Journal of Applied Genetics

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 133–143 | Cite as

Combining microsatellite and pedigree data to estimate relationships among Skyros ponies

  • E. Bömcke
  • N. Gengler
Original Article


Relationship coefficients are particularly useful to improve genetic management of endangered populations. These coefficients are traditionally based on pedigree data, but in case of incomplete or inexistent pedigrees they are replaced by coefficients calculated from molecular data. The main objective of this study was to develop a new method to estimate relationship coefficients by combining molecular with pedigree data, which is useful for specific situations where neither pedigree nor molecular data are complete. The developed method was applied to contribute to the conservation of the Skyros pony breed, which consists of less than 200 individuals, divided into 3 main herds or subpopulations. In this study, relationships between individuals were estimated using traditional estimators as well as the newly developed method. For this purpose, 99 Skyros ponies were genotyped at 16 microsatellite loci. It appeared that the limitation of the most common molecular-based estimators is the use of weights that assume relationships equal to 0. The results showed that, as a consequence of this limitation, negative relationship values can be obtained in small inbred populations, for example. By contrast, the combined estimator gave no negative values. Using principal component analysis, the combined estimator also enabled a better graphic differentiation between the 3 subpopulations defined previously. In conclusion, this new estimator can be a promising alternative to traditionally used estimators, especially in inbred populations, with both incomplete pedigree and molecular information.


microsatellites pedigree relationships Skyros pony 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumung R, Sölkner J, 2003. Pedigree and marker information requirements to monitor genetic variability. Genet Sel Evol 35: 369–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Boichard D, Maignel L, Verrier E, 1996. Analyse généalogique des races bovines françaises. INRA Prod Anim 9: 323–335.Google Scholar
  3. Bömcke E, 2007. Conservation of animal genetic resources: Improvement of the relationship matrix. Master, Gembloux Agricultural University, Belgium.Google Scholar
  4. Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, Davis RW, 1980. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet 32: 314–331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Caballero A, Toro MA, 2000. Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genet Res 75: 331–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Caballero A, Toro MA, 2002. Analysis of genetic diversity for the management of conserved subdivided populations. Conserv Genet 3: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csilléry K, Johnson T, Beraldi D, Cletton-Brock T, Coltman D, Hansson B, et al. 2006. Performance of marker-based relatedness estimators in natural populations of outbred vertebrates. Genetics 173: 2091–2101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. DAD-IS, 2007. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved October 07, 2007, from http://dad.fao.orgGoogle Scholar
  9. Dimsoski P, 2003. Development of a 17-plex microsatellite polymerase chain reaction kit for genotyping horses. Croat Med J 44: 332–335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eding H, Meuwissen THE, 2001. Marker-based estimates of between and within population kinships for the conservation of genetic diversity. J Anim Breed Genet 118: 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engh AL, Funk SM, van Horn RC, Scribner KT, Bruford MW, Libants S, et al. 2002. Reproductive skew among males in a female-dominated society. Behav Ecol 13: 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO, 1998. Secondary Guidelines for Development of National Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans. Management of Small Populations at Risk. Initiative for Domestic Animal Diversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  13. Glaubitz JC, Rhodes Jr OE, Dewoody JA, 2003. Prospects for inferring pairwise relationships with single nucleotide polymorphisms. Mol Ecol 12: 1039–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodisman MAD, Crozier RH, 2002. Population and colony genetic structure of the primitive termiteMastotermes darwiniensis. Evolution 56: 70–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodnight KF, Queller DC, 1999. Computer software for performing likelihood test of pedigree relationship using genetic markers. Mol Ecol 8: 1231–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hedrick PW, Miller PS, 1992. Conservation genetics: techniques and fundamentals. Ecol Appl 2: 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heg D, van Treuren R, 1998. Female-female cooperation in polygynous oystercatchers. Nature 391: 687–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Henderson CR, 1976. A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix use in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huby M, Griffon L, Moureaux S, De Rochambeau H, Danchin-Burge C, Verrier E, 2003. Genetic variability of six French meat sheep breeds in relation to their genetic management. Genet Sel Evol 35: 637–655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones KL, Glenn TC, Lacy RC, Pierce JR, Unruh N, Mirande CM, et al. 2002. Refining the whooping crane studbook by incorporating microsatellite DNA and leg-banding analyses. Conserv Biol 16: 789–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li CC, Weeks DE, Chakravarti A, 1993. Similarity of DNA fingerprints due to chance and relatedness. Hum Hered 43: 45–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynch M, Ritland K, 1999. Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 152: 1753–1766.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Maignel L, Boichard D, Verrier E, 1996. Genetic variability of French dairy breeds estimated from pedigree information. Interbull Bull 14: 49–54.Google Scholar
  24. Malécot G, 1948.Les mathématiques de l’hérédité. Paris: Masson et Cie. Cited by Van Vleck (1987) and Minvielle (1990).Google Scholar
  25. Meuwissen THE, Luo Z, 1992. Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genet Sel Evol 24: 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Minvielle F, 1990.Principes d’amélioration génétique des animaux domestiques. Paris: INRA & Québec: PUL (Les presses Universitaires de Laval).Google Scholar
  27. Morin PA, Moore JJ, Chakraborty R, Jin L, Goodall J, Woodruff DS, 1994. Kin selection, social structure, gene flow, and the evolution of chimpanzees. Science 265: 1193–1201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mousseau TA, Ritland K, Heath DD, 1998. A novel method for estimating heritability using molecular markers. Heredity 80: 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nejati-Javaremi A, Smith C, Gibson JP, 1997. Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. J Anim Sci 75: 1738–1745.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Oliehoek PA, Windig JJ, van Arendonk JAM, Bijma P, 2006. Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173: 483–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pamilo P, Crozier RH, 1982. Measuring genetic relatedness in natural populations — methodology. Theor Popul Biol 21: 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Queller DC, Goodnight KF, 1989. Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution 43: 258–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ritland K, 2000. Marker-inferred relatedness as a tool for detecting heritability in nature. Mol Ecol 9: 1195–1204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rochambeau H (de), Fournet-Hanocq F, Vu Tien Khang J, 2000. Measuring and managing genetic variability in small populations. Ann Zootech 49: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SAS Institute, 1999. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Version 8. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  36. Thomas SC, Hill WG, 2002. Sibship reconstruction in hierarchical population structure using Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques. Genet Res 79: 227–234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Toro M, Barragán C, Óvilo C, Rodrigańez J, Rodriguez C, Silió L, 2002. Estimation of coancestry in Iberian pigsusingmolecularmarkers. Conserv Genet 3: 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van de Casteele T, Galbusera P, Matthysen E, 2001. A comparison of microsatellite-based pairwise relatedness estimators. Mol Ecol 10: 1539–1549.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Raden PM, 1992. Accounting for inbreeding and crossbreeding in genetic evaluation of large populations. J Dairy Sci 75: 3136–3144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. VanRaden PM, 2007. Genomic measures of relationship and inbreeding. Interbull Annual Meeting Proceedings. Interbull Bull 37: 33–36Google Scholar
  41. Van Vleck LD, Pollak EJ, Oltenacu EAB, 1987. Genetics for the animal sciences. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  42. Verrier E, Rognon X, de Rochambeau H, Laloe D, 2005. Les outils et méthodes de la génétique pour la caractérisation, le suivi et la gestion de la variabilité génétique des populations animales. Ethnozootechnie 76: 67–82.Google Scholar
  43. Wright S, 1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56: 330. Cited by Van Vleck et al. (1987) and Henderson (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright S, McPhee HC, 1925. An approximate method of calculating coefficients of inbreeding and relationship from livestock pedigrees. J Agr Res 31: 377–383.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Animal Science UnitGembloux Agricultural UniversityGemblouxBelgium
  2. 2.F.R.I.A.BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.National Fund for Scientific ResearchBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations