Table 3

Comparison of map power for different panels using HUFS

Panel (# of AIMs)

# of AIMs used (% Passed QC) 1

Map power 2

Reference


Based on δ (2,076)

1,943 (100%)

0.73

This manuscript

Based on FST (1,923)

1,800 (100%)

0.73

This manuscript

21 k random markers (21,637)

21,074 (100%)

0.65

This manuscript

2 k random markers (2,169)

2,100 (100%)

0.13

This manuscript

Tian 2000 (2,000)

321 (100%)

0.37

[28]

Tian 4222 (4,222)

682 (100%)

0.56

[28]


1 We compared the panels using all autosomal AIMs with quality control criteria locus call rate ≥ 95%, minor allele frequency > 0.01, and HWE p ≥ 1.0×10-3.

2 Map power (ravg) based on 1,017 individuals in the HUFS data set.

Chen et al. BMC Genomics 2010 11:417   doi:10.1186/1471-2164-11-417

Open Data