PCI Zoology

122

Title *

A simple procedure to detect, test for the presence of stuttering, and cure stuttered data with spreadsheet programsuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Thierry de Meeûs and Camille NoûsPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture *

Abstract *

<p>Microsatellite are powerful markers for empirical population genetics, but may be affected by amplification problems like stuttering that produces heterozygote deficits between alleles with one repeat difference. In this paper, we present a simple procedure that aims at detecting stuttering for each locus overall subsamples and only requires the use of a spreadsheet interactive application on any operating system. We compare the performances of this procedure with the one of MicroChecker on simulations of dioecious pangamic populations, monoecious selfing populations and clonal populations with or without stuttering, and on real data of vectors and parasites. We also propose a cure for loci affected and compare the results with those expected without stuttering. In sexual populations (dioecious or selfers), the new procedure appeared more than three times more efficient than MicroChecker. Cure was able to restore Wright's FIS of stuttered data to the expected value, and particularly so in selfing simulations. In clones, lack of segregation artificially increased false stuttering detection, and only highly significant stuttering tests and loci strongly deviating from others, could be usefully cured, in which case FIS estimate could be much improved. In doubt, and whenever possible, removal of affected and not curable loci may help to shift population genetics parameter estimates towards more reliable values.</p> <p> </p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw data are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

https://zenodo.org/record/7007363You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw scripts are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

https://zenodo.org/record/7007363You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@zool.peercommunityin.org). In case all raw codes are included in the preprint, indicate the DOI or URL of the preprint. *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Microsatellite markers; Short tandem repeats (STRs); Simple sequence repeats (SSRs); Polymerase chain reaction (PCR); Genotyping errors

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Acari, Ecology, Evolution, Genetics/Genomics, Helminthology, Invertebrates, Medical entomology, Molecular biology, Parasitology, Theoretical biology, Veterinary entomology

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Zool. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2021-12-06 14:30:47

Recommender

Michael Lattorff

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a preprint