Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Evaluating Kinship Estimation Methods for Reduced-Representation SNP Data in Non-model Species.

Created on 27 Aug 2025

Authors

Eilish S McMaster, Patricia Lu-Irving, Marlien M van der Merwe, Simon Y W Ho, Maurizio Rossetto

Published in

Molecular ecology resources. Pages e70038. Aug 26, 2025. Epub Aug 26, 2025.

Abstract

Accurate kinship estimation between close relatives is crucial in conservation and restoration but remains challenging in wild populations due to structure and inbreeding. The efficacy of kinship inference using reduced-representation sequencing data (e.g., DArTseq, RADseq) is also uncertain. We evaluated the sensitivity and precision of six kinship methods (Goudet's beta dosage, KING Homo, KING Robust, PC-Relate, PLINK, RelateAdmix) at detecting parent-offspring and sibling relationships. Analyses were conducted on 3395 individuals and 363 families from six non-model Australian plant species: Acacia terminalis, Acacia suaveolens, Banksia serrata, Banksia aemula, Hakea sericea and Hakea teretifolia. Method performance varied across species and filtering parameters. Goudet's beta dosage and RelateAdmix performed well in low-structure, noninbred species but were less reliable in structured or inbred contexts. PLINK offered a balance of sensitivity and precision but was sensitive to filtering and often underestimated relatedness. KING Robust was highly precise but missed many true relatives. PC-Relate showed high false positives and is not recommended for similar applications. We recommend PLINK for general use, Goudet's beta dosage and RelateAdmix for low-structure species, and KING Robust for high-precision needs. Comparing multiple methods is advisable, as each has different assumptions and complementary strengths. Further theoretical development is needed for species with high inbreeding.

PMID:
40859063
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 27 Aug 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 43
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement