How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives

Genetic identification of individuals is now commonplace, enabling the application of tagging methods to elusive species or species that cannot be tagged by traditional methods. A key aspect is determining the number of loci required to ensure that different individuals have non-matching multi-locus...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological applications 2011-04, Vol.21 (3), p.877-887
Hauptverfasser: Rew, Mary Beth, Robbins, Jooke, Mattila, David, Palsbøøll, Per J, Béérubéé, Martine
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 887
container_issue 3
container_start_page 877
container_title Ecological applications
container_volume 21
creator Rew, Mary Beth
Robbins, Jooke
Mattila, David
Palsbøøll, Per J
Béérubéé, Martine
description Genetic identification of individuals is now commonplace, enabling the application of tagging methods to elusive species or species that cannot be tagged by traditional methods. A key aspect is determining the number of loci required to ensure that different individuals have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. Closely related individuals are of particular concern because of elevated matching probabilities caused by their recent co-ancestry. This issue may be addressed by increasing the number of loci to a level where full siblings (the relatedness category with the highest matching probability) are expected to have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. However, increasing the number of loci to meet this "“full-sib criterion"” greatly increases the laboratory effort, which in turn may increase the genotyping error rate resulting in an upward-biased mark-–recapture estimate of abundance as recaptures are missed due to genotyping errors. We assessed the contribution of false matches from close relatives among 425 maternally related humpback whales, each genotyped at 20 microsatellite loci. We observed a very low (0.5-–4%%) contribution to falsely matching samples from pairs of first-order relatives (i.e., parent and offspring or full siblings). The main contribution to falsely matching individuals from close relatives originated from second-order relatives (e.g., half siblings), which was estimated at ∼∼9%%. In our study, the total number of observed matches agreed well with expectations based upon the matching probability estimated for unrelated individuals, suggesting that the full-sib criterion is overly conservative, and would have required a 280%% relative increase in effort. We suggest that, under most circumstances, the overall contribution to falsely matching samples from close relatives is likely to be low, and hence applying the full-sib criterion is unnecessary. In those cases where close relatives may present a significant issue, such as unrepresentative sampling, we propose three different genotyping strategies requiring only a modest increase in effort, which will greatly reduce the number of false matches due to the presence of related individuals.
doi_str_mv 10.1890/10-0348.1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1890_10_0348_1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23021633</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23021633</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4757-5aa82ad515abd8ae579b25d6b311cf2e4c6ca3a5b829210ff9c8201d7e4cdaf23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc1u1TAQhSMEoqWw4AFAllgghFL8EyfOCl21hSJVggWwtSbO5OKSxMF2erlvX4eUgpAq4c3M6HxzNOPJsqeMHjNV0zeM5lQU6pjdyw5ZLepcSsXvp5xKltOqZAfZoxAuaXqc84fZAWelqJN4mMVztyMDjHuyxRGjNanw39EHEh2JsCUwEju29sq2M_RvyWYkOEzWWwM9gRAwhAHHSFxHOugDpvZovtlxSzxEDAQGl3LTuyR57CHaKwyPswe_4Cc38Sj78u7s88l5fvHx_YeTzUUORSWrXAIoDq1kEppWAcqqbrhsy0YwZjqOhSkNCJCN4jVntOtqozhlbZWUFjoujrLXq2_Y4TQ3evI2bbfXDqw-tV832vmtDrMulRI00S9XevLux4wh6sEGg30PI7o5aFVxJmpZl_9BUlmUnFeJfLWSxrsQPHa3MzCql9stcbmdZol9fuM6NwO2t-TvYyWgWIGd7XF_t5M-23xK_8DSuKpaZni2tl2G6PwfW0EXZ5H0F6sOcT-5UWOAv7ymttPxZ7yL-meHa3aRxE8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>870546227</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rew, Mary Beth ; Robbins, Jooke ; Mattila, David ; Palsbøøll, Per J ; Béérubéé, Martine</creator><contributor>Stokesbury, K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rew, Mary Beth ; Robbins, Jooke ; Mattila, David ; Palsbøøll, Per J ; Béérubéé, Martine ; Stokesbury, K</creatorcontrib><description>Genetic identification of individuals is now commonplace, enabling the application of tagging methods to elusive species or species that cannot be tagged by traditional methods. A key aspect is determining the number of loci required to ensure that different individuals have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. Closely related individuals are of particular concern because of elevated matching probabilities caused by their recent co-ancestry. This issue may be addressed by increasing the number of loci to a level where full siblings (the relatedness category with the highest matching probability) are expected to have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. However, increasing the number of loci to meet this "“full-sib criterion"” greatly increases the laboratory effort, which in turn may increase the genotyping error rate resulting in an upward-biased mark-–recapture estimate of abundance as recaptures are missed due to genotyping errors. We assessed the contribution of false matches from close relatives among 425 maternally related humpback whales, each genotyped at 20 microsatellite loci. We observed a very low (0.5-–4%%) contribution to falsely matching samples from pairs of first-order relatives (i.e., parent and offspring or full siblings). The main contribution to falsely matching individuals from close relatives originated from second-order relatives (e.g., half siblings), which was estimated at ∼∼9%%. In our study, the total number of observed matches agreed well with expectations based upon the matching probability estimated for unrelated individuals, suggesting that the full-sib criterion is overly conservative, and would have required a 280%% relative increase in effort. We suggest that, under most circumstances, the overall contribution to falsely matching samples from close relatives is likely to be low, and hence applying the full-sib criterion is unnecessary. In those cases where close relatives may present a significant issue, such as unrepresentative sampling, we propose three different genotyping strategies requiring only a modest increase in effort, which will greatly reduce the number of false matches due to the presence of related individuals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1051-0761</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1939-5582</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-5582</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1890/10-0348.1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21639051</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Ecological Society of America</publisher><subject>abundance estimation ; Animals ; conservation ; DNA - genetics ; Dyadic relations ; Ecological genetics ; Error rates ; Female ; Genetic Loci ; Genetic Markers - genetics ; genetic tagging ; Genotype ; Genotypes ; humpback whale ; Humpback Whale - genetics ; Marine ; mark-recapture ; Megaptera novaeanglia ; Megaptera novaeangliae ; microsatellite ; Microsatellite Repeats ; Microsatellites ; monitoring ; number of loci ; Population ecology ; probability of identity ; relatedness ; Siblings ; Unrelated individuals ; Whales</subject><ispartof>Ecological applications, 2011-04, Vol.21 (3), p.877-887</ispartof><rights>Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright © 2011 The Ecological Society of America</rights><rights>2011 by the Ecological Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4757-5aa82ad515abd8ae579b25d6b311cf2e4c6ca3a5b829210ff9c8201d7e4cdaf23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4757-5aa82ad515abd8ae579b25d6b311cf2e4c6ca3a5b829210ff9c8201d7e4cdaf23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23021633$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23021633$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21639051$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-68830$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Stokesbury, K</contributor><creatorcontrib>Rew, Mary Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbins, Jooke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattila, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palsbøøll, Per J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Béérubéé, Martine</creatorcontrib><title>How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives</title><title>Ecological applications</title><addtitle>Ecol Appl</addtitle><description>Genetic identification of individuals is now commonplace, enabling the application of tagging methods to elusive species or species that cannot be tagged by traditional methods. A key aspect is determining the number of loci required to ensure that different individuals have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. Closely related individuals are of particular concern because of elevated matching probabilities caused by their recent co-ancestry. This issue may be addressed by increasing the number of loci to a level where full siblings (the relatedness category with the highest matching probability) are expected to have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. However, increasing the number of loci to meet this "“full-sib criterion"” greatly increases the laboratory effort, which in turn may increase the genotyping error rate resulting in an upward-biased mark-–recapture estimate of abundance as recaptures are missed due to genotyping errors. We assessed the contribution of false matches from close relatives among 425 maternally related humpback whales, each genotyped at 20 microsatellite loci. We observed a very low (0.5-–4%%) contribution to falsely matching samples from pairs of first-order relatives (i.e., parent and offspring or full siblings). The main contribution to falsely matching individuals from close relatives originated from second-order relatives (e.g., half siblings), which was estimated at ∼∼9%%. In our study, the total number of observed matches agreed well with expectations based upon the matching probability estimated for unrelated individuals, suggesting that the full-sib criterion is overly conservative, and would have required a 280%% relative increase in effort. We suggest that, under most circumstances, the overall contribution to falsely matching samples from close relatives is likely to be low, and hence applying the full-sib criterion is unnecessary. In those cases where close relatives may present a significant issue, such as unrepresentative sampling, we propose three different genotyping strategies requiring only a modest increase in effort, which will greatly reduce the number of false matches due to the presence of related individuals.</description><subject>abundance estimation</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>conservation</subject><subject>DNA - genetics</subject><subject>Dyadic relations</subject><subject>Ecological genetics</subject><subject>Error rates</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genetic Loci</subject><subject>Genetic Markers - genetics</subject><subject>genetic tagging</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>humpback whale</subject><subject>Humpback Whale - genetics</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>mark-recapture</subject><subject>Megaptera novaeanglia</subject><subject>Megaptera novaeangliae</subject><subject>microsatellite</subject><subject>Microsatellite Repeats</subject><subject>Microsatellites</subject><subject>monitoring</subject><subject>number of loci</subject><subject>Population ecology</subject><subject>probability of identity</subject><subject>relatedness</subject><subject>Siblings</subject><subject>Unrelated individuals</subject><subject>Whales</subject><issn>1051-0761</issn><issn>1939-5582</issn><issn>1939-5582</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc1u1TAQhSMEoqWw4AFAllgghFL8EyfOCl21hSJVggWwtSbO5OKSxMF2erlvX4eUgpAq4c3M6HxzNOPJsqeMHjNV0zeM5lQU6pjdyw5ZLepcSsXvp5xKltOqZAfZoxAuaXqc84fZAWelqJN4mMVztyMDjHuyxRGjNanw39EHEh2JsCUwEju29sq2M_RvyWYkOEzWWwM9gRAwhAHHSFxHOugDpvZovtlxSzxEDAQGl3LTuyR57CHaKwyPswe_4Cc38Sj78u7s88l5fvHx_YeTzUUORSWrXAIoDq1kEppWAcqqbrhsy0YwZjqOhSkNCJCN4jVntOtqozhlbZWUFjoujrLXq2_Y4TQ3evI2bbfXDqw-tV832vmtDrMulRI00S9XevLux4wh6sEGg30PI7o5aFVxJmpZl_9BUlmUnFeJfLWSxrsQPHa3MzCql9stcbmdZol9fuM6NwO2t-TvYyWgWIGd7XF_t5M-23xK_8DSuKpaZni2tl2G6PwfW0EXZ5H0F6sOcT-5UWOAv7ymttPxZ7yL-meHa3aRxE8</recordid><startdate>201104</startdate><enddate>201104</enddate><creator>Rew, Mary Beth</creator><creator>Robbins, Jooke</creator><creator>Mattila, David</creator><creator>Palsbøøll, Per J</creator><creator>Béérubéé, Martine</creator><general>Ecological Society of America</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>DG7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201104</creationdate><title>How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives</title><author>Rew, Mary Beth ; Robbins, Jooke ; Mattila, David ; Palsbøøll, Per J ; Béérubéé, Martine</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4757-5aa82ad515abd8ae579b25d6b311cf2e4c6ca3a5b829210ff9c8201d7e4cdaf23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>abundance estimation</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>DNA - genetics</topic><topic>Dyadic relations</topic><topic>Ecological genetics</topic><topic>Error rates</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genetic Loci</topic><topic>Genetic Markers - genetics</topic><topic>genetic tagging</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>humpback whale</topic><topic>Humpback Whale - genetics</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>mark-recapture</topic><topic>Megaptera novaeanglia</topic><topic>Megaptera novaeangliae</topic><topic>microsatellite</topic><topic>Microsatellite Repeats</topic><topic>Microsatellites</topic><topic>monitoring</topic><topic>number of loci</topic><topic>Population ecology</topic><topic>probability of identity</topic><topic>relatedness</topic><topic>Siblings</topic><topic>Unrelated individuals</topic><topic>Whales</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rew, Mary Beth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbins, Jooke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattila, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Palsbøøll, Per J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Béérubéé, Martine</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Stockholms universitet</collection><jtitle>Ecological applications</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rew, Mary Beth</au><au>Robbins, Jooke</au><au>Mattila, David</au><au>Palsbøøll, Per J</au><au>Béérubéé, Martine</au><au>Stokesbury, K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives</atitle><jtitle>Ecological applications</jtitle><addtitle>Ecol Appl</addtitle><date>2011-04</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>877</spage><epage>887</epage><pages>877-887</pages><issn>1051-0761</issn><issn>1939-5582</issn><eissn>1939-5582</eissn><abstract>Genetic identification of individuals is now commonplace, enabling the application of tagging methods to elusive species or species that cannot be tagged by traditional methods. A key aspect is determining the number of loci required to ensure that different individuals have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. Closely related individuals are of particular concern because of elevated matching probabilities caused by their recent co-ancestry. This issue may be addressed by increasing the number of loci to a level where full siblings (the relatedness category with the highest matching probability) are expected to have non-matching multi-locus genotypes. However, increasing the number of loci to meet this "“full-sib criterion"” greatly increases the laboratory effort, which in turn may increase the genotyping error rate resulting in an upward-biased mark-–recapture estimate of abundance as recaptures are missed due to genotyping errors. We assessed the contribution of false matches from close relatives among 425 maternally related humpback whales, each genotyped at 20 microsatellite loci. We observed a very low (0.5-–4%%) contribution to falsely matching samples from pairs of first-order relatives (i.e., parent and offspring or full siblings). The main contribution to falsely matching individuals from close relatives originated from second-order relatives (e.g., half siblings), which was estimated at ∼∼9%%. In our study, the total number of observed matches agreed well with expectations based upon the matching probability estimated for unrelated individuals, suggesting that the full-sib criterion is overly conservative, and would have required a 280%% relative increase in effort. We suggest that, under most circumstances, the overall contribution to falsely matching samples from close relatives is likely to be low, and hence applying the full-sib criterion is unnecessary. In those cases where close relatives may present a significant issue, such as unrepresentative sampling, we propose three different genotyping strategies requiring only a modest increase in effort, which will greatly reduce the number of false matches due to the presence of related individuals.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Ecological Society of America</pub><pmid>21639051</pmid><doi>10.1890/10-0348.1</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1051-0761
ispartof Ecological applications, 2011-04, Vol.21 (3), p.877-887
issn 1051-0761
1939-5582
1939-5582
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1890_10_0348_1
source Jstor Complete Legacy; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects abundance estimation
Animals
conservation
DNA - genetics
Dyadic relations
Ecological genetics
Error rates
Female
Genetic Loci
Genetic Markers - genetics
genetic tagging
Genotype
Genotypes
humpback whale
Humpback Whale - genetics
Marine
mark-recapture
Megaptera novaeanglia
Megaptera novaeangliae
microsatellite
Microsatellite Repeats
Microsatellites
monitoring
number of loci
Population ecology
probability of identity
relatedness
Siblings
Unrelated individuals
Whales
title How many genetic markers to tag an individual? An empirical assessment of false matching rates among close relatives
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T15%3A37%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20many%20genetic%20markers%20to%20tag%20an%20individual?%20An%20empirical%20assessment%20of%20false%20matching%20rates%20among%20close%20relatives&rft.jtitle=Ecological%20applications&rft.au=Rew,%20Mary%20Beth&rft.date=2011-04&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=877&rft.epage=887&rft.pages=877-887&rft.issn=1051-0761&rft.eissn=1939-5582&rft_id=info:doi/10.1890/10-0348.1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E23021633%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=870546227&rft_id=info:pmid/21639051&rft_jstor_id=23021633&rfr_iscdi=true