↓ Skip to main content

Likelihood-based genetic mark–recapture estimates when genotype samples are incomplete and contain typing errors

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Population Biology, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Likelihood-based genetic mark–recapture estimates when genotype samples are incomplete and contain typing errors
Published in
Theoretical Population Biology, July 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.tpb.2011.06.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gilbert M. Macbeth, Damien Broderick, Jennifer R. Ovenden, Rik C. Buckworth

Abstract

Genotypes produced from samples collected non-invasively in harsh field conditions often lack the full complement of data from the selected microsatellite loci. The application to genetic mark-recapture methodology in wildlife species can therefore be prone to misidentifications leading to both 'true non-recaptures' being falsely accepted as recaptures (Type I errors) and 'true recaptures' being undetected (Type II errors). Here we present a new likelihood method that allows every pairwise genotype comparison to be evaluated independently. We apply this method to determine the total number of recaptures by estimating and optimising the balance between Type I errors and Type II errors. We show through simulation that the standard error of recapture estimates can be minimised through our algorithms. Interestingly, the precision of our recapture estimates actually improved when we included individuals with missing genotypes, as this increased the number of pairwise comparisons potentially uncovering more recaptures. Simulations suggest that the method is tolerant to per locus error rates of up to 5% per locus and can theoretically work in datasets with as little as 60% of loci genotyped. Our methods can be implemented in datasets where standard mismatch analyses fail to distinguish recaptures. Finally, we show that by assigning a low Type I error rate to our matching algorithms we can generate a dataset of individuals of known capture histories that is suitable for the downstream analysis with traditional mark-recapture methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 10%
New Zealand 1 2%
Malaysia 1 2%
Unknown 36 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Researcher 11 26%
Professor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 57%
Environmental Science 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Mathematics 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2011.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Population Biology
#625
of 665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,330
of 127,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Population Biology
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 665 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 127,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.