DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 18, Issue 10, 2003, Pages 503-511

  Blouin, Michael S ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA; GENETIC ANALYSIS; KINSHIP;

EID: 0141790880     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00225-8     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Ritland K. Marker-inferred relatedness as a tool for detecting heritability in nature. Mol. Ecol. 9:2000;1195-1204.
2. Thomas S.C., Hill W.G. Estimating quantitative genetic parameters using sibships reconstructed from marker data. Genetics. 155:2000;1961-1972.
3. Thomas S.C., et al. Estimating variance components in natural populations using inferred relationships. Heredity. 84:2000;427-436.
4. Milner J.M., et al. Estimating variance components and heritabilities in the wild: a case study using the 'animal model' approach. J. Evol. Biol. 13:2000;804-813.
5. Ballou J., Lacy R.C. Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic variation in pedigreed populations. Ballou J.D. Population Management for Survival and Recovery. 1995;76-111 Columbia University Press.
6. Painter I. Sibship reconstruction without parental information. J. Agric. Biol. Env. Stat. 2:1997;212-229.
7. Jones K.L., et al. Refining the whooping crane studbook by incorporating microsatellite DNA and leg-banding analyses. Conserv. Biol. 16:2002;789-799.
8. Devlin B., Ellstrand N. The development and application of a refined method for estimating gene flow from angiosperm paternity analysis. Evolution. 44:1990;248-259.
9. Streiff R., et al. Pollen dispersal inferred from paternity analysis in a mixed oak stand of Quercus robur L. and Q. petraea (Matt.) Liebl. Mol. Ecol. 8:1999;831-841.
10. Allendorf F.W., Phelps S.R. Use of allelic frequencies to describe population structure. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:1981;1507-1514.
11. Banks M.A., et al. Analysis of microsatellite DNA resolves genetic structure and diversity of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in California's central valley. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57:2000;915-927.
12. Smith B.R., et al. Accurate partition of individuals into full-sib families from genetic data without parental information. Genetics. 158:2001;1329-1338.
13. Thomas S.C., Hill W.G. Sibship reconstruction in hierarchical population structures using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. Genet. Res. 79:2002;227-234.
14. Jones A., Avise J.C. Polygynandry in the dusky pipefish Syngnathus floridae revealed by microsatellite DNA markers. Evolution. 51:1997;1611-1622.
15. Nielsen R., et al. Statistical approaches to paternity analysis in natural populations and applications to the North Atlantic humpback whale. Genetics. 157:2001;1673-1682.
16. Pearse D.E., et al. A genetic analogue of 'mark-recapture' methods for estimating population size: an approach based on molecular parentage assessments. Mol. Ecol. 10:2001;2711-2718.
17. Aldrich P.R., Hamrick J.L. Reproductive dominance of pasture trees in a fragmented tropical forest mosaic. Science. 281:1998;103-105.
18. Storz J.F., et al. Genetic consequences of polygyny and social structure in an Indian fruit bat. Cynopterus sphinx. II. Variance in male mating success and effective population size. Evolution. 55:2001;1224-1232.
19. Garant D., et al. A genetic evaluation of mating system and determinants of individual reproductive success in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L.). J. Hered. 92:2001;137-145.
20. Morgan M.T., Conner J.K. Using genetic markers to directly estimate male selection gradients. Evolution. 55:2001;272-281.
21. Jones, A.G. and Ardren, W.R. Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Mol. Ecol., (in press).
22. Amos W., et al. The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 268:2001;2021-2027.
23. Cunningham E.P., et al. Microsatellite diversity, pedigree relatedness and the contributions of founder lineages to thoroughbred horses. Anim. Genet. 32:2001;360-364.
24. Peters J.M., et al. Mate number, kin selection and social conflicts in stingless bees and honeybees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. 266:1999;379-384.
25. Richardson D.S., et al. Direct benefits and the evolution of female-biased cooperative breeding in Seychelles warblers. Evolution. 56:2002;2313-2321.
26. Blouin M.S., et al. Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol. Ecol. 5:1996;393-401.
27. Glaubitz J.C., et al. Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Mol. Ecol. 12:2003;1039-1047.
28. Van De Casteele T., et al. A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators. Mol. Ecol. 10:2001;1539-1549.
29. Lynch M., Ritland K. Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics. 152:1999;1753-1766.
30. Wang J. An estimator of pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics. 160:2002;1203-1215.
31. Li C.C., et al. Similarity of DNA fingerprints due to chance and relatedness. Hum. Hered. 43:1993;45-52.
32. Queller D.C., Goodnight K.F. Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution. 43:1989;258-275.
33. Stone J., Björklund M. DELRIOUS: a computer program designed to analyze molecular marker data and calculate delta and relatedness estimates with confidence. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 1:2001;212-290.
34. Queller D.C., et al. Unrelated helpers in a social insect. Nature. 405:2000;784-787.
35. Tóth E., et al. Male production in stingless bees: variable outcomes of queen-worker conflict. Mol. Ecol. 11:2002;2661-2667.
36. Epstein M.P., et al. Improved inference of relationship for pairs of individuals. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:2000;1219-1231.
37. McPeek M.S., Sun L. Statistical test for detection of misspecified relationships by use of genome-screen data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66:2000;1076-1094.
38. Thompson E.A. Estimation of relationships from genetic data. Rao C.R., Chakraborty R. Handbook of Statistics. Vol. 8:1991;255-269 Elsevier Science.
39. Boehnke M., Cox N.J. Accurate inference of relationships in sib-pair linkage studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 48:1997;22-25.
40. Göring H.H.H., Ott J. Verification of sib relationship without knowledge of parental genotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet., (Suppl.) 57:1997;A192.
41. Goodnight K., Queller D.C. Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol. Ecol. 8:1999;1231-1234.
42. Thompson E.A. Inference of genealogical structure. Soc. Sci. Inform. 15:1976;477-526.
43. Browning S. Relationship information contained in gamete identity by descent data. J. Comput. Biol. 5:1998;323-334.
44. Zhao H., Liang F. On relationship inference using gamete identity by descent data. J. Comput. Biol. 8:2001;191-200.
45. Foster E.A., et al. Jefferson fathered slaves' last child. Nature. 396:1998;27-28.
46. Sieberts S.K., et al. Relationship inference from trios of individuals, in the presence of typing error. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:2002;170-180.
47. Ewen K., et al. Identification and analysis of error types in high-throughput genotyping. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67:2000;727-736.
48. Broman K.W., Weber J.L. Estimation of pairwise relationships in the presence of genotyping errors. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:1998;1563-1564.
49. Marshall T.C., et al. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7:1998;639-655.
50. SanCristobal M., Chevalet C. Error tolerant parent identification from a finite set of individuals. Genet. Res. 70:1997;53-62.
51. Duchesne P., et al. PAPA (Package for the analysis of parental allocation): a computer program for simulated and real parental allocation. Mol. Ecol. Notes. 2:2002;191-193.
52. Douglas J.A., et al. A multipoint method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in sibling-pair linkage data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66:2000;1287-1297.
53. Ehm M.G., Wagner M. A test statistic to detect errors in sib-pair relationships. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 62:1998;181-188.
54. Olson J.M. Relationship estimation by Markov-process models in sib-pair linkage study. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64:1999;1464-1472.
55. Sun, L. et al. (2001) Detection of misspecified relationships in inbred and outbred pedigrees. Genet. Epidemiol. 21 (Suppl. 1), S36-S41.
56. Bentzen P., et al. Kinship analysis of Pacific salmon: insights into mating, homing and timing of reproduction. J. Hered. 92:2001;127-136.
57. Emery A.M., et al. Assignment of paternity groups without access to parental genotypes: multiple mating and developmental plasticity in squid. Mol. Ecol. 10:2001;1265-1278.
58. Almudevar A., Field C. Estimation of single-generation sibling relationship based on DNA markers. J. Agric. Biol. Env. Stat. 4:1999;136-165.
59. Almudevar A. Most powerful permutation invariant tests for relatedness hypotheses based on genotypic data. Biometrics. 57:2001;1080-1088.
60. Herbinger C.M., et al. Family relationships and effective population size in a natural cohort of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) larvae. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., Suppl. 1:1997;11-18.
61. Brenner C.H. Kinship analysis by DNA when there are many possibilities. Sensabaugh G.F. Progress in Forensic Genetics 8. 2000;94-96 Elsevier Science.
62. Eding H., Meuwissen T.H.E. Marker-based estimates of between and within population kinships for the conservation of genetic diversity. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 118:2001;141-159.
63. Garcia D., et al. Sib-parentage testing using molecular markers when parents are unknown. Anim. Genet. 33:2002;364-371.
64. Almudevar A. A simulated annealing algorithm for maximum likelihood pedigree reconstruction. Theor. Pop. Biol. 63:2003;63-75.
65. Rousset F. Inbreeding and relatedness coefficients: what do they measure? Heredity. 88:2002;371-380.
66. Pamilo P. Comparison of relatedness estimators. Evolution. 44:1989;1378-1382.
67. Lynch M., Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. 1998;Sinauer Associates.
68. Almudevar A. A bootstrap assessment of variability in pedigree reconstruction based on DNA markers. Biometrics. 57:2001;757-763.