Literature DB >> 11412374

A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators.

T Van de Casteele1, P Galbusera, E Matthysen.   

Abstract

Studies of inbreeding depression or kin selection require knowledge of relatedness between individuals. If pedigree information is lacking, one has to rely on genotypic information to infer relatedness. In this study we investigated the performance (absolute and relative) of 10 marker-based relatedness estimators using allele frequencies at microsatellite loci obtained from natural populations of two bird species and one mammal species. Using Monte Carlo simulations we show that many factors affect the performance of estimators and that different sets of loci promote the use of different estimators: in general, there is no single best-performing estimator. The use of locus-specific weights turns out to greatly improve the performance of estimators when marker loci are used that differ strongly in allele frequency distribution. Microsatellite-based estimates are expected to explain between 25 and 79% of variation in true relatedness depending on the microsatellite dataset and on the population composition (i.e. the frequency distribution of relationship in the population). We recommend performing Monte Carlo simulations to decide which estimator to use in studies of pairwise relatedness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11412374     DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01288.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Ecol        ISSN: 0962-1083            Impact factor:   6.185


  42 in total

1.  An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers.

Authors:  Jinliang Wang
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of relatedness.

Authors:  Brook G Milligan
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Contrasting relatedness patterns in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) with different alliance strategies.

Authors:  Michael Krützen; William B Sherwin; Richard C Connor; Lynne M Barré; Tom Van de Casteele; Janet Mann; Robert Brooks
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2003-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Identity-by-descent matrix decomposition using latent ancestral allele models.

Authors:  Cajo J F ter Braak; Martin P Boer; L Radu Totir; Christopher R Winkler; Oscar S Smith; Marco C A M Bink
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 5.  Overview of techniques to account for confounding due to population stratification and cryptic relatedness in genomic data association analyses.

Authors:  M J Sillanpää
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  Unbiased relatedness estimation in structured populations.

Authors:  Jinliang Wang
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 7.  The estimation of genetic relationships using molecular markers and their efficiency in estimating heritability in natural populations.

Authors:  Stuart C Thomas
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2005-07-29       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates.

Authors:  Katalin Csilléry; Toby Johnson; Dario Beraldi; Tim Clutton-Brock; Dave Coltman; Bengt Hansson; Goran Spong; Josephine M Pemberton
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2006-06-18       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Using genetic markers in unpedigreed populations to detect a heritable trait.

Authors:  Ken G Dodds; Peter R Amer; Benoît Auvray
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 10.  Wild pedigrees: the way forward.

Authors:  J M Pemberton
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2008-03-22       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.