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.
closeagree
Posted by JLTroyer on 09 Apr 2008 at 20:43 GMT
a strength of our study is its analysis of an independent dataset, especially since the recent literature largely focuses on either HapMap [2], [17]–[19], [21], [23] or Perlegen [20], [22] data in a series of overlapping studies [2].
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001712#article1.body1.sec2.sec4.p5
it is refreshing to see a new dataset
RE: agree
oleksyk replied to JLTroyer on 09 Apr 2008 at 21:05 GMT
Thank you.
The critics of this paper (for examples see Reviewer 2 comments thread) often felt that the scan had to be performed on the HapMap data. There is nothing wrong with that, except that it would send the message that for the future selection search, nothing but a HapMap quality dataset is sufficient. One of the major points of this paper is to show that a selection scan can be done with much less dense and information rich data: no family data, no haplotype structure, no ancestral allele information, etc.