Consequences of genotyping errors for estimation of clonality: a case study on Populus euphratica Oliv. (Salicaceae)
- 274 Downloads
A study including eight microsatellite loci for 1,014 trees from seven mapped stands of the partially clonal Populus euphratica was used to demonstrate how genotyping errors influence estimates of clonality. With a threshold of 0 (identical multilocus genotypes constitute one clone) we identified 602 genotypes. A threshold of 1 (compensating for an error in one allele) lowered this number to 563. Genotyping errors can seemingly merge (type 1 error), split really existing clones (type 2), or convert a unique genotype into another unique genotype (type 3). We used context information (sex and spatial position) to estimate the type 1 error. For thresholds of 0 and 1 the estimate was below 0.021, suggesting a high resolution for the marker system. The rate of genotyping errors was estimated by repeated genotyping for a cohort of 41 trees drawn at random (0.158), and a second cohort of 40 trees deviating in one allele from another tree (0.368). For the latter cohort, most of these deviations turned out to be errors, but 8 out of 602 obtained multilocus genotypes may represent somatic mutations, corresponding to a mutation rate of 0.013. A simulation of genotyping errors for populations with varying clonality and evenness showed the number of genotypes always to be overestimated for a system with high resolution, and this mistake increases with increasing clonality and evenness. Allowing a threshold of 1 compensates for most genotyping errors and leads to much more precise estimates of clonality compared with a threshold of 0. This lowers the resolution of the marker system, but comparison with context information can help to check if the resolution is sufficient to apply a higher threshold. We recommend simulation procedures to investigate the behavior of a marker system for different thresholds and error rates to obtain the best estimate of clonality.
KeywordsClonal richness Clonal evenness Error simulation Microsatellites Somatic mutations
We thank Prof. Nurbay Abdusalih, Xinjiang University and numerous Chinese students for their help and support in Urumqi and in the field. Anja Klahr, Greifswald University, provided valuable help in the lab. For very helpful comments and ideas we wish to thank Sophie Arnaud-Haond, Univ. do Algarve, Portugal. This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, grant number SCHN1081-1/1).
- Douhovnikoff V, Dodd RS (2003) Intra-clonal variation and a similarity threshold for identification of clones: application to Salix exigua using AFLP molecular markers. Theor Appl Gen 106:1307–1315Google Scholar
- Hood GM (2005) PopTools Version 2.6.7. Available online at http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools/
- Klimeš L, Kilmesova J, Hendriks R, van Groenendael J (1997) Clonal plant architecture: a comparative analysis of form and function. In: de Kroon H, van Groenendael J (eds) The ecology and evolution of clonal plants. Backhuis Publishers, Leiden, pp 1–30Google Scholar
- Lepais O, Léger V, Gerber S (2006) Short note: high throughput microsatellite genotyping in oak species. Silvae Genet 55:238–240Google Scholar
- Magurran A (2004) Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
- Pareto V (1896–7) Cours d’Économie Politique. Professé à l’Université de Lausanne. 2 vols. F. Rouge, LausanneGoogle Scholar
- Pfeiffer T (2007) Vegetative multiplication and patch colonisation of Asarum europaeum subsp. europaeum L. (Aristolochiaceae) inferred by a combined morphological and molecular study. Flora 202:89–97Google Scholar
- Shannon CE, Weaver W (1963) The mathematical theory of communication. University Illinois Press, USAGoogle Scholar
- Wagner HW, Sefc KM (1999) IDENTITY 1.0. Centre for Applied Genetics, University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar