Literature DB >> 28200055

LASER server: ancestry tracing with genotypes or sequence reads.

Daniel Taliun1, Sonia P Chothani2, Sebastian Schönherr3, Lukas Forer3, Michael Boehnke1, Gonçalo R Abecasis1, Chaolong Wang2.   

Abstract

SUMMARY: To enable direct comparison of ancestry background in different studies, we developed LASER to estimate individual ancestry by placing either sezquenced or genotyped samples in a common ancestry space, regardless of the sequencing strategy or genotyping array used to characterize each sample. Here we describe the LASER server to facilitate application of the method to a wide range of genetic studies. The server provides genetic ancestry estimation for different geographic regions and user-friendly interactive visualization of the results.
AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The LASER server is freely accessible at http://laser.sph.umich.edu/. CONTACT: dtaliun@umich.edu or wangcl@gis.a-star.edu.sg. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28200055      PMCID: PMC5870850          DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioinformatics        ISSN: 1367-4803            Impact factor:   6.937


1 Introduction

Advancing genetic studies of rare variants will require very large sample sizes. Achieving these large sample sizes is challenging both because of the need to combine samples and data across multiple sources but also because of the need to guard against population structure, which can lead to spurious signals in genetic association tests. Typically, large studies estimate genetic ancestry of study participants and use the results to control for population structure or focus analyses on matched subsets of the data (Price ). With large amounts of genetic data from many studies, there is a pressing need for tools that can provide comparable ancestry estimates using different types of genetic data and different sets of variants. We have developed the LASER method to infer ancestry places array-genotyped or sequenced individuals in a predefined reference ancestry space (Wang , 2015). The resulting ancestry estimates are directly comparable across studies, as long as the same reference space is used in the LASER analysis. Here, we develop a web server that allows researchers to estimate and compare genetic ancestry of genotyped and sequenced samples from different studies without pooling raw data, facilitating ancestry matching and collaboration across studies. The ancestry information can be useful for deciding which samples to include in joint association analysis or in further sequencing or genotyping experiments.

2 Implementation

The server is based on the LASER method, which can estimate ancestry using either genotypes or sequence reads (Supplementary Data). A key component of LASER is the ancestry reference panel: a heavily genotyped dataset of diverse populations. LASER applies principal components analysis (PCA) on the ancestry reference panel to construct a K-dimensional ancestry space , which defines a common ancestry coordinate system for samples from different studies. To assign coordinates to a single study individual, LASER uses variants shared between this individual and the N reference panel members to perform a PCA of the N + 1 individuals and obtains the K’-dimensional (K’≥K) PCs space . LASER then performs a projection Procrustes analysis (Gower and Dijksterhuis, 2004) to find a set of transformations that project the N reference individuals from to . The transformations maximize the Procrustes similarity between the projected coordinates and coordinates for reference samples in . Finally, LASER uses these transformations to place the study individual from into . The accuracy of the placement is partly reflected by the Procrustes similarity t, a score specific to each study individual. This procedure repeats until all study individuals are mapped to the same space , regardless of differences in data types and variant sets. Importantly, the LASER method avoids shrinkage of projected coordinates that is common in other projection PCA analyses. The LASER server currently includes three built-in ancestry reference panels: a worldwide panel to estimate continental ancestry (the HGDP dataset, including 938 individuals from 53 populations; Li ), a European panel to estimate fine-scale ancestry within Europe (the POPRES dataset, including 1385 individuals from 37 populations; Novembre ), and an Asian panel aggregated from five studies (Li ; Teo ; The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, 2015; Xing , 2013) to estimate fine-scale ancestry within Asia (836 individuals from 43 populations). To improve ancestry estimation, we expanded each of these panels to millions of SNPs by imputation (Das ; The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, 2015). The ancestry reference coordinates for each panel are pre-computed using only the directly genotyped SNPs to avoid potential artifacts introduced by imputation. Selecting an appropriate ancestry reference panel is critical for LASER. When an individual’s ancestry is not represented in the reference panel, LASER may cluster the individual with reference populations of a distant genetic background, yielding misleading results (Wang ). A good practice is to start with a worldwide reference panel and gradually focus on relevant regional panels. To address this issue, we propose a novel statistic Z to help diagnose if a reference panel is appropriate by comparing each study individual’s genetic variance with his nearest neighbors in the reference space (Supplementary Data). We showed that our proposed Z score is highly informative when a European reference panel is mistakenly used for non-European samples (Supplementary Fig. S1). The LASER server has a user-friendly web interface based on the Cloudgene platform (Schönherr ) where users can select a relevant ancestry panel and upload their data. The server accepts standard VCF files for genotype data and a matrix format to store read counts and estimated per base error rates from BAM files for sequence data; a companion utility is available for users to generate the input files from their BAM files. To facilitate quick exploration of ancestry, the LASER server generates both tabular summaries and interactive 2D/3D visualizations of the estimated coordinates. The interactive features include zooming, rotating, panning and displaying in a dynamic pie chart the ancestry composition of the k nearest neighbors for any selected individual.

3 Example

We tested the LASER server on 12 940 exomes sequenced at ∼80X depth (WES) from the T2D-GENES and GoT2D studies (Fuchsberger ). These data include five ancestry groups: European, East Asian, South Asian, Hispanic and African American. After uploading a VCF file of genotypes, the LASER server automatically identified 12 719 SNPs overlapping between the T2D-GENES/GoT2D data and the non-imputed HGDP panel, which defines a worldwide ancestry space. LASER analysis (K’=20, K = 4) suggested this was sufficient to accurately estimate continental ancestry (average t = 0.998). We observed five clusters in a 3D visualization of the top PCs, corresponding to the five ancestry groups (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Ancestry estimation on the HGDP worldwide map for 12 940 WES samples from the T2D-GENES and GoT2D studies. This figure was exported from the 3D interactive visualization on the LASER server (http://laser.sph.umich.edu/example)

Ancestry estimation on the HGDP worldwide map for 12 940 WES samples from the T2D-GENES and GoT2D studies. This figure was exported from the 3D interactive visualization on the LASER server (http://laser.sph.umich.edu/example) Among the 12 940 individuals, we also have whole genome sequence data (WGS, ∼5X) for 2335 Europeans from the GoT2D study, including British, Finnish, German and Swedish. We placed these individuals on a European ancestry map based on the POPRES panel. The results based on genotypes from WGS data and sequence reads from WES data are highly similar (Procrustes similarity t=0.9198, Pearson correlation 0.9424 for PC1 and 0.9056 for PC2; Fig. 2), with GoT2D samples cluster nicely with populations from their geographic regions. This example demonstrates that LASER can provide comparable ancestry estimates based on different types of data. The WES-based results are noisier than the WGS-based results due to the small number of targeted SNPs and low coverage across off-target regions in the WES data; the concordance between WES- and WGS-based results increases for samples with higher individual-specific Procrustes score t (Fig. 2). In practice, users can filter samples with insufficient data for ancestry estimation based on t. We note that by using a reference panel, LASER is more robust to the sampling distribution than standard PCA, for which uneven sampling of populations can distort top PCs (McVean, 2009). In our example, standard PCA cannot separate British, German and Swedish by PC1 and PC2 because Finnish has much larger sample size than the other populations and thus drives the first two PCs (Supplementary Fig. S2).
Fig. 2

Ancestry estimation on the POPRES European map for 2335 samples from the GoT2D study. (A) Estimates using genotypes from 5X WGS data. (B) Estimates using sequence reads from 80X WES data. The overall Procrustes similarity score between (A) and (B) is t=0.9198. (C) Comparison of PC1 derived from WGS and WES data. (D) Comparison of PC2 derived from WGS and WES data. Points in (C) and (D) are colored based on the individual-specific Procrustes score t in the WES analysis

Ancestry estimation on the POPRES European map for 2335 samples from the GoT2D study. (A) Estimates using genotypes from 5X WGS data. (B) Estimates using sequence reads from 80X WES data. The overall Procrustes similarity score between (A) and (B) is t=0.9198. (C) Comparison of PC1 derived from WGS and WES data. (D) Comparison of PC2 derived from WGS and WES data. Points in (C) and (D) are colored based on the individual-specific Procrustes score t in the WES analysis The LASER server parallelizes ancestry estimation and the total runtime for each job depends on the number of avaible CPUs. Ancestry estimation for a single study individual takes from a few seconds to several minutes, depending on the input data type (genotypes or sequence reads), the sample size of the ancestry reference panel, and the number of SNPs used in the analysis (Supplementary Table S2).

4 Conclusion

With a unified analysis framework and preprocessed ancestry reference panels, the LASER server allows users to map genotyped or sequenced samples from different studies into a common ancestry space without pooling the raw data. The ancestry estimates are directly comparable across studies, and thus can facilitate collaborations and help identify ancestry-matched external controls to boost power in disease studies.

Funding

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants HG000376 (to MB), HG007022 (to GRA) and by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) in Singapore (to CW). Conflict of Interest: none declared. Click here for additional data file.
  13 in total

1.  Toward a more uniform sampling of human genetic diversity: a survey of worldwide populations by high-density genotyping.

Authors:  Jinchuan Xing; W Scott Watkins; Adam Shlien; Erin Walker; Chad D Huff; David J Witherspoon; Yuhua Zhang; Tatum S Simonson; Robert B Weiss; Joshua D Schiffman; David Malkin; Scott R Woodward; Lynn B Jorde
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 5.736

2.  Improved ancestry estimation for both genotyping and sequencing data using projection procrustes analysis and genotype imputation.

Authors:  Chaolong Wang; Xiaowei Zhan; Liming Liang; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Xihong Lin
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods.

Authors:  Sayantan Das; Lukas Forer; Sebastian Schönherr; Carlo Sidore; Adam E Locke; Alan Kwong; Scott I Vrieze; Emily Y Chew; Shawn Levy; Matt McGue; David Schlessinger; Dwight Stambolian; Po-Ru Loh; William G Iacono; Anand Swaroop; Laura J Scott; Francesco Cucca; Florian Kronenberg; Michael Boehnke; Gonçalo R Abecasis; Christian Fuchsberger
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Singapore Genome Variation Project: a haplotype map of three Southeast Asian populations.

Authors:  Yik-Ying Teo; Xueling Sim; Rick T H Ong; Adrian K S Tan; Jieming Chen; Erwin Tantoso; Kerrin S Small; Chee-Seng Ku; Edmund J D Lee; Mark Seielstad; Kee-Seng Chia
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 9.043

5.  Genes mirror geography within Europe.

Authors:  John Novembre; Toby Johnson; Katarzyna Bryc; Zoltán Kutalik; Adam R Boyko; Adam Auton; Amit Indap; Karen S King; Sven Bergmann; Matthew R Nelson; Matthew Stephens; Carlos D Bustamante
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-08-31       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  A global reference for human genetic variation.

Authors:  Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  A genealogical interpretation of principal components analysis.

Authors:  Gil McVean
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 5.917

8.  Cloudgene: a graphical execution platform for MapReduce programs on private and public clouds.

Authors:  Sebastian Schönherr; Lukas Forer; Hansi Weißensteiner; Florian Kronenberg; Günther Specht; Anita Kloss-Brandstätter
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Genomic analysis of natural selection and phenotypic variation in high-altitude mongolians.

Authors:  Jinchuan Xing; Tana Wuren; Tatum S Simonson; W Scott Watkins; David J Witherspoon; Wilfred Wu; Ga Qin; Chad D Huff; Lynn B Jorde; Ri-Li Ge
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-07-18       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  The genetic architecture of type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Christian Fuchsberger; Jason Flannick; Tanya M Teslovich; Anubha Mahajan; Vineeta Agarwala; Kyle J Gaulton; Clement Ma; Pierre Fontanillas; Loukas Moutsianas; Davis J McCarthy; Manuel A Rivas; John R B Perry; Xueling Sim; Thomas W Blackwell; Neil R Robertson; N William Rayner; Pablo Cingolani; Adam E Locke; Juan Fernandez Tajes; Heather M Highland; Josee Dupuis; Peter S Chines; Cecilia M Lindgren; Christopher Hartl; Anne U Jackson; Han Chen; Jeroen R Huyghe; Martijn van de Bunt; Richard D Pearson; Ashish Kumar; Martina Müller-Nurasyid; Niels Grarup; Heather M Stringham; Eric R Gamazon; Jaehoon Lee; Yuhui Chen; Robert A Scott; Jennifer E Below; Peng Chen; Jinyan Huang; Min Jin Go; Michael L Stitzel; Dorota Pasko; Stephen C J Parker; Tibor V Varga; Todd Green; Nicola L Beer; Aaron G Day-Williams; Teresa Ferreira; Tasha Fingerlin; Momoko Horikoshi; Cheng Hu; Iksoo Huh; Mohammad Kamran Ikram; Bong-Jo Kim; Yongkang Kim; Young Jin Kim; Min-Seok Kwon; Juyoung Lee; Selyeong Lee; Keng-Han Lin; Taylor J Maxwell; Yoshihiko Nagai; Xu Wang; Ryan P Welch; Joon Yoon; Weihua Zhang; Nir Barzilai; Benjamin F Voight; Bok-Ghee Han; Christopher P Jenkinson; Teemu Kuulasmaa; Johanna Kuusisto; Alisa Manning; Maggie C Y Ng; Nicholette D Palmer; Beverley Balkau; Alena Stančáková; Hanna E Abboud; Heiner Boeing; Vilmantas Giedraitis; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; Omri Gottesman; James Scott; Jason Carey; Phoenix Kwan; George Grant; Joshua D Smith; Benjamin M Neale; Shaun Purcell; Adam S Butterworth; Joanna M M Howson; Heung Man Lee; Yingchang Lu; Soo-Heon Kwak; Wei Zhao; John Danesh; Vincent K L Lam; Kyong Soo Park; Danish Saleheen; Wing Yee So; Claudia H T Tam; Uzma Afzal; David Aguilar; Rector Arya; Tin Aung; Edmund Chan; Carmen Navarro; Ching-Yu Cheng; Domenico Palli; Adolfo Correa; Joanne E Curran; Denis Rybin; Vidya S Farook; Sharon P Fowler; Barry I Freedman; Michael Griswold; Daniel Esten Hale; Pamela J Hicks; Chiea-Chuen Khor; Satish Kumar; Benjamin Lehne; Dorothée Thuillier; Wei Yen Lim; Jianjun Liu; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Marie Loh; Solomon K Musani; Sobha Puppala; William R Scott; Loïc Yengo; Sian-Tsung Tan; Herman A Taylor; Farook Thameem; Gregory Wilson; Tien Yin Wong; Pål Rasmus Njølstad; Jonathan C Levy; Massimo Mangino; Lori L Bonnycastle; Thomas Schwarzmayr; João Fadista; Gabriela L Surdulescu; Christian Herder; Christopher J Groves; Thomas Wieland; Jette Bork-Jensen; Ivan Brandslund; Cramer Christensen; Heikki A Koistinen; Alex S F Doney; Leena Kinnunen; Tõnu Esko; Andrew J Farmer; Liisa Hakaste; Dylan Hodgkiss; Jasmina Kravic; Valeriya Lyssenko; Mette Hollensted; Marit E Jørgensen; Torben Jørgensen; Claes Ladenvall; Johanne Marie Justesen; Annemari Käräjämäki; Jennifer Kriebel; Wolfgang Rathmann; Lars Lannfelt; Torsten Lauritzen; Narisu Narisu; Allan Linneberg; Olle Melander; Lili Milani; Matt Neville; Marju Orho-Melander; Lu Qi; Qibin Qi; Michael Roden; Olov Rolandsson; Amy Swift; Anders H Rosengren; Kathleen Stirrups; Andrew R Wood; Evelin Mihailov; Christine Blancher; Mauricio O Carneiro; Jared Maguire; Ryan Poplin; Khalid Shakir; Timothy Fennell; Mark DePristo; Martin Hrabé de Angelis; Panos Deloukas; Anette P Gjesing; Goo Jun; Peter Nilsson; Jacquelyn Murphy; Robert Onofrio; Barbara Thorand; Torben Hansen; Christa Meisinger; Frank B Hu; Bo Isomaa; Fredrik Karpe; Liming Liang; Annette Peters; Cornelia Huth; Stephen P O'Rahilly; Colin N A Palmer; Oluf Pedersen; Rainer Rauramaa; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Veikko Salomaa; Richard M Watanabe; Ann-Christine Syvänen; Richard N Bergman; Dwaipayan Bharadwaj; Erwin P Bottinger; Yoon Shin Cho; Giriraj R Chandak; Juliana C N Chan; Kee Seng Chia; Mark J Daly; Shah B Ebrahim; Claudia Langenberg; Paul Elliott; Kathleen A Jablonski; Donna M Lehman; Weiping Jia; Ronald C W Ma; Toni I Pollin; Manjinder Sandhu; Nikhil Tandon; Philippe Froguel; Inês Barroso; Yik Ying Teo; Eleftheria Zeggini; Ruth J F Loos; Kerrin S Small; Janina S Ried; Ralph A DeFronzo; Harald Grallert; Benjamin Glaser; Andres Metspalu; Nicholas J Wareham; Mark Walker; Eric Banks; Christian Gieger; Erik Ingelsson; Hae Kyung Im; Thomas Illig; Paul W Franks; Gemma Buck; Joseph Trakalo; David Buck; Inga Prokopenko; Reedik Mägi; Lars Lind; Yossi Farjoun; Katharine R Owen; Anna L Gloyn; Konstantin Strauch; Tiinamaija Tuomi; Jaspal Singh Kooner; Jong-Young Lee; Taesung Park; Peter Donnelly; Andrew D Morris; Andrew T Hattersley; Donald W Bowden; Francis S Collins; Gil Atzmon; John C Chambers; Timothy D Spector; Markku Laakso; Tim M Strom; Graeme I Bell; John Blangero; Ravindranath Duggirala; E Shyong Tai; Gilean McVean; Craig L Hanis; James G Wilson; Mark Seielstad; Timothy M Frayling; James B Meigs; Nancy J Cox; Rob Sladek; Eric S Lander; Stacey Gabriel; Noël P Burtt; Karen L Mohlke; Thomas Meitinger; Leif Groop; Goncalo Abecasis; Jose C Florez; Laura J Scott; Andrew P Morris; Hyun Min Kang; Michael Boehnke; David Altshuler; Mark I McCarthy
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 69.504

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Population Stratification in Genetic Association Studies.

Authors:  Jacklyn N Hellwege; Jacob M Keaton; Ayush Giri; Xiaoyi Gao; Digna R Velez Edwards; Todd L Edwards
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2017-10-18

2.  Extent to which array genotyping and imputation with large reference panels approximate deep whole-genome sequencing.

Authors:  Sarah C Hanks; Lukas Forer; Sebastian Schönherr; Jonathon LeFaive; Taylor Martins; Ryan Welch; Sarah A Gagliano Taliun; David Braff; Jill M Johnsen; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Konkle; Markku Laakso; Ruth F J Loos; Steven McCarroll; Carlos Pato; Michele T Pato; Albert V Smith; Michael Boehnke; Laura J Scott; Christian Fuchsberger
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 11.043

3.  Unbiased mosaic variant assessment in sperm: a cohort study to test predictability of transmission.

Authors:  Martin W Breuss; Xiaoxu Yang; Valentina Stanley; Jennifer McEvoy-Venneri; Xin Xu; Arlene J Morales; Joseph G Gleeson
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 8.713

4.  Genetic changes associated with relapse in favorable histology Wilms tumor: A Children's Oncology Group AREN03B2 study.

Authors:  Samantha Gadd; Vicki Huff; Andrew D Skol; Lindsay A Renfro; Conrad V Fernandez; Elizabeth A Mullen; Corbin D Jones; Katherine A Hoadley; Kai Lee Yap; Nilsa C Ramirez; Sheena Aris; Quy H Phung; Elizabeth J Perlman
Journal:  Cell Rep Med       Date:  2022-05-25

5.  Regulatory variants in TCF7L2 are associated with thoracic aortic aneurysm.

Authors:  Tanmoy Roychowdhury; Haocheng Lu; Whitney E Hornsby; Bradley Crone; Gao T Wang; Dong-Chuan Guo; Anoop K Sendamarai; Poornima Devineni; Maoxuan Lin; Wei Zhou; Sarah E Graham; Brooke N Wolford; Ida Surakka; Zhenguo Wang; Lin Chang; Jifeng Zhang; Michael Mathis; Chad M Brummett; Tori L Melendez; Michael J Shea; Karen Meekyong Kim; G Michael Deeb; Himanshu J Patel; Jonathan Eliason; Kim A Eagle; Bo Yang; Santhi K Ganesh; Ben Brumpton; Bjørn Olav Åsvold; Anne Heidi Skogholt; Kristian Hveem; Saiju Pyarajan; Derek Klarin; Philip S Tsao; Scott M Damrauer; Suzanne M Leal; Dianna M Milewicz; Y Eugene Chen; Minerva T Garcia-Barrio; Cristen J Willer
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Estimation of Genomic Breed Composition for Purebred and Crossbred Animals Using Sparsely Regularized Admixture Models.

Authors:  Yangfan Wang; Xiao-Lin Wu; Zhi Li; Zhenmin Bao; Richard G Tait; Stewart Bauck; Guilherme J M Rosa
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 4.599

7.  Chromosome 1q21.2 and additional loci influence risk of spontaneous coronary artery dissection and myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Jacqueline Saw; Min-Lee Yang; Mark Trinder; Catherine Tcheandjieu; Chang Xu; Andrew Starovoytov; Isabelle Birt; Michael R Mathis; Kristina L Hunker; Ellen M Schmidt; Linda Jackson; Natalia Fendrikova-Mahlay; Matthew Zawistowski; Chad M Brummett; Sebastian Zoellner; Alexander Katz; Dawn M Coleman; Kirby Swan; Christopher J O'Donnell; Xiang Zhou; Jun Z Li; Heather L Gornik; Themistocles L Assimes; James C Stanley; Liam R Brunham; Santhi K Ganesh
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-09-04       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Comparing SNP panels and statistical methods for estimating genomic breed composition of individual animals in ten cattle breeds.

Authors:  Jun He; Yage Guo; Jiaqi Xu; Hao Li; Anna Fuller; Richard G Tait; Xiao-Lin Wu; Stewart Bauck
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 2.797

9.  Population-Based Prevalence of Myotonic Dystrophy Type 1 Using Genetic Analysis of Statewide Blood Screening Program.

Authors:  Nicholas E Johnson; Russell J Butterfield; Katie Mayne; Tara Newcomb; Carina Imburgia; Diane Dunn; Brett Duval; Marcia L Feldkamp; Robert B Weiss
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 9.910

10.  RNA expression differences in prostate tumors and tumor-adjacent stroma between Black and White Americans.

Authors:  Farah Rahmatpanah; Gabriela De Robles; Michael Lilly; Thomas Keane; Vinay Kumar; Dan Mercola; Pavneet Randhawa; Michael McClelland
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2021-07-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.