A multipoint method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in sibling-pair linkage data

The identification of genes contributing to complex diseases and quantitative traits requires genetic data of high fidelity, because undetected errors and mutations can profoundly affect linkage information. The recent emphasis on the use of the sibling-pair design eliminates or decreases the likelihood of detection of genotyping errors and marker mutations through apparent Mendelian incompatibilities or close double recombinants. In this article, we describe a hidden Markov method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in multilocus linkage data. Specifically, we calculate the posterior probability of genotyping error or mutation for each sibling-pair-marker combination, conditional on all marker data and an assumed genotype-error rate. The method is designed for use with sibling-pair data when parental genotypes are unavailable. Through Monte Carlo simulation, we explore the effects of map density, marker-allele frequencies, marker position, and genotype-error rate on the accuracy of our error-detection method. In addition, we examine the impact of genotyping errors and error detection and correction on multipoint linkage information. We illustrate that even moderate error rates can result in substantial loss of linkage information, given efforts to fine-map a putative disease locus. Although simulations suggest that our method detects 相似文献   

The impact of missing and erroneous genotypes on tagging SNP selection and power of subsequent association tests

OBJECTIVE: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) serve as effective markers for localizing disease susceptibility genes, but current genotyping technologies are inadequate for genotyping all available SNP markers in a typical linkage/association study. Much attention has recently been paid to methods for selecting the minimal informative subset of SNPs in identifying haplotypes, but there has been little investigation of the effect of missing or erroneous genotypes on the performance of these SNP selection algorithms and subsequent association tests using the selected tagging SNPs. The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of missing genotype or genotyping error on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs. METHODS: Through two sets of simulations, we evaluated the performance of three tagging SNP selection programs in the presence of missing or erroneous genotypes: Clayton's diversity based program htstep, Carlson's linkage disequilibrium (LD) based program ldSelect, and Stram's coefficient of determination based program tagsnp.exe. RESULTS: When randomly selected known loci were relabeled as 'missing', we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms changed very little and the power of subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests using the selected tagging SNPs remained close to the power of these tests in the absence of missing genotype. When random genotyping errors were introduced, we found that the average number of tagging SNPs selected by all three algorithms increased. In data sets simulated according to the haplotype frequecies in the CYP19 region, Stram's program had larger increase than Carlson's and Clayton's programs. In data sets simulated under the coalescent model, Carlson's program had the largest increase and Clayton's program had the smallest increase. In both sets of simulations, with the presence of genotyping errors, the power of the haplotype tests from all three programs decreased quickly, but there was not much reduction in power of the single marker tests. CONCLUSIONS: Missing genotypes do not seem to have much impact on tagging SNP selection and subsequent single marker and haplotype association tests. In contrast, genotyping errors could have severe impact on tagging SNP selection and haplotype tests, but not on single marker tests.     

Power and sample size calculations for case-control genetic association tests when errors are present: application to single nucleotide polymorphisms

The purpose of this work is to quantify the effects that errors in genotyping have on power and the sample size necessary to maintain constant asymptotic Type I and Type II error rates (SSN) for case-control genetic association studies between a disease phenotype and a di-allelic marker locus, for example a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) locus. We consider the effects of three published models of genotyping errors on the chi-square test for independence in the 2 x 3 table. After specifying genotype frequencies for the marker locus conditional on disease status and error model in both a genetic model-based and a genetic model-free framework, we compute the asymptotic power to detect association through specification of the test's non-centrality parameter. This parameter determines the functional dependence of SSN on the genotyping error rates. Additionally, we study the dependence of SSN on linkage disequilibrium (LD), marker allele frequencies, and genotyping error rates for a dominant disease model. Increased genotyping error rate requires a larger SSN. Every 1% increase in sum of genotyping error rates requires that both case and control SSN be increased by 2-8%, with the extent of increase dependent upon the error model. For the dominant disease model, SSN is a nonlinear function of LD and genotyping error rate, with greater SSN for lower LD and higher genotyping error rate. The combination of lower LD and higher genotyping error rates requires a larger SSN than the sum of the SSN for the lower LD and for the higher genotyping error rate.     

Estimating genotyping error rates from Mendelian errors in SNP array genotypes and their impact on inference

A simple method of inferring the genotyping error rate of SNP arrays and similar high-throughput genotyping methods from Mendelian errors is described. Application to genotypes from small families using the Affymetrix GeneChip Human Mapping 50 k Array indicates an error rate of about 0.1%, and this rate can be reduced by increasing the quality criterion for calls, though at the cost of a reduced genotype call rate, which limits the benefit available. Simulated data are used to show that the number of SNPs on this array is sufficient for such a low error rate to have little impact on identical by descent-based inference for disease linkage in sib-pair studies.     

Investigation of altering single-nucleotide polymorphism density on the power to detect trait loci and frequency of false positive in nonparametric linkage analyses of qualitative traits

Genome-wide linkage analysis using microsatellite markers has been successful in the identification of numerous Mendelian and complex disease loci. The recent availability of high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) maps provides a potentially more powerful option. Using the simulated and Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) datasets from the Genetics Analysis Workshop 14 (GAW14), we examined how altering the density of SNP marker sets impacted the overall information content, the power to detect trait loci, and the number of false positive results. For the simulated data we used SNP maps with density of 0.3 cM, 1 cM, 2 cM, and 3 cM. For the COGA data we combined the marker sets from Illumina and Affymetrix to create a map with average density of 0.25 cM and then, using a sub-sample of these markers, created maps with density of 0.3 cM, 0.6 cM, 1 cM, 2 cM, and 3 cM. For each marker set, multipoint linkage analysis using MERLIN was performed for both dominant and recessive traits derived from marker loci. Our results showed that information content increased with increased map density. For the homogeneous, completely penetrant traits we created, there was only a modest difference in ability to detect trait loci. Additionally, as map density increased there was only a slight increase in the number of false positive results when there was linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers. The presence of LD between markers may have led to an increased number of false positive regions but no clear relationship between regions of high LD and locations of false positive linkage signals was observed.     

Identification and analysis of error types in high-throughput genotyping

Although it is clear that errors in genotyping data can lead to severe errors in linkage analysis, there is as yet no consensus strategy for identification of genotyping errors. Strategies include comparison of duplicate samples, independent calling of alleles, and Mendelian-inheritance-error checking. This study aimed to develop a better understanding of error types associated with microsatellite genotyping, as a first step toward development of a rational error-detection strategy. Two microsatellite marker sets (a commercial genomewide set and a custom-designed fine-resolution mapping set) were used to generate 118,420 and 22,500 initial genotypes and 10,088 and 8,328 duplicates, respectively. Mendelian-inheritance errors were identified by PedManager software, and concordance was determined for the duplicate samples. Concordance checking identifies only human errors, whereas Mendelian-inheritance-error checking is capable of detection of additional errors, such as mutations and null alleles. Neither strategy is able to detect all errors. Inheritance checking of the commercial marker data identified that the results contained 0.13% human errors and 0.12% other errors (0.25% total error), whereas concordance checking found 0.16% human errors. Similarly, Mendelian-inheritance-error checking of the custom-set data identified 1.37% errors, compared with 2.38% human errors identified by concordance checking. A greater variety of error types were detected by Mendelian-inheritance-error checking than by duplication of samples or by independent reanalysis of gels. These data suggest that Mendelian-inheritance-error checking is a worthwhile strategy for both types of genotyping data, whereas fine-mapping studies benefit more from concordance checking than do studies using commercial marker data. Maximization of error identification increases the likelihood of linkage when complex diseases are analyzed.     

Detection rates for genotyping errors in SNPs using the trio design

One well-known approach for the analysis of transmission-disequilibrium is the investigation of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in trios consisting of an affected child and its parents. Results may be biased by erroneously given genotypes. Various reasons, among them sample swap or wrong pedigree structure, represent a possible source for biased results. As these can be partly ruled out by good study conditions together with checks for correct pedigree structure by a series of independent markers, the remaining main cause for errors is genotyping errors. Some of the errors can be detected by Mendelian checks whilst others are compatible with the pedigree structure. The extent of genotyping errors can be estimated by investigating the rate of detected genotyping errors by Mendelian checks. In many studies only one SNP of a specific genomic region is investigated by TDT which leaves Mendelian checks as the only tool to control genotyping errors. From the rate of detected errors the true error rate can be estimated. Gordon et al. [Hum Hered 1999;49:65-70] considered the case of genotyping errors that occur randomly and independently with some fixed probability for the wrong ascertainment of an allele. In practice, instead of single alleles, SNP genotypes are determined. Therefore, we study the proportion of detected errors (detection rate) based on genotypes. In contrast to Gordon et al., who reported detection rates between 25 and 30%, we obtain higher detection rates ranging from 39 up to 61% considering likely error structures in the data. We conclude that detection rates are probably substantially higher than those reported by Gordon et al.     

Probability of Detection of Genotyping Errors and Mutations as Inheritance Inconsistencies in Nuclear-Family Data

Gene-mapping studies routinely rely on checking for Mendelian transmission of marker alleles in a pedigree, as a means of screening for genotyping errors and mutations, with the implicit assumption that, if a pedigree is consistent with Mendel's laws of inheritance, then there are no genotyping errors. However, the occurrence of inheritance inconsistencies alone is an inadequate measure of the number of genotyping errors, since the rate of occurrence depends on the number and relationships of genotyped pedigree members, the type of errors, and the distribution of marker-allele frequencies. In this article, we calculate the expected probability of detection of a genotyping error or mutation as an inheritance inconsistency in nuclear-family data, as a function of both the number of genotyped parents and offspring and the marker-allele frequency distribution. Through computer simulation, we explore the sensitivity of our analytic calculations to the underlying error model. Under a random-allele-error model, we find that detection rates are 51%-77% for multiallelic markers and 13%-75% for biallelic markers; detection rates are generally lower when the error occurs in a parent than in an offspring, unless a large number of offspring are genotyped. Errors are especially difficult to detect for biallelic markers with equally frequent alleles, even when both parents are genotyped; in this case, the maximum detection rate is 34% for four-person nuclear families. Error detection in families in which parents are not genotyped is limited, even with multiallelic markers. Given these results, we recommend that additional error checking (e.g., on the basis of multipoint analysis) be performed, beyond routine checking for Mendelian consistency. Furthermore, our results permit assessment of the plausibility of an observed number of inheritance inconsistencies for a family, allowing the detection of likely pedigree-rather than genotyping-errors in the early stages of a genome scan. Such early assessments are valuable in either the targeting of families for resampling or discontinued genotyping.     

Comparison of microsatellites, single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and composite markers derived from SNPs in linkage analysis

There is growing evidence that a map of dense single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) can outperform a map of sparse microsatellites for linkage analysis. There is also argument as to whether a clustered SNP map can outperform an evenly spaced SNP map. Using Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 simulated data, we compared for linkage analysis microsatellites, SNPs, and composite markers derived from SNPs. We encoded the composite markers in a two-step approach, in which the maximum identity length contrast method was employed to allow for recombination between loci. A SNP map 2.3 times as dense as a microsatellite map (approximately 2.9 cM compared to approximately 6.7 cM apart) provided slightly less information content (approximately 0.83 compared to approximately 0.89). Most inheritance information could be extracted when the SNPs were spaced < 1 cM apart. Comparing the linkage results on using SNPs or composite markers derived from them based on both 3 cM and 0.3 cM resolution maps, we showed that the inter-SNP distance should be kept small (< 1 cM), and that for multipoint linkage analysis the original markers and the derived composite markers had similar power; but for single point linkage analysis the resulting composite markers lead to more power. Considering all factors, such as information content, flexibility of analysis method, map errors, and genotyping errors, a map of clustered SNPs can be an efficient design for a genome-wide linkage scan.     

Genotyping error detection through tightly linked markers

The identification of genotyping errors is an important issue in mapping complex disease genes. Although it is common practice to genotype multiple markers in a candidate region in genetic studies, the potential benefit of jointly analyzing multiple markers to detect genotyping errors has not been investigated. In this article, we discuss genotyping error detections for a set of tightly linked markers in nuclear families, and the objective is to identify families likely to have genotyping errors at one or more markers. We make use of the fact that recombination is a very unlikely event among these markers. We first show that, with family trios, no extra information can be gained by jointly analyzing markers if no phase information is available, and error detection rates are usually low if Mendelian consistency is used as the only standard for checking errors. However, for nuclear families with more than one child, error detection rates can be greatly increased with the consideration of more markers. Error detection rates also increase with the number of children in each family. Because families displaying Mendelian consistency may still have genotyping errors, we calculate the probability that a family displaying Mendelian consistency has correct genotypes. These probabilities can help identify families that, although showing Mendelian consistency, may have genotyping errors. In addition, we examine the benefit of available haplotype frequencies in the general population on genotyping error detections. We show that both error detection rates and the probability that an observed family displaying Mendelian consistency has correct genotypes can be greatly increased when such additional information is available.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">In silico</Emphasis> genotyping of the maize nested association mapping population

Nested Association Mapping (NAM) has been proposed as a means to combine the power of linkage mapping with the resolution of association mapping. It is enabled through sequencing or array genotyping of parental inbred lines while using low-cost, low-density genotyping technologies for their segregating progenies. For purposes of data analyses of NAM populations, parental genotypes at a large number of Single Nucleotide Polymorphic (SNP) loci need to be projected to their segregating progeny. Herein we demonstrate how approximately 0.5 million SNPs that have been genotyped in 26 parental lines of the publicly available maize NAM population can be projected onto their segregating progeny using only 1,106 SNP loci that have been genotyped in both the parents and their 5,000 progeny. The challenge is to estimate both the genotype and genetic location of the parental SNP genotypes in segregating progeny. Both challenges were met by estimating their expected genotypic values conditional on observed flanking markers through the use of both physical and linkage maps. About 90%, of 500,000 genotyped SNPs from the maize HapMap project, were assigned linkage map positions using linear interpolation between the maize Accessioned Gold Path (AGP) and NAM linkage maps. Of these, almost 70% provided high probability estimates of genotypes in almost 5,000 recombinant inbred lines.     

Fast and cost‐effective single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection in the absence of a reference genome using semideep next‐generation Random Amplicon Sequencing (RAMseq)

Biodiversity has suffered a dramatic global decline during the past decades, and monitoring tools are urgently needed providing data for the development and evaluation of conservation efforts both on a species and on a genetic level. However, in wild species, the assessment of genetic diversity is often hampered by the lack of suitable genetic markers. In this article, we present Random Amplicon Sequencing (RAMseq), a novel approach for fast and cost‐effective detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in nonmodel species by semideep sequencing of random amplicons. By applying RAMseq to the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra), we identified 238 putative SNPs after quality filtering of all candidate loci and were able to validate 32 of 77 loci tested. In a second step, we evaluated the genotyping performance of these SNP loci in noninvasive samples, one of the most challenging genotyping applications, by comparing it with genotyping results of the same faecal samples at microsatellite markers. We compared (i) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) success rate, (ii) genotyping errors and (iii) Mendelian inheritance (population parameters). SNPs produced a significantly higher PCR success rate (75.5% vs. 65.1%) and lower mean allelic error rate (8.8% vs. 13.3%) than microsatellites, but showed a higher allelic dropout rate (29.7% vs. 19.8%). Genotyping results showed no deviations from Mendelian inheritance in any of the SNP loci. Hence, RAMseq appears to be a valuable tool for the detection of genetic markers in nonmodel species, which is a common challenge in conservation genetic studies.     

Linkage analysis of the GAW14 simulated dataset with microsatellite and single-nucleotide polymorphism markers in large pedigrees

Recent studies have suggested that a high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker set could provide equivalent or even superior information compared with currently used microsatellite (STR) marker sets for gene mapping by linkage. The focus of this study was to compare results obtained from linkage analyses involving extended pedigrees with STR and single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker sets. We also wanted to compare the performance of current linkage programs in the presence of high marker density and extended pedigree structures. One replicate of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 14 (GAW14) simulated extended pedigrees (n = 50) from New York City was analyzed to identify the major gene D2. Four marker sets with varying information content and density on chromosome 3 (STR [7.5 cM]; SNP [3 cM, 1 cM, 0.3 cM]) were analyzed to detect two traits, the original affection status, and a redefined trait more closely correlated with D2. Multipoint parametric and nonparametric linkage analyses (NPL) were performed using programs GENEHUNTER, MERLIN, SIMWALK2, and S.A.G.E. SIBPAL. Our results suggested that the densest SNP map (0.3 cM) had the greatest power to detect linkage for the original trait (genetic heterogeneity), with the highest LOD score/NPL score and mapping precision. However, no significant improvement in linkage signals was observed with the densest SNP map compared with STR or SNP-1 cM maps for the redefined affection status (genetic homogeneity), possibly due to the extremely high information contents for all maps. Finally, our results suggested that each linkage program had limitations in handling the large, complex pedigrees as well as a high-density SNP marker set.     

Inferring haplotypes from genotypes on a pedigree with mutations, genotyping errors and missing alleles

Inferring the haplotypes of the members of a pedigree from their genotypes has been extensively studied. However, most studies do not consider genotyping errors and de novo mutations. In this paper, we study how to infer haplotypes from genotype data that may contain genotyping errors, de novo mutations, and missing alleles. We assume that there are no recombinants in the genotype data, which is usually true for tightly linked markers. We introduce a combinatorial optimization problem, called haplotype configuration with mutations and errors (HCME), which calls for haplotype configurations consistent with the given genotypes that incur no recombinants and require the minimum number of mutations and errors. HCME is NP-hard. To solve the problem, we propose a heuristic algorithm, the core of which is an integer linear program (ILP) using the system of linear equations over Galois field GF(2). Our algorithm can detect and locate genotyping errors that cannot be detected by simply checking the Mendelian law of inheritance. The algorithm also offers error correction in genotypes/haplotypes rather than just detecting inconsistencies and deleting the involved loci. Our experimental results show that the algorithm can infer haplotypes with a very high accuracy and recover 65%-94% of genotyping errors depending on the pedigree topology.     

Susceptibility of biallelic haplotype and genotype frequencies to genotyping error

With the availability of fast genotyping methods and genomic databases, the search for statistical association of single nucleotide polymorphisms with a complex trait has become an important methodology in medical genetics. However, even fairly rare errors occurring during the genotyping process can lead to spurious association results and decrease in statistical power. We develop a systematic approach to study how genotyping errors change the genotype distribution in a sample. The general M-marker case is reduced to that of a single-marker locus by recognizing the underlying tensor-product structure of the error matrix. Both method and general conclusions apply to the general error model; we give detailed results for allele-based errors of size depending both on the marker locus and the allele present. Multiple errors are treated in terms of the associated diffusion process on the space of genotype distributions. We find that certain genotype and haplotype distributions remain unchanged under genotyping errors, and that genotyping errors generally render the distribution more similar to the stable one. In case-control association studies, this will lead to loss of statistical power for nondifferential genotyping errors and increase in type I error for differential genotyping errors. Moreover, we show that allele-based genotyping errors do not disturb Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the genotype distribution. In this setting we also identify maximally affected distributions. As they correspond to situations with rare alleles and marker loci in high linkage disequilibrium, careful checking for genotyping errors is advisable when significant association based on such alleles/haplotypes is observed in association studies.     

Genetic mapping of horizontal stripes in Lake Victoria cichlid fishes: benefits and pitfalls of using RAD markers for dense linkage mapping

The genetic dissection of naturally occurring phenotypes sheds light on many fundamental and longstanding questions in speciation and adaptation and is a central research topic in evolutionary biology. Until recently, forward‐genetic approaches were virtually impossible to apply to nonmodel organisms, but the development of next‐generation sequencing techniques eases this difficulty. Here, we use the ddRAD‐seq method to map a colour trait with a known adaptive function in cichlid fishes, well‐known textbook examples for rapid rates of speciation and astonishing phenotypic diversification. A suite of phenotypic key innovations is related to speciation and adaptation in cichlids, among which body coloration features prominently. The focal trait of this study, horizontal stripes, evolved in parallel in several cichlid radiations and is associated with piscivorous foraging behaviour. We conducted interspecific crosses between Haplochromis sauvagei and H. nyererei and constructed a linkage map with 867 SNP markers distributed on 22 linkage groups and total size of 1130.63 cM. Lateral stripes are inherited as a Mendelian trait and map to a single genomic interval that harbours a paralog of a gene with known function in stripe patterning. Dorsolateral and mid‐lateral stripes were always coinherited and are thus under the same genetic control. Additionally, we directly quantify the genotyping error rates in RAD markers and offer guidelines for identifying and dealing with errors. Uncritical marker selection was found to severely impact linkage map construction. Fortunately, by applying appropriate quality control steps, a genotyping accuracy of >99.9% can be reached, thus allowing for efficient linkage mapping of evolutionarily relevant traits.     

Identifying marker typing incompatibilities in linkage analysis.

A common problem encountered in linkage analyses is that execution of the computer program is halted because of genotypes in the data that are inconsistent with Mendelian inheritance. Such inconsistencies may arise because of pedigree errors or errors in typing. In some cases, the source of the inconsistencies is easily identified by examining the pedigree. In others, the error is not obvious, and substantial time and effort are required to identify the responsible genotypes. We have developed two methods for automatically identifying those individuals whose genotypes are most likely the cause of the inconsistencies. First, we calculate the posterior probability of genotyping error for each member of the pedigree, given the marker data on all pedigree members and allowing anyone in the pedigree to have an error. Second, we identify those individuals whose genotypes could be solely responsible for the inconsistency in the pedigree. We illustrate these methods with two examples: one a pedigree error, the second a genotyping error. These methods have been implemented as a module of the pedigree analysis program package MENDEL.     

Quantifying the percent increase in minimum sample size for SNP genotyping errors in genetic model-based association studies

Kang et al. [Genet Epidemiol 2004;26:132-141] addressed the question of which genotype misclassification errors are most costly, in terms of minimum percentage increase in sample size necessary (%MSSN) to maintain constant asymptotic power and significance level, when performing case/control studies of genetic association in a genetic model-free setting. They answered the question for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using the 2 x 3 chi2 test of independence. We address the same question here for a genetic model-based framework. The genetic model parameters considered are: disease model (dominant, recessive), genotypic relative risk, SNP (marker) and disease allele frequency, and linkage disequilibrium. %MSSN coefficients of each of the six possible error rates are determined by expanding the non-centrality parameter of the asymptotic distribution of the 2 x 3 chi2 test under a specified alternative hypothesis to approximate %MSSN using a linear Taylor series in the error rates. In this work we assume errors misclassifying one homozygote as another homozygote are 0, since these errors are thought to rarely occur in practice. Our findings are that there are settings of the genetic model parameters that lead to large total %MSSN for both dominant and recessive models. As SNP minor allele approaches 0, total %MSSN increases without bound, independent of other genetic model parameters. In general, %MSSN is a complex function of the genetic model parameters. Use of SNPs with small minor allele frequency requires careful attention to frequency of genotyping errors to insure that power specifications are met. Software to perform these calculations for study design is available, and an example of its use to study a disease is given.     

Estimation of genotyping error rate from repeat genotyping,unintentional recaptures and known parent–offspring comparisons in 16 microsatellite loci for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus)

Genotyping errors are present in almost all genetic data and can affect biological conclusions of a study, particularly for studies based on individual identification and parentage. Many statistical approaches can incorporate genotyping errors, but usually need accurate estimates of error rates. Here, we used a new microsatellite data set developed for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus) to estimate genotyping error using three approaches: (i) repeat genotyping 5% of samples, (ii) comparing unintentionally recaptured individuals and (iii) Mendelian inheritance error checking for known parent–offspring pairs. In each data set, we quantified genotyping error rate per allele due to allele drop‐out and false alleles. Genotyping error rate per locus revealed an average overall genotyping error rate by direct count of 0.3%, 1.5% and 1.7% (0.002, 0.007 and 0.008 per allele error rate) from replicate genotypes, known parent–offspring pairs and unintentionally recaptured individuals, respectively. By direct‐count error estimates, the recapture and known parent–offspring data sets revealed an error rate four times greater than estimated using repeat genotypes. There was no evidence of correlation between error rates and locus variability for all three data sets, and errors appeared to occur randomly over loci in the repeat genotypes, but not in recaptures and parent–offspring comparisons. Furthermore, there was no correlation in locus‐specific error rates between any two of the three data sets. Our data suggest that repeat genotyping may underestimate true error rates and may not estimate locus‐specific error rates accurately. We therefore suggest using methods for error estimation that correspond to the overall aim of the study (e.g. known parent–offspring comparisons in parentage studies).