Computationally efficient sibship and parentage assignment from multilocus marker data
Open accessAbstract
Quite a few methods have been proposed to infer sibship and parentage among individuals from their multilocus marker genotypes. They are all based on Mendelian laws either qualitatively (exclusion methods) or quantitatively (likelihood methods), have different optimization criteria, and use different algorithms in searching for the optimal solution. The full-likelihood method assigns sibship and parentage relationships among all sampled individuals jointly. It is by far the most accurate method, but is computationally prohibitive for large data sets with many individuals and many loci. In this article I propose a new likelihood-based method that is computationally efficient enough to handle large data sets. The method uses the sum of the log likelihoods of pairwise relationships in a configuration as the score to measure its plausibility, where log likelihoods of pairwise relationships are calculated only once and stored for repeated use. By analyzing several empirical and many simulated data sets, I show that the new method is more accurate than pairwise likelihood and exclusion-based methods, but is slightly less accurate than the full-likelihood method. However, the new method is computationally much more efficient than the full-likelihood method, and for the cases of both sexes polygamous and markers with genotyping errors, it can be several orders faster. The new method can handle a large sample with thousands of individuals and the number of markers limited only by the computer memory.
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
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.
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?
Previous studies proved that the FL method is the most accurate and that COLONY outperforms other commonly used software in carrying out parentage analysis.
“Actually, previous studies proved that the FL method is the most accurate (Wang 2004(Wang , 2012;;Wang and Santure 2009) and that COLONY outperforms other commonly used software in carrying out parentage analysis (Wang 2012;Ferrie et al. 2013;Harrison et al. 2013).”
From Molecular Genetics Unveiled Unknown Family Relationships and Hybrids in an Ex-Situ Colony of African Penguins (Spheniscus demersus) (2018) · cites this paper as Wang 2012
The Marker information section reports that FL outperformed LS and PL in the parentage comparisons, supporting the claim about FL's accuracy within those tests. The Evaluation of the Method section says FL was implemented in COLONY2, but the paper does not establish that COLONY outperforms other commonly used software for parentage analysis; it compares methods rather than software packages. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Herbinger, C. M., P. T. O'Reilly, R. W. Doyle, J. M. Wright, and F. O'Flynn, 1999 Early growth performance of Atlantic salmon full-sib families reared in single tanks vs. in mixed family tanks. Aquaculture 173: 105-116.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Modesto, P., Biolatti, C., Favaro, L., Colussi, S., Peletto, S., Piga, S., Riina, M. V., Pessani, D., Trincas, E., Isaja, V., et al. (2018) · Journal of Heredity · doi:10.1093/jhered/esy032 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, J.
- Affiliations
- Zoological Society of London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Jinliang
- ORCID
- Wang, Jinliang
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-05-01
- Volume
- 191
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 183-194
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- PMC
- PMC3338259
- OpenAlex
- W2134120469
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Genetics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/D011035/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- parentage assignment, likelihood-based inference, computational efficiency, exclusion method, polygamy, genotyping errors, Mendelian laws
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Animals, Ants, Female, Genetic Markers, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Parents, Salmon, Time Factors, Siblings, Genetic Loci, Genotyping Techniques
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