English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

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 approximately 15-17% and that the reported confirmation studies have vastly different genotyping error rates and patterns.

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