2002

LETTER
A Tale of Two Genotypes: Consistency between Two High-Throughput Genotyping Centers

Daniel E. Weeks,1,4 Yvette P. Conley,1,2 Robert E. Ferrell,1 Tammy S. Mah,3 and Michael B. Gorin1,3

1 Department of Human Genetics, 2 Department of Health Promotion and Development, School of Nursing, 3 Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15261, USA

Multiple genome-wide scans involving sib-pairs or limited pedigrees have been extensively used for a wide number of complex genetic conditions. Comparing data from two or more scans, as well as combining data, require an understanding of the sources of genotyping errors and data discrepancies. We have conducted two genome-wide scans for age-related maculopathy using the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) and the Mammalian Genotyping Service (MGS). Thirty individuals were typed in common, in order to allow for the alignment of alleles and comparison of the data sets. The analysis of these 8914 genotypes distributed over 321 markers in common demonstrated excellent agreement between these two laboratories, which have low rates of internal errors. Under the assumption that within each genotype, the smaller MGS allele should correspond to the smaller CIDR allele, the alleles align well between the two centers, with only a small fraction (less than 0.65%) of the aligned alleles showing large differences in sizes. However, since called allele sizes are integer "labels" which may not directly reflect the true underlying allele sizes, it is important to carefully prepare in advance if one wishes to merge data from different laboratories. In particular, it would not suffice to attempt to align alleles by typing only one or two controls in common. Fortunately, for the purposes of linkage analysis, one can avoid merging difficulties by simply carrying out linkage analyses using laboratory-specific allele labels and allele frequencies for each laboratory-specific subset of the data.


4 Corresponding author.


12:430-435 ©2002 by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press  ISSN 1088-9051/02 $5.00

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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
A. C. Pasqualotto, D. W. Denning, and M. J. Anderson
A Cautionary Tale: Lack of Consistency in Allele Sizes between Two Laboratories for a Published Multilocus Microsatellite Typing System
J. Clin. Microbiol., February 1, 2007; 45(2): 522 - 528.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Genes Dev. Learn. Mem.
Protein Science RNA Genome Res.