Literature DB >> 22554318

Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation.

Wolfgang Forstmeier1, Holger Schielzeth, Jakob C Mueller, Hans Ellegren, Bart Kempenaers.   

Abstract

Numerous studies have reported associations between heterozygosity in microsatellite markers and fitness-related traits (heterozygosity-fitness correlations, HFCs). However, it has often been questioned whether HFCs reflect general inbreeding depression, because a small panel of microsatellite markers does not reflect very well an individual's inbreeding coefficient (F) as calculated from a pedigree. Here, we challenge this prevailing view. Because of chance events during Mendelian segregation, an individual's realized proportion of the genome that is identical by descent (IBD) may substantially deviate from the pedigree-based expectation (i.e. F). This Mendelian noise may result in a weak correlation between F and multi-locus heterozygosity, but this does not imply that multi-locus heterozygosity is a bad estimator of realized IBD. We examined correlations between 11 fitness-related traits measured in up to 1192 captive zebra finches and three measures of inbreeding: (i) heterozygosity across 11 microsatellite markers, (ii) heterozygosity across 1359 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers and (iii) F, based on a 5th-generation pedigree. All 11 phenotypic traits showed positive relationships with measures of heterozygosity, especially traits that are most closely related to fitness. Remarkably, the small panel of microsatellite markers produced equally strong HFCs as the large panel of SNP markers. Both marker-based approaches produced stronger correlations with phenotypes than the pedigree-based F, and this did not seem to result from the shortness of our pedigree. We argue that a small panel of microsatellites with high allelic richness may better reflect an individual's realized IBD than previously appreciated, especially in species like the zebra finch, where much of the genome is inherited in large blocks that rarely experience cross-over during meiosis.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22554318     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05593.x

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


  43 in total

1.  Inbreeding load and inbreeding depression estimated from lifetime reproductive success in a small, dispersal-limited population.

Authors:  Janna R Willoughby; Peter M Waser; Anna Brüniche-Olsen; Mark R Christie
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Reduced microsatellite heterozygosity does not affect natal dispersal in three contrasting roe deer populations.

Authors:  Cécile Vanpé; Lucie Debeffe; A J Mark Hewison; Erwan Quéméré; Jean-François Lemaître; Maxime Galan; Britany Amblard; François Klein; Bruno Cargnelutti; Gilles Capron; Joël Merlet; Claude Warnant; Jean-Michel Gaillard
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Quantifying realized inbreeding in wild and captive animal populations.

Authors:  U Knief; G Hemmrich-Stanisak; M Wittig; A Franke; S C Griffith; B Kempenaers; W Forstmeier
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-01-14       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Investigation of individual heterozygosity correlated to growth traits in Tongshan Black-boned goat.

Authors:  Yan Guo Han; Gui Qiong Liu; Xun Ping Jiang; Guo Ming Liang; Chun Bo He; Dang Wei Wang; Yan Wu; Xing Long Xiang; Jie Hu; Yu Qin Peng
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 2.316

5.  Adult survival selection in relation to multilocus heterozygosity and body size in a tropical bird species, the Zenaida dove, Zenaida aurita.

Authors:  Frank Cézilly; Aurélie Quinard; Sébastien Motreuil; Roger Pradel
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2015-10-03       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees.

Authors:  M Kardos; G Luikart; F W Allendorf
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Pedigree-based inbreeding coefficient explains more variation in fitness than heterozygosity at 160 microsatellites in a wild bird population.

Authors:  Pirmin Nietlisbach; Lukas F Keller; Glauco Camenisch; Frédéric Guillaume; Peter Arcese; Jane M Reid; Erik Postma
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  High-throughput sequencing reveals inbreeding depression in a natural population.

Authors:  Joseph I Hoffman; Fraser Simpson; Patrice David; Jolianne M Rijks; Thijs Kuiken; Michael A S Thorne; Robert C Lacy; Kanchon K Dasmahapatra
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Divergent allele advantage at MHC-DRB through direct and maternal genotypic effects and its consequences for allele pool composition and mating.

Authors:  Tobias L Lenz; Birte Mueller; Fritz Trillmich; Jochen B W Wolf
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-07-07       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Estimating genome-wide heterozygosity: effects of demographic history and marker type.

Authors:  J M Miller; R M Malenfant; P David; C S Davis; J Poissant; J T Hogg; M Festa-Bianchet; D W Coltman
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 3.821

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.