Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeThe results in this paper are extremely surprising
Posted by andrewpaterson on 11 May 2011 at 17:45 GMT
The number of both CNVs and de novo SNP changes that are reported are difficult to believe compared to the literature (e.g. A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Durbin RM, Abecasis GR, Altshuler DL, Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Gibbs RA, Hurles ME, McVean GA.
Nature. 2010 Oct 28;467(7319):1061-73).
There are many questions about the data analysis that were not clear from this paper. I have directly contacted the authors and the editors of Plos One with no response.
My main questions are:
1. Did you visually inspect each of the CNV regions (logR, b allele ratio) to determine whether differences between individuals were due to low sensitivity of CNV calling algorithms?
2. Usually when researchers use the SNPs from the Affymetrix SNP 6.0, ~200K SNPs are excluded due to low quality, e.g. low call rate, deviation from HWE, poor clustering. Did you use any external dataset to allow exclusion of such poor-quality SNPs (e.g. PLoS Genet. 2010 Oct 28;6(10):e1001183.). However it appears that no such QC criteria were applied here.
3. Did you inspect the cluster plots (i.e. A vs B allele intensity) for those SNPs where there appeared to be a genotype inconsistency within the family?
4. Are the raw CEL files available through GEO?