Key Points
-
Although genotyping errors affect most data and can markedly influence the biological conclusions of a study, they are too often neglected.
-
Genotyping errors can result from very diverse, complex, and sometimes cryptic origins and are linked to the primary DNA sequence itself, the low quality or quantity of the DNA sample, biochemical artefacts or human factors.
-
Although several estimates of genotyping error rates are commonly used, the error rate per locus is considered to be the most universal metric, as it allows comparisons to be made between studies and different types of markers.
-
Even low rates of genotyping error can markedly affect linkage and association studies, individual identification and population genetic studies.
-
The optimal strategies to limit the occurrence and the impact of genotyping errors are case-specific and will be determined by several factors (for example, biological question, tolerable error rate, equipment and technical skills locally available).
-
General recommendations are provided to help researchers to build their own procedure to face genotyping errors by limiting the production of errors during genotyping, cleaning the dataset after genotyping and analysing data taking into account the errors.
-
Providing information about the methods for error detection and error rate estimation in published work would make it possible to assign a quality index to each genotype, and would allow the scientific community to critically assess unexpected results.
Abstract
Although genotyping errors affect most data and can markedly influence the biological conclusions of a study, they are too often neglected. Errors have various causes, but their occurrence and effect can be limited by considering these causes in the production and analysis of the data. Procedures that have been developed for dealing with errors in linkage studies, forensic analyses and non-invasive genotyping should be applied more broadly to any genetic study. We propose a protocol for estimating error rates and recommend that these measures be systemically reported to attest the reliability of published genotyping studies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$189.00 per year
only $15.75 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gagneux, P., Woodruff, D. S. & Boesch, C. Furtive mating in female chimpanzees. Nature 387, 358–359 (1997).
Gagneux, P., Boesch, C. & Woodruff, D. S. Microsatellite scoring errors associated with noninvasive genotyping based on nuclear DNA amplified from shed hair. Mol. Ecol. 6, 861–868 (1997). This paper deals with genotyping errors in non-invasive studies and is the first one to mention 'allelic dropout'.
Bonin, A. et al. How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies. Mol. Ecol. 13, 3261–3273 (2004). An extensive study of the causes and consequences of genotyping errors on AFLP and microsatellite data, with practical recommendations for limiting error occurrence and effect.
Thompson, E. A. A paradox of genealogical inference. Adv. Appl. Probab. 8, 648–650 (1976).
Taberlet, P., Waits, L. P. & Luikart, G. Noninvasive genetic sampling: look before you leap. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 323–327 (1999). This article focuses on the processes for limiting the occurrence of genotyping errors in non-invasive studies, highlighting the role of pilot studies.
Hoffman, J. I. & Amos, W. Microsatellite genotyping errors: detection approaches, common sources and consequences for paternal exclusion. Mol. Ecol. 14, 599–612 (2005). A careful examination of the causes of genotyping errors on microsatellite data, showing the importance of human factors.
Ewen, K. R. et al. Identification and analysis of error types in high-throughput genotyping. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67, 727–736 (2000).
Göring, H. H. H. & Terwilliger, J. D. Linkage analysis in the presence of errors II: Marker-locus genotyping errors modeled with hypercomplex recombination fractions. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 1107–1118 (2000).
Brzustowicz, L. M. et al. Molecular and statistical approaches to the detection and correction of errors in genotype databases. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 53, 1137–1145 (1993).
Taberlet, P. et al. Reliable genotyping of samples with very low DNA quantities using PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 24, 3189–3194 (1996). This study shows the difficulty for producing reliable genotype data that is due to the occurrence of false alleles and false homozygotes (that is, allelic dropout).
Taberlet, P. et al. Noninvasive genetic tracking of the endangered Pyrenean brown bear population. Mol. Ecol. 6, 869–876 (1997).
Mitchell, A. A., Zwick, M. E., Chakravarti, A. & Cutler, D. J. Discrepancies in dbSNP confirmation rates and allele frequency distributions from varying genotyping error rates and patterns. Bioinformatics 20, 1022–1032 (2004).
Abecasis, G. R., Cherny, S. S. & Cardon, L. R. The impact of genotyping error on family-based analysis of quantitative traits. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 9, 130–134 (2001).
Yao, Y. -G., Bravi, C. M. & Bandelt, H. -J. A call for mtDNA data quality control in forensic science. Forensic Sci. Int. 141, 1–6 (2004).
Schlötterer, C. The evolution of molecular markers — just a matter of fashion? Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 63–69 (2004).
Bandelt, H. J., Lahermo, P., Richards, M. & Macaulay, V. The fingerprint of phantom mutations in mitochondrial DNA data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71, 1150–1160 (2002).
Callen, D. F. et al. Incidence and origin of 'null' alleles in the (AC)n microsatellite markers. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52, 922–927 (1993). The first study to report the occurrence of non-amplifying microsatellite alleles (that is, null alleles).
Paetkau, D. & Strobeck, C. The molecular basis and evolutionary history of a microsatellite null allele in bears. Mol. Ecol. 4, 519–520 (1995).
Brownstein, M. J., Carpten, J. D. & Smith, J. R. Modulation of non-templated nucleotide addition by Taq DNA polymerase: primer modifications that facilitate genotyping. BioTechniques 20, 1004–1010 (1996).
Magnuson, V. L. et al. Substrate nucleotide-determined non-templates addition of adenine by Taq DNA polymerase: implications for PCR-based genotyping and cloning. BioTechniques 21, 700–709 (1996).
Li, J. L. et al. Toward high-throughput genotyping: dynamic and automatic software for manipulating large-scale genotype data using fluorescently labeled dinucleotide markers. Genome Res. 11, 1304–1314 (2001).
Ghosh, S. et al. Methods for precise sizing, automated binning of alleles, and reduction of error rates in large-scale genotyping using fluorescently labeled dinucleotide markers. Genome Res. 7, 165–178 (1997).
Creel, S. et al. Population size estimation in Yellowstone wolves with error-prone noninvasive microsatellite genotypes. Mol. Ecol. 12, 2003–2009 (2003).
Waits, J. L. & Leberg, P. L. Biases associated with population estimation using molecular tagging. Anim. Conserv. 3, 191–199 (2000).
Gordon, D., Heath, S. C. & Ott, J. True pedigree errors more frequent than apparent errors for single nucleotide polymorphisms. Hum. Hered. 49, 65–70 (1999).
Geller, F. & Ziegler, A. Detection rates for genotyping errors in SNPs using the trio design. Hum. Hered. 54, 111–117 (2002).
Akey, J. M., Zhang, K., Xiong, M. M., Doris, P. & Jin, L. The effect that genotyping errors have on the robustness of common linkage-disequilibrium measures. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68, 1447–1456 (2001). A study that investigates the effects of genotyping error on estimates of linkage disequilibrium, and shows that the robustness of the estimates depends on allelic frequencies and assumed error models.
Kirk, K. M. & Cardon, L. R. The impact of genotyping error on haplotype reconstruction and frequency estimation. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 10, 616–622 (2002).
Hackett, C. A. & Broadfott, L. B. Effects of genotyping errors, missing values and segregation distortion in molecular marker data on the construction of linkage maps. Heredity 90, 33–38 (2003).
Buetow, K. H. Influence of aberrant observations on high-resolution linkage analysis outcomes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 49, 985–994 (1991).
Goldstein, D. R., Zhao, H. Y. & Speed, T. P. The effects of genotyping errors and interference on estimation of genetic distance. Hum. Hered. 47, 86–100 (1997).
Douglas, J. A., Boehnke, M. & Lange, K. A multipoint method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in sibling-pair linkage data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 1287–1297 (2000).
Terwilliger, J. D., Weeks, D. E. & Ott, J. Laboratory errors in the reading of marker alleles cause massive reductions in LOD score and lead to gross overestimation of the recombination fraction. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 47, A201 (1990).
Gordon, D., Matisse, T. C., Heath, S. C. & Ott, J. Power loss for multiallelic transmission/disequilibrium test when errors introduced: GAW11 simulated data. Genet. Epidemiol. 17, S587–S592 (1999).
Rebbeck, T. R. et al. SNPs, haplotypes, and cancer: applications in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 13, 681–687 (2004).
Pemberton, J. M., Slate, J., Bancroft, D. R. & Barrett, J. A. Non-amplifying alleles at microsatellite loci: a caution for parentage and population studies. Mol. Ecol. 4, 249–252 (1995).
Marshall, T. C., Slate, J., Kruuk, L. E. B. & Pemberton, J. M. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 7, 639–655 (1998).
Dakin, E. E. & Avise, J. C. Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 93, 504–509 (2004).
Weiser Easteal, P. & Easteal, S. The forensic use of DNA profiling. Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 26, 1–8 (1990).
Luikart, G., England, P., Tallmon, D., Jordan, S. & Taberlet, P. The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nature Rev. Genet. 4, 981–994 (2003).
Paetkau, D. An empirical exploration of data quality in DNA-based population inventories. Mol. Ecol. 12, 1375–1387 (2003). A review of the various approaches that were designed to probe the reliability of data in non-invasive studies on bears.
Douglas, J. A., Skol, A. D. & Boehnke, M. Probability of detection of genotyping errors and mutations as inheritance inconsistencies in nuclear-family data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70, 487–495 (2002).
Butler, J. M. Forensic DNA Typing: Biology and Technology Behind STR Markers (Academic Press, San Diego, 2001).
Perlin, M. W., Lancia, G. & Ng, S. K. Toward fully automated genotyping: genotyping microsatellite markers by deconvolution. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 57, 1199–1210 (1995).
Papa, R., Troggio, M., Ajmone-Marsan, P. & Nonnis Marzano, F. An improved protocol for the production of AFLP markers in complex genomes by means of capillary electrophoresis. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 122, 62–68 (2005).
Millikan, R. The changing face of epidemiology in the genomics era. Epidemiology 13, 472–480 (2002).
Navidi, W., Arnheim, N. & Waterman, M. S. A multiple-tubes approach for accurate genotyping of very small DNA samples by using PCR: statistical considerations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 50, 347–359 (1992).
Miller, C. R., Joyce, P. & Waits, L. P. Assessing allelic drop out and genotype reliability using maximum likelihood. Genetics 160, 357–366 (2002).
Paetkau, D., Calvert, W., Stirling, I. & Strobeck, C. Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Mol. Ecol. 4, 347–354 (1995).
Tenenbein, A. A double sampling scheme for estimating from misclassified multinomial data with applications to sampling inspection. Technometrics 14, 187–202 (1972).
Stringham, H. M. & Boehnke, M. Identifying marker typing incompatibilities in linkage analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 59, 946–950 (1996).
Gordon, D., Heath, S. C., Liu, X. & Ott, J. A transmission/disequilibrium test that allows for genotyping errors in the analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphism data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, 371–380 (2001).
Boehnke, M. & Cox, N. J. Accurate inference of relationships in sib-pair linkage studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61, 423–429 (1997).
Gordon, D. et al. A transmission disequilibrium test for general pedigrees that is robust to the presence of random genotyping errors and any number of untyped parents. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12, 752–761 (2004).
Lange, K. et al. Mendel version 4.0: a complete package for the exact genetic analysis of discrete traits in pedigree and population data sets. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69, A1886 (2001).
Chakraborty, R., De Andrade, M., Daiger, S. P. & Budowle, B. Apparent heterozygote deficiencies observed in DNA typing data and their implications in forensic applications. Ann. Hum. Genet. 56, 45–57 (1992).
Gomes, I. et al. Hardy–Weinberg quality control. Ann. Hum. Genet. 63, 535–538 (1999).
Xu, J., Turner, A., Little, J., Bleecker, E. R. & Meyers, D. A. Positive results in association studies are associated with departure from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium: hint for genotyping error? Hum. Genet. 111, 573–574 (2002).
Hosking, L. et al. Detection of genotyping errors by Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium testing. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 12, 395–399 (2004).
Morton, N. E. & Collins, A. E. Statistical and genetic aspects of quality control for DNA identification. Electrophoresis 16, 1670–1677 (1995).
Morris, R. W. & Kaplan, N. L. Testing for association with a case-parents design in the presence of genotyping errors. Genet. Epidemiol. 26, 142–154 (2004).
Kang, S. J., Gordon, D. & Finch, S. J. What SNP genotyping errors are most costly for genetic association studies? Genet. Epidemiol. 26, 132–141 (2004).
Zou, G. H. & Zhao, H. Y. The impact of errors in individual genotyping and DNA pooling on association studies. Genet. Epidemiol. 26, 1–10 (2004).
Rice, K. M. & Holmans, P. Allowing for genotyping error in analysis of unmatched case-control studies. Ann. Hum. Genet. 67, 165–174 (2003).
Sobel, E., Papp, J. C. & Lange, K. Detection and integration of genotyping errors in statistical genetics. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70, 496–508 (2002). A nice reference study that illustrates several possibilities for integrating genotyping errors in statistical analyses in human pedigree studies.
Wang, J. L. Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing error. Genetics 166, 1963–1979 (2004).
Duchesne, P., Gobout, M. -H. & Bernatchez, L. PAPA (Package for the Analysis of Parental Allocation): a computer program for simulated and real parental allocation. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2, 191–194 (2002).
Gordon, D. et al. Increasing power for tests of genetic association in the presence of phenotype and/or genotype error by use of double-sampling. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 3, a26 (2004).
Weeks, D. E., Conley, Y. P., Ferrell, R. E., Mah, T. S. & Gorin, M. B. A tale of two genotypes: consistency between two high-throughput genotyping centers. Genome Res. 12, 430–435 (2002).
Jones, C. J. et al. Reproducibility testing of RAPD, AFLP and SSR markers in plants by a network of European laboratories. Mol. Breed. 3, 381–390 (1997).
Dequeker, E. & Cassiman, J. J. Evaluation of CFTR gene mutation testing methods in 136 diagnostic laboratories: report of a large European external quality assessment. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 6, 165–175 (1998).
Muller, C. R. Quality control in mutation analysis: the European Molecular Genetics Quality Network (EMQN). Eur. J. Pediatr. 160, 464–467 (2001).
Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME) — toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genet. 29, 365–371 (2001).
Smith, C. A. B. Counting methods in genetic statistics. Ann. Hum. Genet. 21, 254–276 (1957).
Stevens, W. L. Estimation of blood-group gene frequencies. Ann. Eugen. Lond. 8, 362–375 (1938).
Zischler, H. et al. Detecting dinosaur DNA. Science 268, 1192–1193 (1995).
Austin, J. J., Ross, A. J., Smith, A. B., Fortey, R. A. & Thomas, R. H. Problems of reproducibility — does geologically ancient DNA survive in amber-preserved insects? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 467–474 (1997).
Quackenbush, J. Computational analysis of microarray data. Nature Rev. Genet. 2, 418–427 (2001).
Aach, J., Rindone, W. & Church, G. M. Systematic management and analysis of yeast gene expression data. Genome Res. 10, 431–445 (2000).
Broquet, T. & Petit, E. Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol. Ecol. 13, 3601–3608 (2004). A critical analysis of the various methods available to estimate allelic dropout rates and false allele rates in protocols designed for non-invasive studies.
Bellemain, E., Swenson, J. E. & Taberlet, P. Mating strategies in relation to sexually selected infanticide in a nonsocial carnivore: the brown bear. Ethology 111, 1–14 (2005).
Paetkau, D. & Strobeck, C. Microsatellite analysis of genetic variation in black bear populations. Mol. Ecol. 3, 489–495 (1994).
Waits, L. P., Taberlet, P., Swenson, J. E. & Sandegren, F. Nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity and gene flow in the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos). Mol. Ecol. 9, 421–431 (2000).
Cercueil, A., Bellemain, E. & Manel, S. PARENTE: computer program for parentage analysis. J. Hered. 93, 458–459 (2003).
Walsh, P. S., Erlich, H. A. & Higuchi, R. Preferential PCR amplification of alleles: mechanisms and solutions. PCR Methods Appl. 1, 241–250 (1992).
Shaw, P. W., Pierce, G. J. & Boyle, P. R. Subtle population structuring within a highly vagile marine invertebrate, the veined squid Loligo forbesi, demonstrated wityh microsatellite DNA markers. Mol. Ecol. 8, 407–417 (1999).
Vekemans, X., Beauwens, T., Lemaire, M. & Roldan-Ruiz, I. Data from amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers show indication of size homoplasy and of a relationship between degree of homoplasy and fragment size. Mol. Ecol. 11, 139–151 (2002).
Lindahl, T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA. Nature 362, 709–715 (1993).
Wattier, R., Engel, C. R., Saumitou-Laprade, P. & Valera, M. Short allele dominance as a source of heterozygote deficiency at microsatellite loci: experimental evidence at the dinucleotide locus Gv1CT in Gracilaria gracilis (Rhodophyta). Mol. Ecol. 7, 1569–1573 (1998).
Martinez, J. G. & Burke, T. Microsatellite typing of sperm trapped in the perivitelline layers of avian eggs. J. Avian Biol. 34, 20–24 (2003).
Kohn, M. H. & Wayne, R. K. Facts from feces revisited. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 223–227 (1997). A review on non-invasive DNA analyses from faeces, with valuable technical notes on the sources of error.
Valière, N. & Taberlet, P. Urine collected in the field as a source of DNA for species and individual identification. Mol. Ecol. 9, 2150–2152 (2000).
Uchihi, R., Tamaki, K., Kojima, T., Yamamoto, T. & Katsumata, Y. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) typing of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQA1 from single hairs in Japanese. J. Forensic Sci. 37, 853–859 (1992).
Koonjul, P. K., Brandt, W. F., Farrant, J. M. & Lindsey, G. G. Inclusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone in the polymerase chain reaction reverses the inhibitory effects of polyphenolic contamination of RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 915–916 (1999).
Foucault, F., Praz, F., Jaulin, C. & Amor-Gueret, M. Experimental limits of PCR analysis of (CA)n repeats alterations. Trends Genet. 12, 450–452 (1996).
Parsons, K. M. Reliable microsatellite genotyping of dolphin DNA from faeces. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1, 341–344 (2001).
Shinde, D., Lai, Y., Sun, F. & Arnheim, N. Taq DNA polymerase slippage mutation rates measured by PCR and quasi-likelihood analysis: (CA/GT)n and (A/T)n microsatellites. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 974–980 (2003).
Polisky, B. et al. Specificity of substrate recognition by the EcoRI restriction endonuclease. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 72, 3310–3314 (1975).
Haberl, M. & Tautz, D. Comparative allele sizing can produce inaccurate allele size differences microsatellites. Mol. Ecol. 8, 1347–1350 (1999).
Delmotte, F., Leterme, N. & Simon, J. -C. Microsatellite allele sizing: difference between automated capillary electrophoresis and manual technique. BioTechniques 31, 810–818 (2001).
Fernando, P., Evans, B. J., Morales, J. C. & Melnick, D. J. Electrophoresis artefacts — a previously unrecognized cause of error in microsatellite analysis. Mol. Ecol. Notes 1, 325–328 (2001).
Davison, A. & Chiba, S. Laboratory temperature variation is a previously unrecognized source of genotyping error during capillary electrophoresis. Mol. Ecol. Notes 3, 321–323 (2003).
Gerloff, U. et al. Amplification of hypervariable simple sequence repeats (microsatellites) from excremental DNA of wild bonobos (Pan paniscus). Mol. Ecol. 4, 515–518 (1995).
Constable, J. L., Ashley, M. V., Goodall, J. & Pusey, A. E. Noninvasive paternity assignment in Gombe chimpanzees. Mol. Ecol. 10, 1279–1300 (2001).
Matsuzaki, H. et al. Parallel genotyping of over 10,000 SNPs using a one-primer assay on a high-density oligonucleotide array. Genome Res. 14, 414–425 (2004).
Ekstrom, C. T. Detecting low-quality markers using map expanders. Genet. Epidemiol. 25, 214–224 (2003).
van Oosterhout, C., Hutchinson, W. F., Wills, D. P. M. & Shipley, P. Micro-checker: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 535–538 (2004).
Valière, N., Berthier, P., Mouchiroud, D. & Pontier, D. GEMINI: software for testing the effects of genotyping errors and multitubes approach for individual identification. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2, 83–86 (2002).
Gordon, D., Finch, S. J., Nothnagel, M. & Ott, J. Power and sample size calculations for case-control genetic association tests when errors are present: application to single nucleotide polymorphisms. Hum. Hered. 54, 22–23 (2002).
Gordon, D., Levenstien, M. A., Finch, S. J. & Ott, J. Errors and linkage disequilibrium interact multiplicatively when computing sample sizes for genetic case-control association studies. Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 490–501 (2003).
McPeek, M. S. & Sun, L. Statistical tests for detection of misspecified relationships by use of genome-screen data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66, 1076–1094 (2000).
O'Connell, J. R. & Weeks, D. E. PedCheck: a program for identification of genotype incompatibilities in linkage analysis. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63, 259–266 (1998).
Ehm, M. G., Cottingham, R. W. Jr & Kimmel, M. Error detection in genetic linkage data using likelihood based methods. J. Biol. Syst. 3, 13–25 (1995).
Broman, K. W., Wu, H., Sen, S. & Churchill, G. A. R/qtl: QTL mapping in experimental crosses. Bioinformatics 19, 889–890 (2003).
Valière, N. GIMLET: a computer program for analysing genetic individual identification data. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2, 377–379 (2002).
McKelvey, K. S. & Schwartz, M. K. DROPOUT: a program to identify problem loci and samples for noninvasive genetic samples in a capture-mark-recapture framework. Mol. Ecol. Notes 5, 716–718 (2005).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to G. Luikart for fruitful discussions and comments on the manuscript and to the persons from the Scandinavian Brown Bear Research Project who provided the bear samples. They thank three anonymous reviewers for providing references and helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Related links
Related links
FURTHER INFORMATION
An alphabetical list of genetic analysis software
DNA Advisory Board Quality Assurance Standards for Forensic DNA Testing Laboratories
European Molecular Genetics Quality Network
Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment
Programs useful for detecting genotyping and pedigree errors
Glossary
- PATERNITY EXCLUSION
-
The elimination of a male as the potential father of a given offspring, owing to incompatibility between the multilocus genotypes of the two individuals concerned.
- NON-INVASIVE GENOTYPING
-
Genotyping from samples that are collected without capturing the animal (such as hair or faeces).
- AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT-LENGTH POLYMORPHISMS
-
A PCR-based DNA fingerprinting technique that reveals polymorphisms in restriction-enzyme recognition sites by generating dozens of dominant marker bands.
- MICROSATELLITE
-
A class of repetitive DNA that is made up of repeats that are 2–8 nucleotides in length. They can be highly polymorphic and are frequently used as molecular markers in population genetics studies.
- SIZE HOMOPLASY
-
The generation of alleles that are the same size which are not the result of common ancestry (not homologous), but arose independently in different ancestors by parallel or convergent mutations.
- ALLELIC DROPOUTS
-
The stochastic non-amplification of an allele; that is, amplification of only one of the two alleles present at a heterozygous locus.
- FALSE ALLELE
-
An allele-like artefact that is generated by PCR.
- ALLELE CALLING
-
The determination of an allele from an electropherogram or a fluorescent profile.
- REPLICATED GENOTYPES
-
Genotypes that are produced from different (preferentially independent) samples from the same individual.
- STUTTER BANDS
-
Artefacts that occur during the PCR amplification of microsatellites.
- HAPLOTYPE
-
The combination of alleles found at neighbouring loci on a single chromosome or haploid DNA molecule.
- FST ESTIMATES
-
Statistics that were first defined by Sewall Wright to describe the genetic structure at different hierarchical levels (individuals, subpopulations and total populations).
- POPULATION BOTTLENECK
-
A marked reduction in population size that often results in the loss of genetic variation and more frequent matings among closely related individuals.
- HARDY–WEINBERG TEST
-
A test that assesses whether the frequency of each diploid genotype at a locus equals that expected from the random union of alleles.
- MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD APPROACH
-
A statistical approach that is used to make inferences about the combination of parameter values that gives the greatest probability of obtaining the observed data.
- POPULATION ADMIXTURE
-
A process that leads to a composite gene pool in which at least some individuals come from more than one population.
- LIKELIHOOD RATIO TEST
-
A method for hypothesis testing. The maximum of the likelihood that the data fit a full model of the data is compared with the maximum of the likelihood that the data fit a restricted model and the likelihood ratio (LR) test statistic is computed. If the LR is significant, the full model provides a better fit to the data than does the restricted model.
- SHORT-ALLELE DOMINANCE
-
The preferential PCR amplification of the shorter allele from a heterozygote individual. This is equivalent to a long-allele dropout.
- PROBABILITY OF IDENTITY
-
The overall probability that two individuals drawn at random from a given population share identical genotypes at all typed loci.
- EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE
-
The size of the ideal population in which the effects of random drift would be the same as those seen in the actual population.
- DIRECTED-ERROR MODEL
-
A model postulating that there is a greater probability for a particular allele to be consistently incorrectly genotyped.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pompanon, F., Bonin, A., Bellemain, E. et al. Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat Rev Genet 6, 847–859 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1707
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1707
This article is cited by
-
Population status and genetic assessment of mugger (Crocodylus palustris) in a tropical regulated river system in North India
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Functional connectivity in northern swamp deer (Rucervus duvaucelii duvaucelii) population across a fragmented, human-dominated landscape along Gangetic Plains of north India: implications for conservation in non-protected areas
Conservation Genetics (2024)
-
Assessment of population structure and genetic diversity of wild and captive populations of Ammotragus lervia provide insights for conservation management
Conservation Genetics (2024)
-
An Effective Microsatellite Marker Panel for Noninvasive Samples in Tibetan Macaques (Macaca thibetana)
International Journal of Primatology (2023)
-
Genetic diversity of fig (Ficus carica L.) germplasm from the Mediterranean basin as revealed by SSR markers
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution (2023)