Cited by 136Genetic diversity and population structureForensic and Genetic ResearchGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms

Glaubitz, Jeffrey C., Rhodes, O. Eugene, Dewoody, J. Andrew·2003·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

An extraordinarily large number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are now available in humans as well as in other model organisms. Technological advancements may soon make it feasible to assay hundreds of SNPs in virtually any organism of interest. One potential application of SNPs is the determination of pairwise genetic relationships in populations without known pedigrees. Although microsatellites are currently the marker of choice for this purpose, the number of independently segregating microsatellite markers that can be feasibly assayed is limited. Thus, it can be difficult to distinguish reliably some classes of relationship (e.g. full‐sibs from half‐sibs) with microsatellite data alone. We assess, via Monte Carlo computer simulation, the potential for using a large panel of independently segregating SNPs to infer genetic relationships, following the analytical approach of Blouin et al. (1996). We have explored a ‘best case scenario’ in which 100 independently segregating SNPs are available. For discrimination among single‐generation relationships or for the identification of parent–offspring pairs, it appears that such a panel of moderately polymorphic SNPs (minor allele frequency of 0.20) will provide discrimination power equivalent to only 16–20 independently segregating microsatellites. Although newly available analytical methods that can account for tight genetic linkage between markers will, in theory, allow improved estimation of relationships using thousands of SNPs in highly dense genomic scans, in practice such studies will only be feasible in a handful of model organisms. Given the comparable amount of effort required for the development of both types of markers, it seems that microsatellites will remain the marker of choice for relationship estimation in nonmodel organisms, at least for the foreseeable future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01790.x

Cites

49 of 49 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
Glaubitz, J. C., Rhodes, O. E., & Dewoody, J. A.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Glaubitz, Jeffrey C.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-03-28
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
1039-1047
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2150374976
Cited by
136
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
single nucleotide polymorphisms, microsatellite markers, relationship inference, minor allele frequency, genetic linkage, non-model organisms, population genetics
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Pedigree, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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