| Title |
Two molecular measures of relatedness based on haplotype sharing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12859-015-0802-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Edwards |
| Abstract |
Measuring the extent of shared ancestry between individuals or organisms is important in many fields, including forensic science, conservation genetics and animal breeding. The traditional approach is to calculate the expected degree of relatedness between individuals in a pedigree. This assumes that the founders of the pedigree are non-inbred and unrelated to each other, which is rarely the case. In contrast, molecular data allow measurement of actual relatedness without knowledge of a pedigree. Methods to do this have been proposed, but generally do not take the lengths of the genomic regions shared between individuals into account. Two measures based on the extent of haplotype sharing between genomes are proposed. The intercept measure B estimates the fraction of shared genome between individuals, and the product measure C is closely related to the numerator relationship matrix A. Both are based on a model for the joint distribution of markers at the haplotype level. The two measures are compared to the pedigree-based measure A and to vanRaden's G, a frequently used molecular measure, using a set of data comprising 5037 dairy cattle. The comparison criteria include the ability to capture genealogical relatedness and the prediction accuracy obtained when used in genomic prediction. Both B and C explain around 95 % of the variation in A, whereas G explains around 6 %. G captures genealogical relatedness poorly, particularly for distantly related individuals (second cousins or farther). Both B and C tend to be larger than A but this can be ascribed to the assumption of non-inbred unrelated founders. Using C in linear mixed models results in slightly higher prediction accuracy than G, and using B results in slightly lower prediction accuracy. The two proposed measures of relatedness capture genealogical relatedness well, outperforming vanRaden's G in this respect. When used in genomic prediction models, the product measure leads to slightly improved prediction accuracy. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 31% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 62% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
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 November 2015.
All research outputs
#18,430,119
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,320
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,947
of 282,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#126
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 282,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.