Literature DB >> 24444019

Marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding coefficients: an assessment of current methods.

J Wang1.   

Abstract

Inbreeding (F) of and relatedness (r) between individuals are now routinely calculated from marker data in studies in the fields of quantitative genetics, conservation genetics, forensics, evolution and ecology. Although definable in terms of either correlation coefficient or probability of identity by descent (IBD) relative to a reference, they are better interpreted as correlations in marker-based analyses because the reference in practice is frequently the current sample or population whose F and r are being estimated. In such situations, negative estimates have a biological meaning, a substantial proportion of the estimates are expected to be negative, and the average estimates are close to zero for r and equivalent to FIS for F. I show that although current r estimators were developed from the IBD-based concept of relatedness, some of them conform to the correlation-based concept of relatedness and some do not. The latter estimators can be modified, however, so that they estimate r as a correlation coefficient. I also show that F and r estimates can be misleading and become biased and marker dependent when a sample containing a high proportion of highly inbred and/or closely related individuals is used as reference. In analyses depending on the comparison between r (or F) estimates and a priori values expected under ideal conditions (e.g. for identifying genealogical relationship), the estimators should be used with caution.
© 2014 The Author. Journal of Evolutionary Biology © 2014 European Society For Evolutionary Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genetic markers; identical by descent; inbreeding coefficient; relatedness

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24444019     DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12315

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Evol Biol        ISSN: 1010-061X            Impact factor:   2.411


  39 in total

Review 1.  Common garden experiments in the genomic era: new perspectives and opportunities.

Authors:  P de Villemereuil; O E Gaggiotti; M Mouterde; I Till-Bottraud
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Stock enhancement or sea ranching? Insights from monitoring the genetic diversity, relatedness and effective population size in a seeded great scallop population (Pecten maximus).

Authors:  R Morvezen; P Boudry; J Laroche; G Charrier
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Temporal Genetic Dynamics of an Experimental, Biparental Field Population of Phytophthora capsici.

Authors:  Maryn O Carlson; Elodie Gazave; Michael A Gore; Christine D Smart
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 4.  Prediction and estimation of effective population size.

Authors:  J Wang; E Santiago; A Caballero
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Long-term aggregation of larval fish siblings during dispersal along an open coast.

Authors:  Daniel Ottmann; Kirsten Grorud-Colvert; Nicholas M Sard; Brittany E Huntington; Michael A Banks; Su Sponaugle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  How should we compare different genomic estimates of the strength of inbreeding depression?

Authors:  Marty Kardos; Pirmin Nietlisbach; Philip W Hedrick
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Meiotic recombination shapes precision of pedigree- and marker-based estimates of inbreeding.

Authors:  U Knief; B Kempenaers; W Forstmeier
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 3.821

10.  The effect of sample size on estimates of genetic differentiation and effective population size for Schistosoma mansoni populations.

Authors:  Lúcio M Barbosa; Bruna C Barros; Moreno de Souza Rodrigues; Luciano K Silva; Mitermayer G Reis; Ronald E Blanton
Journal:  Int J Parasitol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 3.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.