The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies
Abstract
Genotyping errors occur when the genotype determined after molecular analysis does not correspond to the real genotype of the individual under consideration. Virtually every genetic data set includes some erroneous genotypes, but genotyping errors remain a taboo subject in population genetics, even though they might greatly bias the final conclusions, especially for studies based on individual identification. Here, we consider four case studies representing a large variety of population genetics investigations differing in their sampling strategies (noninvasive or traditional), in the type of organism studied (plant or animal) and the molecular markers used [microsatellites or amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs)]. In these data sets, the estimated genotyping error rate ranges from 0.8% for microsatellite loci from bear tissues to 2.6% for AFLP loci from dwarf birch leaves. Main sources of errors were allelic dropouts for microsatellites and differences in peak intensities for AFLPs, but in both cases human factors were non‐negligible error generators. Therefore, tracking genotyping errors and identifying their causes are necessary to clean up the data sets and validate the final results according to the precision required. In addition, we propose the outline of a protocol designed to limit and quantify genotyping errors at each step of the genotyping process. In particular, we recommend (i) several efficient precautions to prevent contaminations and technical artefacts; (ii) systematic use of blind samples and automation; (iii) experience and rigor for laboratory work and scoring; and (iv) systematic reporting of the error rate in population genetics studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR
Taberlet, P. (1996) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/24.16.3189 · Cited by 1,491
Self-citationHofreiter, M., Serre, D., Poinar, H. N., Kuch, M., & Pääbo, S. (2001) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/35072071 · Cited by 781
Cited by
SKREDE, I., EIDESEN, P. B., PORTELA, R. P., & BROCHMANN, C. (2006) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.02908.x · Cited by 2,746
Self-citationParentage and Sibship Inference From Multilocus Genotype Data Under Polygamy
Wang, J., & Santure, A. W. (2009) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.108.100214 · Cited by 474
Epigenetic Variation in Mangrove Plants Occurring in Contrasting Natural Environment
Lira-Medeiros, C. F., Parisod, C., Fernandes, R. A., Mata, C. S., Cardoso, M. A., & Ferreira, P. C. G. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010326 · Cited by 361
Ecologically relevant dispersal of corals on isolated reefs: implications for managing resilience
Underwood, J. N., Smith, L. D., Oppen, M. J. H. V., & Gilmour, J. P. (2009) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/07-1461.1 · Cited by 157
Genome-wide association studies and the genetic dissection of complex traits
Sebastiani, P., Timofeev, N., Dworkis, D. A., Perls, T. T., & Steinberg, M. H. (2009) · American Journal of Hematology · doi:10.1002/ajh.21440 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- BONIN, A., BELLEMAIN, E., BRONKEN EIDESEN, P., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & TABERLET, P.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-10-15
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3261-3273
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2130562173
- Cited by
- 1,416
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 23.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02346.x
- The paper
- BONIN, A., BELLEMAIN, E., BRONKEN EIDESEN, P., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & TABERLET, P. (2004). How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02346.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.