Corrections in Linkage Book

Jurg Ott OTT at NYSPI.bitnet
Fri Jul 3 11:47:29 EST 1992

J. Ott                                             25 June 1992

               Corrections and clarifications to
              "Analysis of Human Genetic Linkage"

     Below, the currently known corrections to the revised
edition of this book (1991, Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore) are listed.  I am grateful to the readers who made me
aware of errors and inaccuracies.
     In this e-mail version of the list of corrections, mathemat-
ical and other non-ASCII characters are given in the syntax of
the WordPerfect equation editor (version 5.1).

     Page 14, line 4 up:  Assumption (2) is sufficient for that
statement;  (2) implies (1).

     Page 18, line 8:  Replace (1.3) by (1.2).

     Page 38, Problem 2.2:  Replace 200 cM by 100 cM.

     Page 44, line 8 below table 3.1 should read:  "Generally,
for phase known data, if T=k/n is the value of...".  Also, line
12 should read:  "Since T is unbiased, ..."

     Page 47, lines 5-8:  These two sentences are clearer when
worded as follows:  "Consider now our previous hypothetical
example of one recombinant and four nonrecombinants and test
H_0:theta=1/2 against H_1:theta=0.1.  For these data, the
likelihood ratio is calculated as T_{obs}=[0.1 times(0.9)^4]

     Page 48, line 16:  Replace A approx (1-beta) by A approx

     Page 59, line 3 from the bottom: ..., P(0 <= theta < 1/2) =
1/22, ...

     Page 60, lines 6 and 7 should read:  The ith segment
(i = 1..s), of length b_i, then contains the likelihood ratio,
L^*(theta_i), where b_1 = 1/2 (theta2+theta1),
bi = 1/2 (theta_{i+1} + theta_i) - 1/2 (theta_i + theta_{i-1}) =
1/2 (theta_{i+1} - theta_{i-1}),
b_s = 0.5 - 1/2 (theta_s + theta_{s-1});  SUM b_i = 0.5.
     Line 17 should read:  52.672, resulting in a value of 0.71
for Smith's (1959) posterior...
     Table 4.1:  The values of b_i for i=1 (now 0.025) and i=2
(now 0.050) should be 0.030 and 0.045, respectively.  This way,
they are consistent with the definition of the b_i's further up
on page 60.

     Page 34, lines 17 and 18 up are clearer when formulated as
follows: "... often used before linkage analysis as a preliminary
test of paternity."

     Page 45, lines 12 and 13 should be phrased more exactly as
follows: "..., which allows the calculation of approximate
confidence intervals from asymptotic variances... ."

     Page 68, last line before section 4.5:  Replace 11.7 by

     Page 74, line 3:  Replace Z(theta hat) and Z(theta hat_f) by
Z_1(theta hat_m) and Z_2(theta hat_f).

     Page 75, line 5:  Replace (1-alpha_1)^n by (1-alpha_1)^g.

     Page 92, line 3:  Replace A1 by A2.

     Page 93, table 5.3, line i=4:  Replace AB-22 by AB-11.

     Page 101, after equation (5.15):  Replace 1/[n times i(r)]
by 1/[n times i(r)]^{1/2}.

     Page 101, line 6 in section 5.9 should read: "type 1 is a
recombinant under one of the parental phases (phase I, say) but a
nonrecombinant under the other, ..."

     Page 117, lines 21-23:  The last sentence in this paragraph
should read:  The second child has genotype 121/222 or 122/221,
each of which requires at least one recombination in the father
or the mother.

     Page 137, first line should be: ..between the loci C and D.

     Page 139, Table 6.10, line R:  Replace "444 theta_{BC}" by
"444 theta_{AB}".

     Page 148, line 11:  Replace f_{dd} by f_{DD}.

     Page 149, table 7.1, line d1/d1:  replace 1/2 by {1/2}r for
P(g;r) (as on the line above it).

     Page 216, Problem 9.2, line 2:  Replace "table 9.6" by
"table 9.7".

     Page 250:  The last sentence of the top paragraph contains a
typo: -2 should be 2, and Z(alpha,x) was not defined.  For better
clarity, the last two sentences in that paragraph should read:
"In practice, this means that one evaluates Z(alpha hat,x) at
each map position, x, where Z(alpha,x) is analogous to (9.9) with
theta_1 replaced by x, and alpha hat is determined by the maximum
of Z(alpha,x) at the given x value.  Only those points x are then
excluded for which Z(alpha hat,x)<2 and Z(x)<-2, where Z(x) is
the lod score under homogeneity."

     Page 268, Solution 9.2, line 2:  Replace "table 9.6" by
"table 9.7".

     Page 270, line 1:  Replace 1/3 by 2/3.  Line 3:  Replace
"with that mutation" by "without that mutation".

     Page 279, ref. Hall et al. (1990):  Replace "Anserson" by

     Page 294, line 2 up should read: "...tetraploid..."

     Page 302, Support interval:  Replace 110 by 55.

More information about the Gen-link mailing list