Maximum-likelihood estimation of relatedness

Relatedness between individuals is central to many studies in genetics and population biology. A variety of estimators have been developed to enable molecular marker data to quantify relatedness. Despite this, no effort has been given to characterize the traditional maximum-likelihood estimator in relation to the remainder. This article quantifies its statistical performance under a range of biologically relevant sampling conditions. Under the same range of conditions, the statistical performance of five other commonly used estimators of relatedness is quantified. Comparison among these estimators indicates that the traditional maximum-likelihood estimator exhibits a lower standard error under essentially all conditions. Only for very large amounts of genetic information do most of the other estimators approach the likelihood estimator. However, the likelihood estimator is more biased than any of the others, especially when the amount of genetic information is low or the actual relationship being estimated is near the boundary of the parameter space. Even under these conditions, the amount of bias can be greatly reduced, potentially to biologically irrelevant levels, with suitable genetic sampling. Additionally, the likelihood estimator generally exhibits the lowest root mean-square error, an indication that the bias in fact is quite small. Alternative estimators restricted to yield only biologically interpretable estimates exhibit lower standard errors and greater bias than do unrestricted ones, but generally do not improve over the maximum-likelihood estimator and in some cases exhibit even greater bias. Although some nonlikelihood estimators exhibit better performance with respect to specific metrics under some conditions, none approach the high level of performance exhibited by the likelihood estimator across all conditions and all metrics of performance.