Literature DB >> 27804967

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

U Knief1, B Kempenaers1, W Forstmeier1.   

Abstract

The proportion of an individual's genome that is identical by descent (GWIBD) can be estimated from pedigrees (inbreeding coefficient 'Pedigree F') or molecular markers ('Marker F'), but both estimators come with error. Assuming unrelated pedigree founders, Pedigree F is the expected proportion of GWIBD given a specific inbreeding constellation. Meiotic recombination introduces variation around that expectation (Mendelian noise) and related pedigree founders systematically bias Pedigree F downward. Marker F is an estimate of the actual proportion of GWIBD but it suffers from the sampling error of markers plus the error that occurs when a marker is homozygous without reflecting common ancestry (identical by state). We here show via simulation of a zebra finch and a human linkage map that three aspects of meiotic recombination (independent assortment of chromosomes, number of crossovers and their distribution along chromosomes) contribute to variation in GWIBD and thus the precision of Pedigree and Marker F. In zebra finches, where the genome contains large blocks that are rarely broken up by recombination, the Mendelian noise was large (nearly twofold larger s.d. values compared with humans) and Pedigree F thus less precise than in humans, where crossovers are distributed more uniformly along chromosomes. Effects of meiotic recombination on Marker F were reversed, such that the same number of molecular markers yielded more precise estimates of GWIBD in zebra finches than in humans. As a consequence, in species inheriting large blocks that rarely recombine, even small numbers of microsatellite markers will often be more informative about inbreeding and fitness than large pedigrees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27804967      PMCID: PMC5315531          DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2016.95

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)        ISSN: 0018-067X            Impact factor:   3.821


  35 in total

1.  Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations?

Authors:  F Balloux; W Amos; T Coulson
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 6.185

2.  Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?

Authors:  Jinliang Wang
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 1.570

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

Authors:  Wolfgang Forstmeier; Holger Schielzeth; Jakob C Mueller; Hans Ellegren; Bart Kempenaers
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 6.185

4.  Population correlation and population kinship.

Authors:  E A Thompson
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 1.570

5.  Assessment of identity disequilibrium and its relation to empirical heterozygosity fitness correlations: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joshua M Miller; David W Coltman
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2014-03-24       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  The distribution of the proportion of the genome which is homozygous by descent in inbred individuals.

Authors:  I R Franklin
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1977-02       Impact factor: 1.570

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.  Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  A first-generation haplotype map of maize.

Authors:  Michael A Gore; Jer-Ming Chia; Robert J Elshire; Qi Sun; Elhan S Ersoz; Bonnie L Hurwitz; Jason A Peiffer; Michael D McMullen; George S Grills; Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra; Doreen H Ware; Edward S Buckler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population.

Authors:  Jisca Huisman; Loeske E B Kruuk; Philip A Ellis; Tim Clutton-Brock; Josephine M Pemberton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  6 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.  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

3.  Blocks of chromosomes identical by descent in a population: Models and predictions.

Authors:  Mathieu Tiret; Frédéric Hospital
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  A comparison of pedigree, genetic and genomic estimates of relatedness for informing pairing decisions in two critically endangered birds: Implications for conservation breeding programmes worldwide.

Authors:  Stephanie J Galla; Roger Moraga; Liz Brown; Simone Cleland; Marc P Hoeppner; Richard F Maloney; Anne Richardson; Lyndon Slater; Anna W Santure; Tammy E Steeves
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 5.183

5.  Nonequivalent lethal equivalents: Models and inbreeding metrics for unbiased estimation of inbreeding load.

Authors:  Pirmin Nietlisbach; Stefanie Muff; Jane M Reid; Michael C Whitlock; Lukas F Keller
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 5.183

6.  Ethiopian indigenous goats offer insights into past and recent demographic dynamics and local adaptation in sub-Saharan African goats.

Authors:  Getinet M Tarekegn; Negar Khayatzadeh; Bin Liu; Sarah Osama; Aynalem Haile; Barbara Rischkowsky; Wenguang Zhang; Kassahun Tesfaye; Tadelle Dessie; Okeyo A Mwai; Appolinaire Djikeng; Joram M Mwacharo
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 5.183

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.