Revising how the computer program cervus accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment

Genotypes are frequently used to identify parentage. Such analysis is notoriously vulnerable to genotyping error, and there is ongoing debate regarding how to solve this problem. Many scientists have used the computer program cervus to estimate parentage, and have taken advantage of its option to allow for genotyping error. In this study, we show that the likelihood equations used by versions 1.0 and 2.0 of cervus to accommodate genotyping error miscalculate the probability of observing an erroneous genotype. Computer simulation and reanalysis of paternity in Rum red deer show that correcting this error increases success in paternity assignment, and that there is a clear benefit to accommodating genotyping errors when errors are present. A new version of cervus (3.0) implementing the corrected likelihood equations is available at http://www.fieldgenetics.com.

[1]  C. Chevalet,et al.  Error tolerant parent identification from a finite set of individuals , 1997 .

[2]  T. C. Marshall,et al.  Statistical confidence for likelihood‐based paternity inference in natural populations , 1998, Molecular ecology.

[3]  P. J. Cordero,et al.  Within-clutch patterns of egg viability and paternity in the House Sparrow , 1999 .

[4]  J Buckleton,et al.  An investigation of the rigor of interpretation rules for STRs derived from less than 100 pg of DNA. , 2000, Forensic science international.

[5]  J. Slate,et al.  A retrospective assessment of the accuracy of the paternity inference program cervus , 2000, Molecular ecology.

[6]  Jane Goodall,et al.  Noninvasive paternity assignment in Gombe chimpanzees , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[7]  Jeanette C Papp,et al.  Detection and integration of genotyping errors in statistical genetics. , 2002, American journal of human genetics.

[8]  Michael S. Blouin,et al.  DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations , 2003 .

[9]  S. Creel,et al.  Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error‐prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes , 2003, Molecular ecology.

[10]  J. Blondel,et al.  A Contrast in Extra-Pair Paternity Levels on Mainland and Island Populations of Mediterranean Blue Tits , 2003 .

[11]  D. Lambert,et al.  Effect of Extra-Pair Paternity on Effective Population Size in a Reintroduced Population of the Endangered Hihi, and Potential for Behavioural Management , 2004, Conservation Genetics.

[12]  Jinliang Wang,et al.  Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. , 2004, Genetics.

[13]  P. Taberlet,et al.  How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[14]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions , 2005, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[15]  S. Creel,et al.  Using DNA from non-invasive samples to identify individuals and census populations: an evidential approach tolerant of genotyping errors , 2006, Conservation Genetics.

[16]  D. Blumstein,et al.  The evolution of vocal alarm communication in rodents , 2005 .

[17]  Alastair J. Wilson,et al.  The potential costs of accounting for genotypic errors in molecular parentage analyses , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[18]  M. Dupont-Nivet,et al.  An evaluation of allowing for mismatches as a way to manage genotyping errors in parentage assignment by exclusion , 2006 .

[19]  Aaron P. Wagner,et al.  Estimating relatedness and relationships using microsatellite loci with null alleles , 2006, Heredity.

[20]  S. Kalinowski,et al.  Individual Identification and Distribution of Genotypic Differences Between Individuals , 2006 .

[21]  Aaron P. Wagner,et al.  ml‐relate: a computer program for maximum likelihood estimation of relatedness and relationship , 2006 .

[22]  S. Kalinowski,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of the frequency of null alleles at microsatellite loci , 2006, Conservation Genetics.