Ancestry informative markers (AIMs) are used in forensic genetics to infer biogeographical ancestry (BGA) of individuals and may also have a prominent role in future police and identification investigations. In the last few years, many studies have been published reporting new AIM sets. These sets include markers (usually around 100 or less) selected with different purposes and different population resolutions. Regardless of the ability of these sets to separate populations from different continents or regions, the uncertainty associated with the estimates provided by these panels and their capacity to accurately report the different ancestral contributions in individuals of admixed populations has rarely been investigated. This issue is addressed in this study by evaluating different AIM sets. Ancestry inference was carried out in admixed South American populations, both at population and individual levels. The results of ancestry inferences using AIM sets with different numbers of markers among admixed reference populations were compared. To evaluate the performance of the different ancestry panels at the individual level, expected and observed estimates among families and their offspring were compared, considering that (1) the apportionment of ancestry in the offspring should be closer to the average ancestry of the parents, and (2) full siblings should present similar ancestry values. The results obtained illustrate the importance of having a good balance/compromise between not only the number of markers and their ability to differentiate ancestral populations, but also a balanced differentiation among reference groups, to obtain more precise values of genetic ancestry. This work also highlights the importance of estimating errors associated with the use of a limited number of markers. We demonstrate that although these errors have a moderate effect at the population level, they may have an important impact at the individual level. Considering that many AIM-sets are being described for inferences at the individual level and not at the population level, e.g., in association studies or the determination of a suspect’s BGA, the results of this work point to the need of a more careful evaluation of the uncertainty associated with the ancestry estimates in admixed populations, when small AIM-sets are used.
Our study shows that patients with T1D had a threefold increase in mortality. The specific causes of mortality were mainly diabetes-related chronic complications; however, acute complications, especially diabetic ketoacidosis, persisted as an important cause of mortality.
Our results suggest that parity has a borderline effect on body mass index but does not have an important effect upon hypertension and micro or macrovascular chronic complications. Future prospective evaluations must be conducted to clarify the relationship between parity, appearance or worsening of diabetes-related chronic complications.
In this study, samples of non-related individuals from Rio the Janeiro State were genotyped for AIM-Indels. The results showed a prevalence of the European ancestry (63%), followed by an African contribution (25%), and Native American background was less represented (12%). This sample was divided in subsets including volunteers from research works and selected from paternity casework. Comparing the residence place of the individuals in each subsample, differences were observed in the representation of each municipalities in Rio de Janeiro State, and higher proportions of African ancestry were observed in samples from outside Rio de Janeiro metropolitan region, which is the case of the paternity subsamples. These differences should be considered when performing paternity investigations involving individuals coming from different regions of Rio de Janeiro State, by using regional databases or by applying a correction for substructure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.