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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecological applications 2011-04, Vol.21 (3), p.877-887 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & 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 |