Conservation Genetics Resources

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 147–150 | Cite as

PedAgree: software to quantify error and assess accuracy and congruence for genetically reconstructed pedigree relationships

  • J. A. CoombsEmail author
  • B. H. Letcher
  • K. H. Nislow
Technical Note


PedAgree is software for rapid comparison of genetically reconstructed pedigrees (RP’s). Its two primary functions are (1) to assess accuracy of a RP by comparing it to a known pedigree, and (2) to measure congruence between two RP’s. The accuracy function is used to assist in determining confidence for a RP. The congruence function is used to determine the level of agreement between two RP’s. This function determines which links within the RP’s are identical, and thus more likely to be correct. Congruence assessment between RP’s generated by sibship reconstruction (SR) and parentage assignment (PA) programs allows for implementation of the sibship constraint method. This method has been shown to increase assigned parentage accuracy by up to 53%, and to be robust to dataset characteristics that reduce conventional PA accuracies. PedAgree can compare output produced by seven SR and twelve PA programs, and is freely available for download at


Parentage assignment Sibship reconstruction Pedigree Genetics Accuracy Congruence 


  1. Almudevar A (2007) A graphical approach to relatedness inference. Theor Popul Biol 71:213–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Almudevar A, Field C (1999) Estimation of single-generation sibling relationships based on DNA markers. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 4:136–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley MV, Caballero IC, Chaovalitwongse W, Dasgupta B, Govindan P, Sheikh SI et al (2009) KINALYZER, a computer program for reconstructing sibling groups. Mol Ecol Resour 9:1127–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balloux F (2001) EASYPOP (version 1.7): a computer program for population genetics simulations. J Hered 92:301–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carvajal-Rodriguez A (2007) FAMSPHERE: a computer program for parental allocation from known genotypic pools. Mol Ecol Notes 7:213–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cercueil A, Bellemain E, Manel S (2002) PARENTE: computer program for parentage analysis. J Hered 93:458–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Charmantier A, Reale D (2005) How do misassigned paternities affect the estimation of heritability in the wild? Mol Ecol 14:2839–2850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Double MC (2008) Swingin’ in the rain: condition dependence and sexual selection in a capricious world. Proc Biol Sci 275:605–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Coombs JA, Letcher BH, Nislow KH (2010) PEDAGOG: software for simulating eco-evolutionary population dynamics. Mol Ecol Resour. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02803.x
  10. Coulson T, Benton TG, Lundberg P, Dall SRX, Kendall BE, Gaillard JM (2006) Estimating individual contributions to population growth: evolutionary fitness in ecological time. Proc Biol Sci 273:547–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Danzmann RG (1997) PROBMAX: a computer program for assigning unknown parentage in pedigree analysis from known genotypic pools of parents and progeny. J Hered 88:333Google Scholar
  12. Duchesne P, Godbout MH, Bernatchez L (2002) PAPA (package for the analysis of parental allocation): a computer program for simulated and real parental allocation. Mol Ecol Notes 2:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duchesne P, Castric T, Bernatchez L (2005) PASOS (parental allocation of singles in open systems): a computer program for individual parental allocation with missing parents. Mol Ecol Notes 5:701–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emery AM, Wilson IJ, Craig S, Boyle PR, Noble LR (2001) Assignment of paternity groups without access to parental genotypes: multiple mating and developmental plasticity in squid. Mol Ecol 10:1265–1278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber S, Chabrier P, Kremer A (2003) FAMOZ: a software for parentage analysis using dominant, codominant and uniparentally inherited markers. Mol Ecol Notes 3:479–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hedgecock D, Eichert W (1999) WHICHPARENTS (version 1.0): a windows application for determining the most likely parents of offspring using multilocus genotype data. Computer software distributed from:
  17. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Keller LF, Reid JM, Arcese P (2008) Testing evolutionary models of senescence in a natural population: age and inbreeding effects on fitness components in song sparrows. Proc Biol Sci 275:597–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT (2004) KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol Ecol Notes 4:779–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruuk LEB (2004) Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model’. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:873–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Connor KD, Marr AB, Arcese P, Keller LF, Jeffery KJ, Bruford MW (2006) Extra-pair fertilization and effective population size in the song sparrow Melospiza melodia. J Avian Biol 37:572–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pelletier F, Clutton-Brock T, Pemberton J, Tuljapurkar S, Coulson T (2007) The evolutionary demography of ecological change: linking trait variation and population growth. Science 315:1571–1574CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pemberton JM (2008) Wild pedigrees: the way forward. Proc Biol Sci 275:613–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith BR, Herbinger CM, Merry HR (2001) Accurate partition of individuals into full-sib families from genetic data without parental information. Genetics 158:1329–1338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Szulkin M, Sheldon BC (2008) Dispersal as a means of inbreeding avoidance in a wild bird population. Proc Biol Sci 275:703–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Valiere N (2002) GIMLET: a computer program for analysing genetic individual identification data. Mol Ecol Notes 2:377–379Google Scholar
  27. Wang JL (2004) Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 166:1963–1979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang J (2007) Parentage and sibship exclusions: higher statistical power with more family members. Heredity 99:205–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang J, Santure AW (2009) Parentage and Sibship Inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics 181:1579–1594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilmer JW, Allen PJ, Pomeroy PP, Twiss SD, Amos W (1999) Where have all the fathers gone? An extensive microsatellite analysis of paternity in the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). Mol Ecol 8:1417–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson AJ, Ferguson MM (2002) Molecular pedigree analysis in natural populations of fishes: approaches, applications, and practical considerations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1696–1707CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.S.O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center, US Geological Survey/Leetown Science CenterTurners FallsUSA
  3. 3.Northern Research Station, US Forest ServiceUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations