Abstract
Relatedness between individuals is central to many studies in genetics and population biology. A variety of estimators have been developed to enable molecular marker data to quantify relatedness. Despite this, no effort has been given to characterize the traditional maximum-likelihood estimator in relation to the remainder. This article quantifies its statistical performance under a range of biologically relevant sampling conditions. Under the same range of conditions, the statistical performance of five other commonly used estimators of relatedness is quantified. Comparison among these estimators indicates that the traditional maximum-likelihood estimator exhibits a lower standard error under essentially all conditions. Only for very large amounts of genetic information do most of the other estimators approach the likelihood estimator. However, the likelihood estimator is more biased than any of the others, especially when the amount of genetic information is low or the actual relationship being estimated is near the boundary of the parameter space. Even under these conditions, the amount of bias can be greatly reduced, potentially to biologically irrelevant levels, with suitable genetic sampling. Additionally, the likelihood estimator generally exhibits the lowest root mean-square error, an indication that the bias in fact is quite small. Alternative estimators restricted to yield only biologically interpretable estimates exhibit lower standard errors and greater bias than do unrestricted ones, but generally do not improve over the maximum-likelihood estimator and in some cases exhibit even greater bias. Although some nonlikelihood estimators exhibit better performance with respect to specific metrics under some conditions, none approach the high level of performance exhibited by the likelihood estimator across all conditions and all metrics of performance.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (188.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Boehnke M., Cox N. J. Accurate inference of relationships in sib-pair linkage studies. Am J Hum Genet. 1997 Aug;61(2):423–429. doi: 10.1086/514862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Broman K. W., Weber J. L. Estimation of pairwise relationships in the presence of genotyping errors. Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Nov;63(5):1563–1564. doi: 10.1086/302112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lynch M., Ritland K. Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics. 1999 Aug;152(4):1753–1766. doi: 10.1093/genetics/152.4.1753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ritland K. Marker-inferred relatedness as a tool for detecting heritability in nature. Mol Ecol. 2000 Sep;9(9):1195–1204. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.00971.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sieberts Solveig K., Wijsman Ellen M., Thompson Elizabeth A. Relationship inference from trios of individuals, in the presence of typing error. Am J Hum Genet. 2001 Nov 28;70(1):170–180. doi: 10.1086/338444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thomas S. C., Pemberton J. M., Hill W. G. Estimating variance components in natural populations using inferred relationships. Heredity (Edinb) 2000 Apr;84(Pt 4):427–436. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00681.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Thompson E. A. The estimation of pairwise relationships. Ann Hum Genet. 1975 Oct;39(2):173–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1975.tb00120.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Van de Casteele T., Galbusera P., Matthysen E. A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators. Mol Ecol. 2001 Jun;10(6):1539–1549. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01288.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wang Jinliang. An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics. 2002 Mar;160(3):1203–1215. doi: 10.1093/genetics/160.3.1203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]