A comparison of several measures of genetic distance and population structure with microsatellite data: bias and sampling variance

Daniel E Ruzzante

doi:10.1139/f97-203

journal article Jan 01, 1998

A comparison of several measures of genetic distance and population structure with microsatellite data: bias and sampling variance

Daniel E Ruzzante

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Vol. 55 No. 1 pp. 1-14 · Canadian Science Publishing

View at Publisher Save 10.1139/f97-203

Abstract

Because of their rapid mutation rate and resulting large number of alleles, microsatellite DNA are well suited to examine the genetic or demographic structure of fish populations. However, the large number of alleles imply that large sample sizes are required for accurate reflection of genotypic frequencies. Estimates of genetic distance are often biased at small sample sizes, and biases and sampling variances can be affected by the number of, and distances between, alleles. Using data from a large collection of larval cod (Gadus morhua) from a single area, I examined the effect of sample size on seven genetic distance and two structure metrics. Pairs of samples (equal or unequal) of various sizes were drawn at random from a pool of 856 individuals scored for six microsatellite loci. ( delta µ)2, DSW, RST, and FSTwere the best performers in terms of bias and variance. Sample sizes of 50 <= N <= 100 individuals were generally necessary for precise estimation of genetic distances and this value depended on number of loci, number of alleles, and range in allele size. ( delta µ)2and DSWwere biased at small sample sizes.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

46

[1]

Bentzen P. Fingerprint News (1990)

[2]

Bentzen P. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1996) 10.1139/f96-238

[3]

Bowcock A.M. Nature (London) (1994) 10.1038/368455a0

[4]

Brooker A.L. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1994) 10.1139/f94-198

[5]

Carvalho G.R. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. (1994) 10.1007/bf00042908

[6]

PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS: MODELS AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, A. W. F. Edwards

Evolution 1967 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1967.tb03411.x

[7]

Clark A.G. Genetica (1995) 10.1007/bf01441150

[8]

Deka R. Genomics (1991) 10.1016/0888-7543(91)90104-m

[9]

Deka R. Genomics (1994) 10.1006/geno.1994.1369

[10]

Di Rienzo A. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (1994) 10.1073/pnas.91.8.3166

[11]

Edwards A. Genomics (1992) 10.1016/0888-7543(92)90371-x

[12]

Garza J.C. Mol. Biol. Evol. (1995)

[13]

Goldstein D.B. Genetics (1995) 10.1093/genetics/139.1.463

[14]

Goldstein D.B. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (1995) 10.1073/pnas.92.15.6723

[15]

Goodman S.J. Mol. Ecol. (1997) 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1997.tb00143.x

[16]

Hearne C.M. Trends Genet. (1992) 10.1016/0168-9525(92)90137-s

[17]

Jarne P. Trends Ecol. Evol. (1996) 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10049-5

[18]

Kellogg K.A. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B (1995) 10.1098/rspb.1995.0062

[19]

Kimmel M. Genetics (1996) 10.1093/genetics/143.1.549

[20]

Lochmann S.E. Scotian Shelf. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1997) 10.1139/f97-054

[21]

McConnell S.K.J. Canada. Mol. Ecol. (1997) 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1997.00282.x

[22]

Michalakis Y. Genetics (1996) 10.1093/genetics/142.3.1061

[23]

Nauta M.J. Genetics (1996) 10.1093/genetics/143.2.1021

[24]

Genetic Distance between Populations

Masatoshi Nei

The American Naturalist 1972 10.1086/282771

[25]

Nei M. J. Mol. Evol. (1983) 10.1007/bf02300753

[26]

Paetkau D. Mol. Ecol. (1994) 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1994.tb00127.x

[27]

Paetkau D. Mol. Ecol. (1995) 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1995.tb00227.x

[28]

Developments in molecular genetic techniques in fisheries

Linda K. Park, Paul Moran

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 1994 10.1007/bf00042906

[29]

Queller D.C. Trends Ecol. Evol. (1993) 10.1016/0169-5347(93)90256-o

[30]

Rogers J.S. Stud. in Genet. (1972)

[31]

Roy M.S. Mol. Biol. Evol. (1994)

[32]

Ruzzante D.E. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1996) 10.1139/f96-235

[33]

Ruzzante D.E. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1996) 10.1139/f95-228

[34]

Ruzzante D.E. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (1997) 10.1139/f97-170

[35]

Shriver M.D. Genetics (1993) 10.1093/genetics/134.3.983

[36]

Shriver M.D. Mol. Biol. Evol. (1995)

[37]

Slatkin M. Genetics (1995) 10.1093/genetics/139.1.457

[38]

Slatkin M. Evolution (1989) 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02587.x

[39]

Takezaki N. Genetics (1996) 10.1093/genetics/144.1.389

[40]

Tautz D. Nucleic Acids Res. (1989) 10.1093/nar/17.16.6463

[41]

Valdes A.M. Genetics (1993) 10.1093/genetics/133.3.737

[42]

Weber J.L. Hum. Mol. Genet. (1993) 10.1093/hmg/2.8.1123

[43]

Weir B.S. Evolution (1984)

[44]

Wright S. Ann. Eugenics (1951) 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1949.tb02451.x

[45]

Wright J.M. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. (1994) 10.1007/bf00042912

[46]

Improved M13 phage cloning vectors and host strains: nucleotide sequences of the M13mpl8 and pUC19 vectors

Celeste Yanisch-Perron, Jeffrey Vieira, Joachim Messing

Gene 1985 10.1016/0378-1119(85)90120-9

Metrics

127

Citations

46

References

Details

Published: Jan 01, 1998
Vol/Issue: 55(1)
Pages: 1-14
License: View

Authors

D

Daniel E Ruzzante

Cite This Article

Daniel E Ruzzante (1998). A comparison of several measures of genetic distance and population structure with microsatellite data: bias and sampling variance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1139/f97-203

A comparison of several measures of genetic distance and population structure with microsatellite data: bias and sampling variance

You May Also Like