Do marker-based paternity assignments favour heterozygous and unrelated males?

Molecular Ecology

Volumn 19, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1898-1913

  Wang, Jinliang ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Exclusion probability; Genetic markers; Heterozygosity; Likelihood; Parentage analysis; Paternity assignments; Relatedness

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETIC MARKER; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; POPULATION GENETICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; GENE FREQUENCY; GENETIC MARKERS; GENETICS, POPULATION; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC;

EID: 77951183861     PISSN: 09621083     EISSN: 1365294X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04601.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Blouin MS (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 285 288.
2. Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 60 65.
3. Double MC, Cockburn A, Barry SC, Smouse PE (1997) Exclusion probabilities for single-locus paternity analysis when related males compete for matings. Molecular Ecology, 6, 1155 1166.
4. Jamieson A, Taylor SCS (1997) Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Animal Genetics, 28, 397 400.
5. Jones AG, Ardren WR (2003) Methods of parentage analysis in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 12, 2511 2523.
6. Jouventin P, Charmantier A, Dubois M, Jarne P, Bried J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in the strongly monogamous wandering albatross Diomedea exulans has no apparent benefits for females. Ibis, 149, 67 78.
7. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology, 16, 1099 1106.
8. Kempenaers B (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 37, 189 278.
9. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33 38.
10. Li CC, Weeks DE, Chakravarti A (1993) Similarity of DNA fingerprints due to chance and relatedness. Human Heredity, 43, 45 52.
11. Lynch M (1988) Estimation of relatedness by DNA fingerprinting. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 5, 584 599.
12. Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics, 152, 1753 1766.
13. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 7, 639 655.
14. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using molecular markers. Evolution, 43, 258 275.
15. Ritland K (1996) Estimators for pairwise relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Genetical Research, 67, 175 186.
16. Suter SM, Keiser M, Feignoux R, Meyer DR (2007) Reed bunting females increase fitness through extra-pair mating with genetically dissimilar males. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2865 2871.
17. Wang J (2002) An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics, 160, 1203 1215.
18. Wang J (2004) Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics, 166, 1963 1979.
19. Wang J (2007) Parentage and sibship exclusions: higher statistical power with more family members. Heredity, 99, 205 217.
20. Wang J, Santure AW (2009) Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics, 181, 1579 1594.
21. Wetzel DP, Westneat DF (2009) Heterozygosity and extra-pair paternity: biased tests result from the use of shared markers. Molecular Ecology, 18, 2010 2021.