Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Jun;164(2):781-7.
doi: 10.1093/genetics/164.2.781.

Likelihood-based estimation of microsatellite mutation rates

John C Whittaker  1 , Roger M Harbord, Nicola Boxall, Ian Mackay, Gary Dawson, Richard M Sibly
Affiliations

Likelihood-based estimation of microsatellite mutation rates

John C Whittaker et al. Genetics. 2003 Jun.

Abstract

Microsatellites are widely used in genetic analyses, many of which require reliable estimates of microsatellite mutation rates, yet the factors determining mutation rates are uncertain. The most straightforward and conclusive method by which to study mutation is direct observation of allele transmissions in parent-child pairs, and studies of this type suggest a positive, possibly exponential, relationship between mutation rate and allele size, together with a bias toward length increase. Except for microsatellites on the Y chromosome, however, previous analyses have not made full use of available data and may have introduced bias: mutations have been identified only where child genotypes could not be generated by transmission from parents' genotypes, so that the probability that a mutation is detected depends on the distribution of allele lengths and varies with allele length. We introduce a likelihood-based approach that has two key advantages over existing methods. First, we can make formal comparisons between competing models of microsatellite evolution; second, we obtain asymptotically unbiased and efficient parameter estimates. Application to data composed of 118,866 parent-offspring transmissions of AC microsatellites supports the hypothesis that mutation rate increases exponentially with microsatellite length, with a suggestion that contractions become more likely than expansions as length increases. This would lead to a stationary distribution for allele length maintained by mutational balance. There is no evidence that contractions and expansions differ in their step size distributions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Sep 1;95(18):10774-8 - PubMed
    1. Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Jun;58(6):1347-63 - PubMed
    1. Mol Biol Evol. 2000 Aug;17(8):1210-9 - PubMed
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Oct 12;96(21):11916-21 - PubMed
    1. Nature. 1996 Mar 14;380(6570):152-4 - PubMed

Substances