PedCheck: a program for identification of genotype incompatibilities in linkage analysis.

Prior to performance of linkage analysis, elimination of all Mendelian inconsistencies in the pedigree data is essential. Often, identification of erroneous genotypes by visual inspection can be very difficult and time consuming. In fact, sometimes the errors are not recognized until the stage of running linkage-analysis software. The effort then required to find the erroneous genotypes and to cross-reference pedigree and marker data that may have been recoded and renumbered can be not only tedious but also quite daunting, in the case of very large pedigrees. We have implemented four error-checking algorithms in a new computer program, PedCheck, which will assist researchers in identifying all Mendelian inconsistencies in pedigree data and will provide them with useful and detailed diagnostic information to help resolve the errors. Our program, which uses many of the algorithms implemented in VITESSE, handles large data sets quickly and efficiently, accepts a variety of input formats, and offers various error-checking algorithms that match the subtlety of the pedigree error. These algorithms range from simple parent-offspring-compatibility checks to a single-locus likelihood-based statistic that identifies and ranks the individuals most likely to be in error. We use various real data sets to illustrate the power and effectiveness of our program.     

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.     

Relationship Inference from Trios of Individuals, in the Presence of Typing Error

Misspecification of relationships and of genotype data can cause problems in linkage analyses based on genome-scan data. Previous reports have focused on pairwise relationships and a simple error model. This article considers the increased information available from the joint analysis of trios of individuals, integrating this analysis with an error model that allows for the most common genotyping errors. Given observed marker phenotypes in a genome scan, computational methods are outlined both for likelihoods of relationships and for the posterior probabilities of underlying genotypes. The methods are applied to examples from two real data sets: one has been previously well analyzed, and, hence, Mendelian inconsistencies have been removed; the other typifies the pedigree and genotype errors encountered in the initial analyses of a study. It is demonstrated that the coupling of relationship inference and error detection is quite effective, that the error model is computationally practical, and that data on a third relative can often clarify relationships.     

Comparative study of multipoint methods for genotype error detection

Several programs are currently available for the detection of genotyping error that may or may not be Mendelianly inconsistent. However, no systematic study exists that evaluates their performance under varying pedigree structures and sizes, marker spacing, and allele frequencies. Our simulation study compares four multipoint methods: Merlin, Mendel4, SimWalk2, and Sibmed. We look at empirical thresholds, power, and false-positive rates on 7 small pedigree structures that included sibships with and without genotyped parents, and a three-generation pedigree, using 11 microsatellite markers with 3 different map spacings. Simulated data includes 5,000 replicates of each pedigree structure and marker map, with random genotyping errors in about 4% of the middle marker's genotypes. We found that the default thresholds used by these programs provide low power (47-72%). Power is improved more by adding genotyped siblings than by using more closely spaced markers. Some mistyping methods are sensitive to the frequencies of the observed alleles. Siblings of mistyped individuals have elevated false-positive rates, as do markers close to the mistyped marker. We conclude that thresholds should be decided based on the pedigree and marker data and that greater focus should be placed on modeling genotyping error when computing likelihoods, rather than on detecting and eliminating genotyping errors.     

Error detection for genetic data, using likelihood methods.

As genetic maps become denser, the effect of laboratory typing errors becomes more serious. We review a general method for detecting errors in pedigree genotyping data that is a variant of the likelihood-ratio test statistic. It pinpoints individuals and loci with relatively unlikely genotypes. Power and significance studies using Monte Carlo methods are shown by using simulated data with pedigree structures similar to the CEPH pedigrees and a larger experimental pedigree used in the study of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The studies show the index detects errors for small values of theta with high power and an acceptable false positive rate. The method was also used to check for errors in DCM laboratory pedigree data and to estimate the error rate in CEPH-chromosome 6 data. The errors flagged by our method in the DCM pedigree were confirmed by the laboratory. The results are consistent with estimated false-positive and false-negative rates obtained using simulation.     

Maximum-likelihood estimation of allelic dropout and false allele error rates from microsatellite genotypes in the absence of reference data

The importance of quantifying and accounting for stochastic genotyping errors when analyzing microsatellite data is increasingly being recognized. This awareness is motivating the development of data analysis methods that not only take errors into consideration but also recognize the difference between two distinct classes of error, allelic dropout and false alleles. Currently methods to estimate rates of allelic dropout and false alleles depend upon the availability of error-free reference genotypes or reliable pedigree data, which are often not available. We have developed a maximum-likelihood-based method for estimating these error rates from a single replication of a sample of genotypes. Simulations show it to be both accurate and robust to modest violations of its underlying assumptions. We have applied the method to estimating error rates in two microsatellite data sets. It is implemented in a computer program, Pedant, which estimates allelic dropout and false allele error rates with 95% confidence regions from microsatellite genotype data and performs power analysis. Pedant is freely available at http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/ approximately paulj/pedant.html.     

Using DNA from non-invasive samples to identify individuals and census populations: an evidential approach tolerant of genotyping errors

DNA extracted from hair or faeces shows increasing promise for censusing populations whose individuals are difficult to locate. To date, the main problem with this approach has been that genotyping errors are common. If these errors are not identified, counting genotypes is likely to overestimate the number of individuals in a population. Here, we describe an algorithm that uses maximum likelihood estimates of genotyping error rates to calculate the evidence that samples came from the same individual. We test this algorithm with a hypothetical model of genotyping error and show that this algorithm works well with substantial rates of genotyping error and reasonable amounts of data. Additional work is necessary to develop statistical models of error in empirical data.     

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.     

Estimation of genotype error rate using samples with pedigree information--an application on the GeneChip Mapping 10K array

Currently, most analytical methods assume all observed genotypes are correct; however, it is clear that errors may reduce statistical power or bias inference in genetic studies. We propose procedures for estimating error rate in genetic analysis and apply them to study the GeneChip Mapping 10K array, which is a technology that has recently become available and allows researchers to survey over 10,000 SNPs in a single assay. We employed a strategy to estimate the genotype error rate in pedigree data. First, the "dose-response" reference curve between error rate and the observable error number were derived by simulation, conditional on given pedigree structures and genotypes. Second, the error rate was estimated by calibrating the number of observed errors in real data to the reference curve. We evaluated the performance of this method by simulation study and applied it to a data set of 30 pedigrees genotyped using the GeneChip Mapping 10K array. This method performed favorably in all scenarios we surveyed. The dose-response reference curve was monotone and almost linear with a large slope. The method was able to estimate accurately the error rate under various pedigree structures and error models and under heterogeneous error rates. Using this method, we found that the average genotyping error rate of the GeneChip Mapping 10K array was about 0.1%. Our method provides a quick and unbiased solution to address the genotype error rate in pedigree data. It behaves well in a wide range of settings and can be easily applied in other genetic projects. The robust estimation of genotyping error rate allows us to estimate power and sample size and conduct unbiased genetic tests. The GeneChip Mapping 10K array has a low overall error rate, which is consistent with the results obtained from alternative genotyping assays.     

Detection and Integration of Genotyping Errors in Statistical Genetics

Detection of genotyping errors and integration of such errors in statistical analysis are relatively neglected topics, given their importance in gene mapping. A few inopportunely placed errors, if ignored, can tremendously affect evidence for linkage. The present study takes a fresh look at the calculation of pedigree likelihoods in the presence of genotyping error. To accommodate genotyping error, we present extensions to the Lander-Green-Kruglyak deterministic algorithm for small pedigrees and to the Markov-chain Monte Carlo stochastic algorithm for large pedigrees. These extensions can accommodate a variety of error models and refrain from simplifying assumptions, such as allowing, at most, one error per pedigree. In principle, almost any statistical genetic analysis can be performed taking errors into account, without actually correcting or deleting suspect genotypes. Three examples illustrate the possibilities. These examples make use of the full pedigree data, multiple linked markers, and a prior error model. The first example is the estimation of genotyping error rates from pedigree data. The second-and currently most useful-example is the computation of posterior mistyping probabilities. These probabilities cover both Mendelian-consistent and Mendelian-inconsistent errors. The third example is the selection of the true pedigree structure connecting a group of people from among several competing pedigree structures. Paternity testing and twin zygosity testing are typical applications.     

Identification of Mendelian inconsistencies between SNP and pedigree information of sibs

Background

Using SNP genotypes to apply genomic selection in breeding programs is becoming common practice. Tools to edit and check the quality of genotype data are required. Checking for Mendelian inconsistencies makes it possible to identify animals for which pedigree information and genotype information are not in agreement.

Methods

Straightforward tests to detect Mendelian inconsistencies exist that count the number of opposing homozygous marker (e.g. SNP) genotypes between parent and offspring (PAR-OFF). Here, we develop two tests to identify Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs. The first test counts SNP with opposing homozygous genotypes between sib pairs (SIBCOUNT). The second test compares pedigree and SNP-based relationships (SIBREL). All tests iteratively remove animals based on decreasing numbers of inconsistent parents and offspring or sibs. The PAR-OFF test, followed by either SIB test, was applied to a dataset comprising 2,078 genotyped cows and 211 genotyped sires. Theoretical expectations for distributions of test statistics of all three tests were calculated and compared to empirically derived values. Type I and II error rates were calculated after applying the tests to the edited data, while Mendelian inconsistencies were introduced by permuting pedigree against genotype data for various proportions of animals.

Results

Both SIB tests identified animal pairs for which pedigree and genomic relationships could be considered as inconsistent by visual inspection of a scatter plot of pairwise pedigree and SNP-based relationships. After removal of 235 animals with the PAR-OFF test, SIBCOUNT (SIBREL) identified 18 (22) additional inconsistent animals.Seventeen animals were identified by both methods. The numbers of incorrectly deleted animals (Type I error), were equally low for both methods, while the numbers of incorrectly non-deleted animals (Type II error), were considerably higher for SIBREL compared to SIBCOUNT.

Conclusions

Tests to remove Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs should be preceded by a test for parent-offspring inconsistencies. This parent-offspring test should not only consider parent-offspring pairs based on pedigree data, but also those based on SNP information. Both SIB tests could identify pairs of sibs with Mendelian inconsistencies. Based on type I and II error rates, counting opposing homozygotes between sibs (SIBCOUNT) appears slightly more precise than comparing genomic and pedigree relationships (SIBREL) to detect Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs.     

Quality Control of Genotypes Using Heritability Estimates of Gene Content at the Marker

Quality control filtering of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is a key step when analyzing genomic data. Here we present a practical method to identify low-quality SNPs, meaning markers whose genotypes are wrongly assigned for a large proportion of individuals, by estimating the heritability of gene content at each marker, where gene content is the number of copies of a particular reference allele in a genotype of an animal (0, 1, or 2). If there is no mutation at the marker, gene content has an additive heritability of 1 by construction. The method uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate heritability of gene content at each SNP and also builds a likelihood-ratio test statistic to test for zero error variance in genotyping. As a by-product, estimates of the allele frequencies of markers at the base population are obtained. Using simulated data with 10% permutation error (4% actual error) in genotyping, the method had a specificity of 0.96 (4% of correct markers are rejected) and a sensitivity of 0.99 (1% of wrong markers are accepted) if markers with heritability lower than 0.975 are discarded. Checking of Mendelian errors resulted in a lower sensitivity (0.84) for the same simulation. The proposed method is further illustrated with a real data set with genotypes from 3534 animals genotyped for 50,433 markers from the Illumina PorcineSNP60 chip and a pedigree of 6473 individuals; those markers underwent very little quality control. A total of 4099 markers with P-values lower than 0.01 were discarded based on our method, with associated estimates of heritability as low as 0.12. Contrary to other techniques, our method uses all information in the population simultaneously, can be used in any population with markers and pedigree recordings, and is simple to implement using standard software for REML estimation. Scripts for its use are provided.     

Distinct error rates for reference and nonreference genotypes estimated by pedigree analysis

Errors in genotype calling can have perverse effects on genetic analyses, confounding association studies, and obscuring rare variants. Analyses now routinely incorporate error rates to control for spurious findings. However, reliable estimates of the error rate can be difficult to obtain because of their variance between studies. Most studies also report only a single estimate of the error rate even though genotypes can be miscalled in more than one way. Here, we report a method for estimating the rates at which different types of genotyping errors occur at biallelic loci using pedigree information. Our method identifies potential genotyping errors by exploiting instances where the haplotypic phase has not been faithfully transmitted. The expected frequency of inconsistent phase depends on the combination of genotypes in a pedigree and the probability of miscalling each genotype. We develop a model that uses the differences in these frequencies to estimate rates for different types of genotype error. Simulations show that our method accurately estimates these error rates in a variety of scenarios. We apply this method to a dataset from the whole-genome sequencing of owl monkeys (Aotus nancymaae) in three-generation pedigrees. We find significant differences between estimates for different types of genotyping error, with the most common being homozygous reference sites miscalled as heterozygous and vice versa. The approach we describe is applicable to any set of genotypes where haplotypic phase can reliably be called and should prove useful in helping to control for false discoveries.     

megasat: automated inference of microsatellite genotypes from sequence data

megasat is software that enables genotyping of microsatellite loci using next‐generation sequencing data. Microsatellites are amplified in large multiplexes, and then sequenced in pooled amplicons. megasat reads sequence files and automatically scores microsatellite genotypes. It uses fuzzy matches to allow for sequencing errors and applies decision rules to account for amplification artefacts, including nontarget amplification products, replication slippage during PCR (amplification stutter) and differential amplification of alleles. An important feature of megasat is the generation of histograms of the length–frequency distributions of amplification products for each locus and each individual. These histograms, analogous to electropherograms traditionally used to score microsatellite genotypes, enable rapid evaluation and editing of automatically scored genotypes. megasat is written in Perl, runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux systems, and includes a simple graphical user interface. We demonstrate megasat using data from guppy, Poecilia reticulata. We genotype 1024 guppies at 43 microsatellites per run on an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. We evaluated the accuracy of automatically called genotypes using two methods, based on pedigree and repeat genotyping data, and obtained estimates of mean genotyping error rates of 0.021 and 0.012. In both estimates, three loci accounted for a disproportionate fraction of genotyping errors; conversely, 26 loci were scored with 0–1 detected error (error rate ≤0.007). Our results show that with appropriate selection of loci, automated genotyping of microsatellite loci can be achieved with very high throughput, low genotyping error and very low genotyping costs.     

Family-based association tests for genomewide association scans

With millions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified and characterized, genomewide association studies have begun to identify susceptibility genes for complex traits and diseases. These studies involve the characterization and analysis of very-high-resolution SNP genotype data for hundreds or thousands of individuals. We describe a computationally efficient approach to testing association between SNPs and quantitative phenotypes, which can be applied to whole-genome association scans. In addition to observed genotypes, our approach allows estimation of missing genotypes, resulting in substantial increases in power when genotyping resources are limited. We estimate missing genotypes probabilistically using the Lander-Green or Elston-Stewart algorithms and combine high-resolution SNP genotypes for a subset of individuals in each pedigree with sparser marker data for the remaining individuals. We show that power is increased whenever phenotype information for ungenotyped individuals is included in analyses and that high-density genotyping of just three carefully selected individuals in a nuclear family can recover >90% of the information available if every individual were genotyped, for a fraction of the cost and experimental effort. To aid in study design, we evaluate the power of strategies that genotype different subsets of individuals in each pedigree and make recommendations about which individuals should be genotyped at a high density. To illustrate our method, we performed genomewide association analysis for 27 gene-expression phenotypes in 3-generation families (Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain pedigrees), in which genotypes for ~860,000 SNPs in 90 grandparents and parents are complemented by genotypes for ~6,700 SNPs in a total of 168 individuals. In addition to increasing the evidence of association at 15 previously identified cis-acting associated alleles, our genotype-inference algorithm allowed us to identify associated alleles at 4 cis-acting loci that were missed when analysis was restricted to individuals with the high-density SNP data. Our genotype-inference algorithm and the proposed association tests are implemented in software that is available for free.     

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).     

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.     

Evaluating pedigree data. I. The estimation of pedigree error in the presence of marker mistyping

Pedigrees used in the analysis of genetic or medical data are usually ascertained from sources subject to a variety of errors including misidentification of individuals, faults in historical documents or record linkage, nonpaternity, and unidentified adoption. Genetic markers can be used to verify putative family and pedigree data through the search for inconsistencies, or genetic exclusions, between putative parents and offspring. The probability of observing an exclusion given the occurrence of an error depends upon the gene frequencies at the loci under study and the forms of error. In addition, inconsistencies can arise from laboratory errors in marker determination. Together, these problems make the proper statistical analysis of such data desirable. Here we give a model that specifies the combined effects of various kinds of pedigree error along with genetic marker error. This model allows the maximum-likelihood estimation of the rates of various forms of pedigree error and laboratory error from genetic marker data collected on putative families. The method is illustrated by applying it to data obtained from a South Pacific island population, Tokelau. From the observed distribution of genetic marker inconsistencies between the parents and offspring of putative families, derived from the extensive genealogy of this population, we are able to estimate that the error of a paternal link is 4%, the error of a maternal link is zero, and the overall system typing error is 1%.     

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.     

Assessing reliability of microsatellite genotypes from kit fox faecal samples using genetic and GIS analyses

Noninvasive faecal DNA sampling has the potential to provide a wealth of information necessary for monitoring and managing endangered species while eliminating the need to capture, handle or observe rare individuals. However, scoring problems, and subsequent genotyping errors, associated with this monitoring method remain a great concern as they can lead to misidentification of individuals and biased estimates. We examined a kit fox scat data set (353 scats; 80 genotypes) for genotyping errors using both genetic and GIS analyses, and evaluated the feasibility of combining both approaches to assess reliability of the faecal DNA results. We further checked the appropriateness of using faecal genotypes to study kit fox populations by describing information about foxes that we could deduce from the 'acceptable' scat genotypes, and comparing it to information gathered with traditional field techniques. Overall, genetic tests indicated that our data set had a low rate of genotyping error. Furthermore, examination of distributions of scat locations confirmed our data set was relatively error free. We found that analysing information on sex primer consistency and scat locations provided a useful assessment of scat genotype error, and greatly limited the amount of additional laboratory work that was needed to identify potentially 'false' scores. 'Acceptable' scat genotypes revealed information on sex ratio, relatedness, fox movement patterns, latrine use, and size of home range. Results from genetic and field data were consistent, supporting the conclusion that our data set had a very low rate of genotyping error and that this noninvasive method is a reliable approach for monitoring kit foxes.