Cited by 8Genetic diversity and population structureAnimal Behavior and ReproductionGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock

Paternity testing using microsatellite DNA markers in captive Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae)

Sakaoka, Ken, Suzuki, Isao, Kasugai, Naeko, Fukumoto, Yohei·2014·Zoo Biology

Abstract

We investigated the paternity of 39 Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) hatched at the Port of Nagoya Public Aquarium between 1995 and 2005 breeding seasons using microsatellite DNA markers. Among the 13 microsatellite marker loci tested in this study, eight markers amplified and were found to be polymorphic in the colony's founders of the captive population (n = 26). Multiple marker analysis confirmed that all the hatchlings shared alleles with their social fathers and that none of them were sired by any male (all males ≥4 years old in the exhibit tank during each reproductive season; n = 9-15) other than the one carrying out parental duties, except in the case of two inbred hatchlings whose half-sibling parents shared the same father. These results demonstrated that extra-pair paternity (EPP) did not occur in this captive population and that even if EPP has been detected among them, the probability of excluding all other possible fathers in the exhibit tank is extremely high based on paternity exclusion probabilities across the investigated loci. The paternity exclusion probabilities were almost the same between 1994 and 2005. The probability of identity across the investigated loci declined between the two time points, but was still high. These results are reflected in a very short history of breeding in this captive population. In other words, the parentage analyses using a suite of microsatellite markers will be less effective as generations change in small closed popul…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/zoo.21165

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sakaoka, K., Suzuki, I., Kasugai, N., & Fukumoto, Y.
Affiliations
Nagoya Heart Center (JP)
Corresponding author
Sakaoka, Ken
Venue
Zoo Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08-26
Volume
33
Issue
5
Pages
463-470
ISSN
  • 0733-3188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2361
OpenAlex
W2150974394
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Zoo Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Keywords
Pygoscelis adeliae, paternity testing, extra-pair paternity, microsatellite markers, paternity exclusion probability, parentage analysis, captive breeding, inbreeding, probability of identity
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Zoo, Genotype, Male, Paternity, Probability, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Microsatellite Repeats, Spheniscidae

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review