The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Similarity coefficients for molecular markers in studies of genetic relationships between individuals for haploid, diploid, and polyploid species
Abstract
Determining true genetic dissimilarity between individuals is an important and decisive point for clustering and analysing diversity within and among populations, because different dissimilarity indices may yield conflicting outcomes. We show that there are no acceptable universal approaches to assessing the dissimilarity between individuals with molecular markers. Different measures are relevant to dominant and codominant DNA markers depending on the ploidy of organisms. The Dice coefficient is the suitable measure for haploids with codominant markers and it can be applied directly to (0,1)‐vectors representing banding profiles of individuals. None of the common measures, Dice, Jaccard, simple mismatch coefficient (or the squared Euclidean distance), is appropriate for diploids with codominant markers. By transforming multiallelic banding patterns at each locus into the corresponding homozygous or heterozygous states, a new measure of dissimilarity within locus was developed and expanded to assess dissimilarity between multilocus states of two individuals by averaging across all codominant loci tested. There is no rigorous well‐founded solution in the case of dominant markers. The simple mismatch coefficient is the most suitable measure of dissimilarity between banding patterns of closely related haploid forms. For distantly related haploid individuals, the Jaccard dissimilarity is recommended. In general, no suitable method for measuring genetic dissimilarity between diploids with dominant markers can be proposed. Banding patterns of diploids with dominant markers and polyploids with codominant markers represent individuals’ phenotypes rather than genotypes. All dissimilarity measures proposed and developed herein are metrics.
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
Cited by
P op G en R eport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R
Adamack, A. T., & Gruber, B. (2014) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12158 · Cited by 640
Almost Forgotten or Latest Practice? AFLP applications, analyses and advances
Meudt, H. M., & Clarke, A. C. (2007) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2007.02.001 · Cited by 615
Exploiting genetic diversity from landraces in wheat breeding for adaptation to climate change
Lopes, M. S., El-Basyoni, I., Baenziger, P. S., Singh, S., Royo, C., Ozbek, K., Aktas, H., Ozer, E., Ozdemir, F., Manickavelu, A., et al. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erv122 · Cited by 535
Analysis of multilocus fingerprinting data sets containing missing data
SCHLÜTER, P. M., & HARRIS, S. A. (2006) · Molecular Ecology Notes · doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01225.x · Cited by 444
Soto-Rodriguez, S. A., Gomez-Gil, B., Lozano-Olvera, R., Betancourt-Lozano, M., & Morales-Covarrubias, M. S. (2015) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.03610-14 · Cited by 395
Metadata
- Authors
- KOSMAN, E., & LEONARD, K. J.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 415-424
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2118557731
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.57
- 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: Similarity coefficients for molecular markers in studies of genetic relationships between individuals for haploid, diploid, and polyploid species. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2005.02416.x
- The paper
- KOSMAN, E., & LEONARD, K. J. (2005). Similarity coefficients for molecular markers in studies of genetic relationships between individuals for haploid, diploid, and polyploid species. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2005.02416.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.