Reconstruction of pedigrees in clonal plant populations

Theoretical Population Biology

Volumn 78, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 109-117

  Riester, M ^a   Stadler, Peter F ^a,b,c,d,e   Klemm, Konstantin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS IN THE SCIENCES   (Germany)

^c FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR CELL THERAPY AND IMMUNOLOGY   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^e SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clonal; MCMC; Microsatellite; Parentage; Pedigree; Selfing; SNP

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; ALGORITHM; ANCESTRY; AUTOGAMY; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CLONAL ORGANISM; DATA SET; GENETIC MARKER; MARKOV CHAIN; MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS; PARENTAGE; PLANT; POLYMORPHISM; RECONSTRUCTION; SAMPLING; SOFTWARE;

EID: 77955282218     PISSN: 00405809     EISSN: 10960325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2010.05.002     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aarts E., Korst J. Simulated Annealing and Boltzmann Machines: A Stochastic Approach to Combinatorial Optimization and Neural Computing 1989, Wiley, Chichester.
2. Adams W.T., Griffin A.R., Moran G.F. Using paternity analysis to measure effective pollen dispersal in plant populations. Am. Nat. 1992, 140(5):762-780.
3. Ally D., Ritland K., Otto S.P. Can clone size serve as a proxy for clone age? An exploration using microsatellite divergence in Populus tremuloides. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17(22):4897-4911.
4. Almudevar A. A simulated annealing algorithm for maximum likelihood pedigree reconstruction. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2003, 63:63-75.
5. Almudevar A. A graphical approach to relatedness inference. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2007, 71(2):213-229.
6. Anderson E.C., Garza J.C. The power of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for large-scale parentage inference. Genetics 2006, 172(4):2567-2582.
7. Burczyk J., Adams W.T., Shimizu J.Y. Mating patterns and pollen dispersal in a natural knobcone pine (Pinus attenuate Lemmon.) stand. Heredity 1996, 77:251-260.
8. Cannings C., Sheehan N.A. On a misconception about irreducibility of the single-site gibbs sampler in a pedigree application. Genetics 2002, 162(2):993-996.
9. Cercueil A., Bellemain E., Manel S. Parente: computer program for parentage analysis. J. Hered. 2002, 93(6):458-459.
10. Cowell R.G. Efficient maximum likelihood pedigree reconstruction. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2009, 76(4):285-291.
11. David P., Pujol B., Viard F., Castella V., Goudet J. Reliable selfing rate estimates from imperfect population genetic data. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16(12):2474-2487.
12. de MeeÛx00FB;s T., Balloux F. Clonal reproduction and linkage disequilibrium in diploids: a simulation study. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2004, 4(4):345-351.
13. Ellstrand N.C., Marshall D.L. Interpopulation gene flow in Raphanus sativus. Am. Nat. 1985, 126:606-616.
14. Gerber S., Chabrier P., Kremer A. FaMoz: a software for parentage analysis using dominant, codominant and uniparentally inherited markers. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2003, 3(3):479-481.
15. Geyer, C.J., 1991. Markov chain Monte Carlo maximum likelihood. In: Computing Science and Statistics: Proceedings of 23rd Symposium on the Interface Interface Foundation, Fairfax Station, pp. 156-163.
16. Glaubitz J.C., Rhodes O.E., Dewoody J.A. Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Mol. Ecol. 2003, 12(4):1039-1047.
17. Hadfield J.D., Richardson D.S., Burke T. Towards unbiased parentage assignment: combining genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15:3715-3730.
18. Jamieson A., Taylor S. Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Anim. Genet. 1997, 28:397-400.
19. Jarne P., David P. Quantifying inbreeding in natural populations of hermaphroditic organisms. Heredity 2008, 100(4):431-439.
20. Kalinowski S.T., Taper M.L., Marshall T.C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16:1099-1106.
21. Koch M., Hadfield J.D., Sefc K.M., Sturmbauer C. Pedigree reconstruction in wild cichlid fish populations. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17(20):4500-4511.
22. Marshall T.C., Slate J., Kruuk L.E., Pemberton J.M. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 1998, 7:639-655.
23. Matsumoto M., Nishimura T. Dynamic creation of pseudorandom number generators. Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 1998: Proceedings of a Conference, Held at Claremont Graduate University 2000, 56-69. Springer, Claremont, California, USA.
24. Meagher T.R. Analysis of paternity within a natural population of Chamaelirium luteum. II. Patterns of male reproductive success. Am. Nat. 1991, 137(6):738-752.
25. Meagher T.R., Belanger F.C., Day P.R. Using empirical data to model transgene dispersal. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 358(1434):1157-1162.
26. Meagher T.R., Thompson E.A. The relationship between single parent and parent pair genetic likelihoods in genealogy reconstruction. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1986, 29(1):87-106.
27. Meagher T.R., Thompson E.A. Analysis of parentage for naturally established seedlings of Chamaelirium luteum (Liliaceae). Ecology 1987, 68(4):803-812.
28. Morgan M.T., Conner J.K. Using genetic markers to directly estimate male selection gradients. Evolution 2001, 55(2):272-281.
29. Nielsen R., Mattila D., Clapham P., Palsbøll P. Statistical approaches to paternity analysis in natural populations and applications to the North Atlantic humpback whale. Genetics 2001, 157:1673-1682.
30. Queller D.C., Strassmann J.E., Hughes C.R. Microsatellites and kinship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1993, 8(8):285-288.
31. Riester M., Stadler P.F., Klemm K. FRANz: reconstruction of wild multi-generation pedigrees. Bioinformatics 2009, 25(16):2134-2139.
32. Ritland K., Jain S. A model for the estimation of outcrossing rate and gene frequencies using n independent loci. Heredity 1981, 47(1):35-52.
33. Roussett F. GENEPOP'007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2008, 8(1):103-106.
34. Sheehan N., Thomas A. On the irreducibility of a Markov chain defined on a space of genotype configurations by a sampling scheme. Biometrics 1993, 49(1):163-175.
35. Silander T., Myllymäki P. A simple approach for finding the globally optimal bayesian network structure. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI-06 2006, 445-452. AUAI Press, Arlington, Virginia.
36. Smouse P.E., Meagher T.R. Genetic analysis of male reproductive contributions in Chamaelirium luteum (L.) Gray (Liliaceae). Genetics 1994, 136(1):313-322.
37. Smouse P.E., Meagher T.R., Kobak C.J. Parentage analysis in Chamaelirium luteum (L.) Gray (Liliaceae): why do some males have higher reproductive contributions?. J. Evol. Biol. 1999, 12(6):1069-1077.
38. Thompson E.A. Statistical inference from genetic data on pedigrees. NSF-CBMS Regional Conference Series in Probability and Statistics 2000, IMS, Beachwood, OH.
39. Wang J. Parentage and sibship exclusions: higher statistical power with more family members. Heredity 2007, 99(2):205-217.
40. Wilson I.J., Dawson K.J. A markov chain monte carlo strategy for sampling from the joint posterior distribution of pedigrees and population parameters under a fisher-wright model with partial selfing. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2007, 72(3):436-458.
41. Wright J.W., Meagher T.R. Selection on floral characters in natural Spanish populations of Silene latifolia. J. Evol. Biol. 2004, 17(2):382-395.