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

Theoretical Population Biology

Volumn 107, Issue , 2016, Pages 4-13

  Wang, Jinliang ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF ZOOLOGY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Genomic markers; Inbreeding coefficient; Pedigree; Relatedness; Simulations; SNPs

Indexed keywords

GENETIC MARKER; GENOME; GENOMICS; INBREEDING; POLYMORPHISM; RELATEDNESS; SIMULATION;

ANIMALIA;

GENETIC MARKER;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSANGUINITY; GENETIC MARKER; GENETICS; HUMAN; INBREEDING; METAGENOMICS; PEDIGREE; POPULATION GENETICS; PROCEDURES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONSANGUINITY; GENETIC MARKERS; GENETICS, POPULATION; HUMANS; INBREEDING; METAGENOMICS; MODELS, GENETIC; PEDIGREE; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 84952983860     PISSN: 00405809     EISSN: 10960325     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2015.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abney M. A graphical algorithm for fast computation of identity coefficients and generalized kinship coefficients. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:1561-1563.
2. Balloux F., Amos W., Coulson T. Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations?. Mol. Ecol. 2004, 13:3021-3031.
3. Bérénos C., Ellis P.A., Pilkington J.G., Pemberton J.M. Estimating quantitative genetic parameters in wild populations: a comparison of pedigree and genomic approaches. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:3434-3451.
4. Carothers A.D., Rudan I., Kolcic I., Polasek O., Hayward C., Wright A.F., et al. Estimating human inbreeding coefficients: comparison of genealogical and marker heterozygosity approaches. Ann. Hum. Genet. 2006, 70:666-676.
5. Cassell B.G., Adamec V., Pearson R.E. Effect of incomplete pedigrees on estimates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression for days to first service and summit milk yield in Holsteins and Jerseys. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86:2967-2976.
6. Chandler C.H., Zamudio K.R. Reproductive success by large, closely related males facilitated by sperm storage in an aggregate breeding amphibian. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17:1564-1576.
7. Chapman J.R., Nakagawa S., Coltman D.W., Slate J., Sheldon B.C. A quantitative review of heterozygosity-fitness correlations in animal populations. Mol. Ecol. 2009, 18:2746-2765.
8. Charlesworth D., Charlesworth B. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1987, 18:237-268.
9. Cockerham C.C. Higher order probability functions of identity of alleles by descent. Genetics 1971, 69:235-246.
10. Cohas A., Yoccoz N.G., Bonenfant C., et al. The genetic similarity between pair members influences the frequency of extrapair paternity in alpine marmots. Anim. Behav. 2008, 76:87-95.
11. Crow J.F., Kimura M. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory 1970, Harper and Row, New York.
12. Csilléry K., Johnson T., Beraldi D., Clutton-Brock T., Coltman D., Hansson B., Spong G., Pemberton J.M. Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics 2006, 173:2091-2101.
13. Donnelly K.P. The probability that related individuals share some section of genome identical by descent. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1983, 23:34-63.
14. Falconer D.S., Mackay T.F.C. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 1996, Longman, Harlow.
15. Fernandez J., Villanueva B., Pong-Wong R., Toro M.A. Efficiency of the use of pedigree and molecular marker information in conservation programs. Genetics 2005, 170:1313-1321.
16. Foerster K., Valcu M., Johnsen A., Kempenaers B. A spatial genetic structure and effects of relatedness on mate choice in a wild bird population. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15:4555-4567.
17. Forstmeier W., Schielzeth H., Mueller J.C., Ellegren H., Kempenaers B. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation. Mol. Ecol. 2012, 21:3237-3249.
18. Garant D., Kruuk L.E.B. How to use molecular marker data to measure evolutionary parameters in wild populations. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14:1843-1859.
19. Goddard M. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 2009, 136:245-257.
20. Griffith S.C., Owens I.P., Thuman K.A. Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol. Ecol. 2002, 11:2195-2212.
21. Haldane J.B.S. The combination of linkage values, and the calculation of distances between the loci of linked factors. J. Genet. 1919, 8:99-309.
22. Hill W.G., Robertson A. Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1968, 38:226-231.
23. Hill W.G., Weir B.S. Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. Genet. Res. 2011, 93:47-64.
24. Jacquard A. Genetic information given by a relative. Biometrics 1972, 28:1101-1114.
25. Karigl G. A recursive algorithm for the calculation of identity coefficients. Ann. Hum. Genet. 1981, 45:299-305.
26. Kong X., Murphy K., Raj T., He C., White P.S., Matise T.C. A combined physical-linkage map of the human genome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2004, 75:1143-1148.
27. Langen K., Schwarzer J., Kullmann H., Bakker T.C.M., Thünken T. Microsatellite support for active inbreeding in a cichlid fish. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:1-9.
28. Li C.C., Horvitz D.G. Some methods of estimating the inbreeding coefficient. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1953, 5:107-117.
29. Li C.C., Weeks D.E., Chakravarti A. Similarity of DNA fingerprints due to chance and relatedness. Hum. Hered. 1993, 43:45-52.
30. Lucchini V., Fabbri E., Marucco F., Ricci S., Boitani L., Randi E. Noninvasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the western Italian Alps. Mol. Ecol. 2002, 11:857-868.
31. Lynch M. Estimation of relatedness by DNA fingerprinting. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1988, 5:584-599.
32. Lynch M., Ritland K. Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 1999, 152:1753-1766.
33. Lynch M., Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits 1998, Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts.
34. Malécot G. Les Mathématiques de 1'hérédité 1948, 63. Masson et Cie, Paris.
35. Maynard Smith J. Evolutionary Genetics 1998, Oxford University Press, Oxford. second ed.
36. Morton N.E., Crow J.F., Muller H.J. An estimate of the mutational damage in man from data on consanguineous marriages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1956, 42:855-863.
37. Pemberton J.M. Measuring inbreeding depression in the wild: the old ways are the best. Trends Ecol. Evolut. 2004, 19:613-615.
38. Pemberton J.M. Wild pedigrees: the way forward. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275:613-621.
39. Pompanon F., Bonin A., Bellemain E., Taberlet P. Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nature Rev. Genet. 2005, 6:847-850.
40. Queller D.C., Goodnight K.F. Estimating relatedness using molecular markers. Evolution 1989, 43:258-275.
41. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2012, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computer, Vienna, Austria.
42. Ritland K. Estimators for pairwise relatedness and inbreeding coefficients. Genet. Res. 1996, 67:175-186.
43. Robinson S.P., Kennington W.J., Simmons L.W. Assortative mating for relatedness in a large naturally occurring population of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2012, 25:716-725.
44. Slate J., David P., Dodds K.G., et al. Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity 2004, 93:255-265.
45. Surridge A.K., Ibrahim K.M., Bell D.J., Webb N.J., Rico C., Hewitt G.M. Fine-scale genetic structuring in a natural population of European wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Mol. Ecol. 1999, 8:299-307.
46. Szulkin M., Bierne N., David P. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations: a time for reappraisal. Evolution 2010, 64:1202-1217.
47. Toro M., Barragán C., Óvilo C., Rodrigañez J., Rodriguez C., Silió L. Estimation of coancestry in Iberian pigs using molecular markers. Conserv. Genet. 2002, 3:309-320.
48. Tortereau F., Servin B., Frantz L., Megens H.J., Milan D., Rohrer G., Wiedmann R., Beever J., Archibald A.L., Schook L.B., Groenen M.A.M. A high density recombination map of the pig reveals a correlation between sex-specific recombination and GC content. BMC Genomics 2012, 13:586.
49. Van de Casteele T., Galbusera P., Matthysen E. A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators. Mol. Ecol. 2001, 10:1539-1549.
50. Wang J. Optimal marker-assisted selection to increase the effective size of small populations. Genetics 2001, 157:867-874.
51. Wang J. An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics 2002, 160:1203-1215.
52. Wang J. Triadic IBD coefficients and applications to estimating pairwise relatedness. Genet. Res. 2007, 89:135-153.
53. Wang J. A new likelihood estimator and its comparison with moment estimators of individual genome-wide diversity. Heredity 2011, 107:433-443.
54. Wang J. On the measurements of genetic differentiation among populations. Genet. Res. 2012, 94:275-289.
55. Wang J. Marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding coefficients: an assessment of current methods. J. Evol. Biol. 2014, 27:518-530.
56. Wang C., Lu X. Female ground tits prefer relatives as extra-pair partners: driven by kin-selection?. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20:2851-2863.
57. Weir B.S., Anderson A.D., Hepler A.B. Genetic relatedness analysis: modern data and new challenges. Nature Rev. Genet. 2006, 7:771-780.
58. Wright S. Systems of mating. Genetics 1921, 6:111-178.
59. Wright S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am. Natur. 1922, 56:330-338.
60. Wright S. The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 1965, 19:395-420.