Cited by 1,437Genetic diversity and population structureForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines

Waits, Lisette P., Luikart, Gordon, Taberlet, Pierre·2001·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Individual identification using DNA fingerprinting methods is emerging as a critical tool in conservation genetics and molecular ecology. Statistical methods that estimate the probability of sampling identical genotypes using theoretical equations generally assume random associations between alleles within and among loci. These calculations are probably inaccurate for many animal and plant populations due to population substructure. We evaluated the accuracy of a probability of identity (P(ID)) estimation by comparing the observed and expected P(ID), using large nuclear DNA microsatellite data sets from three endangered species: the grey wolf (Canis lupus), the brown bear (Ursus arctos), and the Australian northern hairy‐nosed wombat (Lasiorinyus krefftii). The theoretical estimates of P(ID) were consistently lower than the observed P(ID), and can differ by as much as three orders of magnitude. To help researchers and managers avoid potential problems associated with this bias, we introduce an equation for P(ID) between sibs. This equation provides an estimator that can be used as a conservative upper bound for the probability of observing identical multilocus genotypes between two individuals sampled from a population. We suggest computing the actual observed P(ID) when possible and give general guidelines for the number of codominant and dominant marker loci required to achieve a reasonably low P(ID) (e.g. 0.01–0.0001).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01185.x

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waits, L. P., Luikart, G., & Taberlet, P.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Waits, Lisette P.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
249-256
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2046403313
Cited by
1,437
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 86 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 70 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 60 · 2012: 86
FWCI
10.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
probability of identity, DNA fingerprinting, microsatellite markers, population substructure, allele association, individual identification, threatened species, grey wolf, brown bear, conservation genetics
MeSH terms
Animals, Ursidae, Genetics, Population, Marsupialia, Probability, Models, Statistical, Bias, DNA Fingerprinting, Microsatellite Repeats, Wolves

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