ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2026
Benchmarking imputation accuracy in the presence or absence of a reference panel.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Imputation in the Wild: Genome-Wide Robustness and Fine-Scale Limitations of Low-Coverage Genomes in Endangered Species.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of a large number of samples is costly. Solutions include targeting a proportion of the genome (eg SNP arrays) or lowering the sequencing depth (low-coverage WGS, lcWGS) but both approaches suffer from either genotype missingness or uncertainty. Genomic imputation addresses this problem by inferring missing or uncertain genotypes using a collection of high quality genomic data (reference panel). However, certain methods can impute a lcWGS dataset without a reference panel. Because generating a reference panel can be prohibitively expensive in nonmodel species, a benchmarking of the accuracy of these alternative methods of imputation can help inform study design. Here, we imputed a dataset of 2,800 barn owls (Tyto alba) sequenced in lcWGS in the presence and absence of a reference panel of 502 samples. We used 32 individuals sequenced at both high and low coverage to estimate the accuracy of each method and explored the limitations of lcWGS sample size and reference panel size. Although the best results were achieved with a large reference panel, using only a lcWGS dataset showed very accurate imputation, when over 500 samples were used and we account for missing data and low frequency alleles. In addition, imputation with or without a reference panel returned similar results in a GWAS of a polygenic trait but caution was required when comparing identified homozygous-by-descent segments. Thus, while using a reference panel remains the ideal approach, imputation in suitably large lcWGS datasets can provide sufficient accuracy given proper quality control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.