Conservation Genetics

, 10:1343 | Cite as

Population estimators or progeny tests: what is the best method to assess null allele frequencies at SSR loci?

  • Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio
  • Giovanni G. Vendramin
  • Joukje Buiteveld
  • Bruno Fady
Short Communication


Nuclear SSRs are notorious for having relatively high frequencies of null alleles, i.e. alleles that fail to amplify and are thus recessive and undetected in heterozygotes. In this paper, we compare two kinds of approaches for estimating null allele frequencies at seven nuclear microsatellite markers in three French Fagus sylvatica populations: (1) maximum likelihood methods that compare observed and expected homozygote frequencies in the population under the assumption of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and (2) direct null allele frequency estimates from progeny where parent genotypes are known. We show that null allele frequencies are high in F. sylvatica (7.0% on average with the population method, 5.1% with the progeny method), and that estimates are consistent between the two approaches, especially when the number of sampled maternal half-sib progeny arrays is large. With null allele frequencies ranging between 5% and 8% on average across loci, population genetic parameters such as genetic differentiation (F ST) may be mostly unbiased. However, using markers with such average prevalence of null alleles (up to 15% for some loci) can be seriously misleading in fine scale population studies and parentage analysis.


Microsatellites Fagus sylvatica Null alleles Progeny Population genetics 



Data used for this paper were generated in the course of the European project DYNABEECH (Contract QLRT-1999-01210) and of a national project supported by the French Bureau des Ressources Génétiques (project BRG No. 88-2003-2004, AIP 223). A meeting for co-writing of this paper was supported by the European Commission through the Network of Excellence EVOLTREE (contract number: 016322) under the Sixth Framework Programme. We thank B. Jouaud, A. Roig (INRA, Avignon, France) and R. Pastorelli (CNR, Firenze, Italy) for laboratory work, as well as J. Glaubitz, and one anonymous reviewer for detailed comments on a previous version of the manuscript.


  1. Asuka Y, Tani N, Tsumura Y, Tomaru N (2004) Development and characterization of microsatellite markers for Fagus crenata Blume. Mol Ecol Notes 4:101–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brookfield JFY (1996) A simple new method for estimating null allele frequency from heterozygote deficiency. Mol Ecol 5:453–455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Callen DF, Thompson AD, Shen Y, Phillips HA, Richards RI, Mulley JC, Sutherland GR (1993) Incidence and origin of null alleles in the (AC)n microsatellite markers. Am J Hum Genet 52:922–927PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakraborty R, De Andrade M, Daiger SP, Budowle B (1992) Apparent heterozygote deficiencies observed in DNA typing data and their implications in forensic applications. Ann Hum Genet 56:45–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chapuis M-P, Estoup A (2007) Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Mol Biol Evol 24:621–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dakin EE, Avise JC (2004) Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 93:504–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc 39:1–38Google Scholar
  8. De Sousa SN, Finkeldey R, Gailing O (2005) Experimental verification of microsatellite null alleles in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.): Implications for population genetic studies. Plant Mol Biol Rep 23:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML (2006) Maximum likelihood estimation of the frequency of null alleles at microsatellite loci. Conserv Genet 7:991–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Magri D, Vendramin GG et al (2006) A new scenario for the quaternary history of European beech populations: palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytol 171:199–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Pastorelli R, Smulders MJM, Van’t Westende WPC, Vosman B, Giannini R, Vettori C, Vendramin GG (2003) Characterization of microsatellite markers in Fagus sylvatica L. and Fagus orientalis Lipsky. Mol Ecol Notes 3:76–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rousset F (2008) Genepop’007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour 8:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Summers K, Amos W (1997) Behavioral, ecological, and molecular genetic analyses of reproductive strategies in the Amazonian dart-poison frog, Dendrobates ventrimaculatus. Behav Ecol 8:260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tanaka K, Tsumura Y, Nakamura T (1999) Development and polymorphism of microsatellite markers for Fagus crenata and the closely related species, F. japonica. Theor Appl Genet 99:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wagner AP, Creel S, Kalinowski ST (2006) Estimating relatedness and relationships using microsatellite loci with null alleles. Heredity 97:336–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio
    • 1
  • Giovanni G. Vendramin
    • 2
  • Joukje Buiteveld
    • 3
  • Bruno Fady
    • 1
  1. 1.INRA URFM, Ecologie des Forêts MéditerranéennesAvignon Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Plant Genetics Institute, CNRSesto FiorentinoItaly
  3. 3.Alterra Wageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations