Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2012
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2012
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Estimation of genotyping error rate from repeat genotyping, unintentional recaptures and known parent-offspring comparisons in 16 microsatellite loci for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus)

Authors: Hess, Maureen A.; Rhydderch, James G.; LeClair, Larry L.; Buckley, Raymond M.; Kawase, Mitsuhiro; Hauser, Lorenz;

Data from: Estimation of genotyping error rate from repeat genotyping, unintentional recaptures and known parent-offspring comparisons in 16 microsatellite loci for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus)

Abstract

Genotyping errors are present in almost all genetic data and can affect biological conclusions of a study, particularly for studies based on individual identification and parentage. Many statistical approaches can incorporate genotyping errors, but usually need accurate estimates of error rates. Here, we used a new microsatellite data set developed for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) to estimate genotyping error using three approaches: (i) repeat genotyping 5% of samples, (ii) comparing unintentionally recaptured individuals and (iii) Mendelian inheritance error checking for known parent–offspring pairs. In each data set, we quantified genotyping error rate per allele due to allele drop-out and false alleles. Genotyping error rate per locus revealed an average overall genotyping error rate by direct count of 0.3%, 1.5% and 1.7% (0.002, 0.007 and 0.008 per allele error rate) from replicate genotypes, known parent–offspring pairs and unintentionally recaptured individuals, respectively. By direct-count error estimates, the recapture and known parent–offspring data sets revealed an error rate four times greater than estimated using repeat genotypes. There was no evidence of correlation between error rates and locus variability for all three data sets, and errors appeared to occur randomly over loci in the repeat genotypes, but not in recaptures and parent–offspring comparisons. Furthermore, there was no correlation in locus-specific error rates between any two of the three data sets. Our data suggest that repeat genotyping may underestimate true error rates and may not estimate locus-specific error rates accurately. We therefore suggest using methods for error estimation that correspond to the overall aim of the study (e.g. known parent–offspring comparisons in parentage studies).

Parent-offspring dataset_for dryadincludes microsatellite data for four known mother-offspring familiesRecapture dataset_for dryadincludes microsatellite data for recaptures, end of file quantifies # comparisonsRepeat Genotypes dataset_for dryadincludes microsatellite data for repeated samples

Related Organizations
Keywords

Sebastes auriculatus

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 17
    download downloads 4
  • 17
    views
    4
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
17
4