PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9679321

Microsatellite behavior with range constraints: parameter estimation and improved distances for use in phylogenetic reconstruction.

D D Pollock·A Bergman·M W Feldman·D B Goldstein
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A symmetric stepwise mutation model with reflecting boundaries is employed to evaluate microsatellite evolution under range constraints. Methods of estimating range constraints and mutation rates under the assumptions of the model are developed. Least squares procedures are employed to improve molecular distance estimation for use in phylogenetic reconstruction in the case where range constraints and mutation rates vary across loci. The bias and accuracy of these methods are evaluated using computer simulations, and they are compared to previously existing methods which do not assume range constraints. Range constraints are seen to have a substantial impact on phylogenetic conclusions based on molecular distances, particularly for more divergent taxa. Results indicate that if range constraints are in effect, the methods developed here should be used in both the preliminary planning and final analysis of phylogenetic studies employing microsatellites. It is also seen that in order to make accurate phylogenetic inferences under range constraints, a larger number of loci are required than in their absence.

Explore related subjects

BiasData Interpretation, StatisticalGene FrequencyGenetic VariationLeast-Squares AnalysisMicrosatellite RepeatsModels, GeneticMutationNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedPhylogenyReproducibility of ResultsJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D D Pollock, A Bergman, M W Feldman, D B Goldstein. 1998. Microsatellite behavior with range constraints: parameter estimation and improved distances for use in phylogenetic reconstruction.. https://doi.org/10.1006/tpbi.1998.1363

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2000

Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Baseline data collected on each patient at randomisation in controlled clinical trials can be used to describe the population of patients, to assess comparability of treatment groups, to achieve balanced randomisation, to adjust treatment comparisons for prognostic factors, and to undertake subgroup analyses. We assessed the extent and quality of such practices in major clinical trial reports. METHODS: A sample of 50 consecutive clinical-trial reports was obtained from four major medical journals during July to September, 1997. We tabulated the detailed information on uses of baseline data by use of a standard form. FINDINGS: Most trials presented baseline comparability in a table. These tables were often unduly large, and about half the trials inappropriately used significance tests for baseline comparison. Methods of randomisation, including possible stratification, were often poorly described. There was little consistency over whether to use covariate adjustment and the criteria for selecting baseline factors for which to adjust were often unclear. Most trials emphasised the simple unadjusted results and covariate adjustment usually made negligible difference. Two-thirds of the reports presented subgroup findings, but mostly without appropriate statistical tests for interaction. Many reports put too much emphasis on subgroup analyses that commonly lacked statistical power. INTERPRETATION: Clinical trials need a predefined statistical analysis plan for uses of baseline data, especially covariate-adjusted analyses and subgroup analyses. Investigators and journals need to adopt improved standards of statistical reporting, and exercise caution when drawing conclusions from subgroup findings.

Bias↗