Abstract

BackgroundAmos [1] suggested recently that a previously reported positive relationship between minisatellite mutation rates and extra-pair paternity among species of birds [2] was confounded by transcription errors and selective inclusion of studies. Here we attempted to replicate the results reported by Amos [1], but also tested for the relationship by expanding the data base by including studies published after our original paper.ResultsWe were able to replicate the positive association between mutation rate and extra-pair paternity in birds, even after controlling statistically for the confounding effecs of mean number of bands scored, using 133 species, compared to 81 species in our first report [2]. We suggest that Amos [1] failed to reach a similar conclusion due to four different potential causes of bias. First, Amos [1] missed 15 studies from the literature that we were able to include. Second, he used estimates of mutation rates that were based on both within- and extra-pair offspring, although the latter will cause bias in estimates. Third, he made a number of transcription errors from the original publications for extra-pair paternity, mutation rates, number of novel bands, and mean number of bands scored per individual. Fourth, he included Vireo olivaceus although the mutation rate estimate was based on one single offspring!ConclusionThere was a positive association between mutation rates and extra-pair paternity in birds, accounting for an intermediate effect size that explained 5–11% of the variance; estimates that are bound to be conservative due to many different causes of noise in the data. This result was robust to statistical control for potentially confounding variables, highlighting that it is important to base comparative studies on all available evidence, and that it is crucial to critically transcribe data while simultaneously checking published estimates for their correctness.

Highlights

  • Our current understanding of the factors accounting for interspecific differences in mutation rates is at best poor [3]

  • We provide a comprehensive data base with all our data, and we show that our previous conclusion remains even when increasing sample size from 81 to 133 species due to recently published data that have become available after we finished our first study, and when controlling for a number of novel, potentially confounding variables

  • We report the frequency distribution of novel bands, the mean number of bands scored per individual and the number of individuals used for estimating mutation rates in Additional file 1, allowing readers to assess all the data and confirm our estimates

Read more

Summary

Results

We were able to replicate the positive association between mutation rate and extra-pair paternity in birds, even after controlling statistically for the confounding effecs of mean number of bands scored, using 133 species, compared to 81 species in our first report [2]. Amos [1] missed 15 studies from the literature that we were able to include He used estimates of mutation rates that were based on both within- and extra-pair offspring, the latter will cause bias in estimates. He made a number of transcription errors from the original publications for extra-pair paternity, mutation rates, number of novel bands, and mean number of bands scored per individual. Fourth, he included Vireo olivaceus the mutation rate estimate was based on one single offspring!

Conclusion
Introduction
Amos W
Westneat DF
Rosenthal R
12. Pagel M
15. Cohen J
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call