5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A New Method to Uncover Signatures of Divergent and Stabilizing Selection in Quantitative Traits

      , , , ,  
      Genetics
      Genetics Society of America

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          While it is well understood that the pace of evolution depends on the interplay between natural selection, random genetic drift, mutation, and gene flow, it is not always easy to disentangle the relative roles of these factors with data from natural populations. One popular approach to infer whether the observed degree of population differentiation has been influenced by local adaptation is the comparison of neutral marker gene differentiation (as reflected in FST) and quantitative trait divergence (as reflected in QST). However, this method may lead to compromised statistical power, because FST and QST are summary statistics which neglect information on specific pairs of populations, and because current multivariate tests of neutrality involve an averaging procedure over the traits. Further, most FST-QST comparisons actually replace QST by its expectation over the evolutionary process and are thus theoretically flawed. To overcome these caveats, we derived the statistical distribution of population means generated by random genetic drift and used the probability density of this distribution to test whether the observed pattern could be generated by drift alone. We show that our method can differentiate between genetic drift and selection as a cause of population differentiation even in cases with FST=QST and demonstrate with simulated data that it disentangles drift from selection more accurately than conventional FST-QST tests especially when data sets are small.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Phylogenies and the Comparative Method: A General Approach to Incorporating Phylogenetic Information into the Analysis of Interspecific Data

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies.

            Genotyping errors occur when the genotype determined after molecular analysis does not correspond to the real genotype of the individual under consideration. Virtually every genetic data set includes some erroneous genotypes, but genotyping errors remain a taboo subject in population genetics, even though they might greatly bias the final conclusions, especially for studies based on individual identification. Here, we consider four case studies representing a large variety of population genetics investigations differing in their sampling strategies (noninvasive or traditional), in the type of organism studied (plant or animal) and the molecular markers used [microsatellites or amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs)]. In these data sets, the estimated genotyping error rate ranges from 0.8% for microsatellite loci from bear tissues to 2.6% for AFLP loci from dwarf birch leaves. Main sources of errors were allelic dropouts for microsatellites and differences in peak intensities for AFLPs, but in both cases human factors were non-negligible error generators. Therefore, tracking genotyping errors and identifying their causes are necessary to clean up the data sets and validate the final results according to the precision required. In addition, we propose the outline of a protocol designed to limit and quantify genotyping errors at each step of the genotyping process. In particular, we recommend (i) several efficient precautions to prevent contaminations and technical artefacts; (ii) systematic use of blind samples and automation; (iii) experience and rigor for laboratory work and scoring; and (iv) systematic reporting of the error rate in population genetics studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating F-statistics.

              A moment estimator of, the coancestry coefficient for alleles within a population, was described by Weir & Cockerham in 1984 (100) and is still widely cited. The estimate is used by population geneticists to characterize population structure, by ecologists to estimate migration rates, by animal breeders to describe genetic variation, and by forensic scientists to quantify the strength of matching DNA profiles. This review extends the work of Weir & Cockerham by allowing different levels of coancestry for different populations, and by allowing non-zero coancestries between pairs of populations. All estimates are relative to the average value of theta between pairs of populations. Moment estimates for within- and between-population theta values are likely to have large sampling variances, although these may be reduced by combining information over loci. Variances also decrease with the numbers of alleles at a locus, and with the numbers of populations sampled. This review also extends the work of Weir & Cockerham by employing maximum likelihood methods under the assumption that allele frequencies follow the normal distribution over populations. For the case of equal theta values within populations and zero theta values between populations, the maximum likelihood estimate is the same as that given by Robertson & Hill in 1984 (70). The review concludes by relating functions of theta values to times of population divergence under a pure drift model.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Genetics
                Genetics
                Genetics Society of America
                0016-6731
                1943-2631
                October 12 2011
                October 2011
                October 2011
                August 11 2011
                : 189
                : 2
                : 621-632
                Article
                10.1534/genetics.111.129387
                3189809
                21840853
                3c0a21f1-801f-427a-a0a7-9bb7d3eb273b
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article