Genetic estimates of relatedness: Established practices and new opportunities through low coverage whole genome sequencing

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

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This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.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 This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed.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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-20T11:00:21.680559+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0