Abstract
Identifying close relatives in wild animal populations is fundamental across many research fields. Genetic estimates of relatedness have expanded rapidly in recent decades, based on various types of genetic data. Here, we review their use and outline opportunities for future studies by combining two complementary approaches. First, we systematically reviewed 2,861 articles to assess how genetic relatedness has been estimated over time. Second, we compare widely used genetic data types for inferring relatedness, conducting computational experiments using data from a rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) population in Puerto Rico. We compared other methods against precise identity-by-descent segment-based estimates of relatedness. Our results show that most studies of relatedness (89%) continue to rely on short tandem repeat (STR) markers, despite their limited precision. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)- marker-based relatedness estimates remain underused (8.3% of studies), even though they yield more reliable estimates when sampled in sufficient numbers. Finally, we find that the simple pairwise-mismatch rate (PMR) method for estimating relatedness in low-coverage WGS data (commonly used in human ancient DNA studies) works robustly for low-coverage data, e.g., DNA retrieved from faecal samples or from cost-effective low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (lcWGS). Together, our findings highlight lcWGS combined with PMR-based relatedness estimation as a promising, cost-effective alternative when DNA quality is limited, genomic resources are scarce, or economic efficiency is essential.
Full text
2,473 characters
· extracted from
oa-doi-fallback
· click to expand
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
You must log in to post a comment.
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 of this Preprint.
Add a Comment
You must log in to post a comment.
Comments
There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.
Identifying close relatives in wild animal populations is fundamental across many research fields. Genetic estimates of relatedness have expanded rapidly in recent decades, based on various types of genetic data. Here, we review their use and outline opportunities for future studies by combining two complementary approaches. First, we systematically reviewed 2,861 articles to assess how genetic relatedness has been estimated over time. Second, we compare widely used genetic data types for inferring relatedness, conducting computational experiments using data from a rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) population in Puerto Rico. We compared other methods against precise identity-by-descent segment-based estimates of relatedness. Our results show that most studies of relatedness (89%) continue to rely on short tandem repeat (STR) markers, despite their limited precision. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)- marker-based relatedness estimates remain underused (8.3% of studies), even though they yield more reliable estimates when sampled in sufficient numbers. Finally, we find that the simple pairwise-mismatch rate (PMR) method for estimating relatedness in low-coverage WGS data (commonly used in human ancient DNA studies) works robustly for low-coverage data, e.g., DNA retrieved from faecal samples or from cost-effective low-coverage whole-genome sequencing (lcWGS). Together, our findings highlight lcWGS combined with PMR-based relatedness estimation as a promising, cost-effective alternative when DNA quality is limited, genomic resources are scarce, or economic efficiency is essential.
https://doi.org/10.32942/X28D4R
Life Sciences
paternity assignment, sequencing depth, wildlife genomics, kinship inference, ancient DNA methods, microsatellites
Published: 2026-01-23 19:27
Last Updated: 2026-01-23 19:27
CC BY Attribution 4.0 International
Conflict of interest statement:
None
Data and Code Availability Statement:
https://github.com/afreudiger/CayoKinshipComparison/ and https://github.com/hringbauer/cayo_pmr/
Language:
English
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.