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.