Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Differentiation measures for conservation genetics

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          We compare the two main classes of measures of population structure in genetics: (i) fixation measures such as F ST , G ST , and θ and (ii) allelic differentiation measures such as Jost's D and entropy differentiation. These two groups of measures quantify complementary aspects of population structure, which have no necessary relationship with each other. We focus especially on empirical aspects of population structure relevant to conservation analyses. At the empirical level, the first set of measures quantify nearness to fixation, while the second set of measures quantify relative degree of allelic differentiation. The two sets of measures do not compete with each other. Fixation measures are often misinterpreted as measures of allelic differentiation in conservation applications; we give examples and theoretical explanations showing why this interpretation can mislead. This misinterpretation has led to the mistaken belief that the absolute number of migrants determines allelic differentiation between demes when mutation rate is low; we show that in the finite island model, the absolute number of migrants determines nearness to fixation, not allelic differentiation. We show that a different quantity, the factor that controls Jost's D, is a good predictor of the evolution of the actual genetic divergence between demes at equilibrium in this model. We also show that when conservation decisions require judgments about differences in genetic composition between demes, allelic differentiation measures should be used instead of fixation measures. Allelic differentiation of fast‐mutating markers can be used to rank pairs or sets of demes according to their differentiation, but the allelic differentiation at coding loci of interest should be directly measured in order to judge its actual magnitude at these loci.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

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

          THE INTERPRETATION OF POPULATION STRUCTURE BY F-STATISTICS WITH SPECIAL REGARD TO SYSTEMS OF MATING

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

            THE NUMBER OF ALLELES THAT CAN BE MAINTAINED IN A FINITE POPULATION.

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

              Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST not equal to 1/(4Nm + 1).

              The difficulty of directly measuring gene flow has lead to the common use of indirect measures extrapolated from genetic frequency data. These measures are variants of FST, a standardized measure of the genetic variance among populations, and are used to solve for Nm, the number of migrants successfully entering a population per generation. Unfortunately, the mathematical model underlying this translation makes many biologically unrealistic assumptions; real populations are very likely to violate these assumptions, such that there is often limited quantitative information to be gained about dispersal from using gene frequency data. While studies of genetic structure per se are often worthwhile, and FST is an excellent measure of the extent of this population structure, it is rare that FST can be translated into an accurate estimate of Nm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                loujost@gmail.com
                Journal
                Evol Appl
                Evol Appl
                10.1111/(ISSN)1752-4571
                EVA
                Evolutionary Applications
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1752-4571
                29 January 2018
                August 2018
                : 11
                : 7 , Next generation conservation genetics and biodiversity monitoring ( doiID: 10.1111/eva.2018.11.issue-7 )
                : 1139-1148
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Fundacion EcoMinga Baños Ecuador
                [ 2 ] Southwest Fisheries Science Center La Jolla CA USA
                [ 3 ] National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis University of Tennessee Knoxville TN USA
                [ 4 ] School of Biology Scottish Oceans Institute University of St Andrews St Andrews UK
                [ 5 ] The Morton Arboretum Lisle IL USA
                [ 6 ] Department of Biological Sciences University of Wisconsin‐Milwaukee Milwaukee WI USA
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Lou Jost, Fundacion EcoMinga, Baños, Ecuador.

                Email: loujost@ 123456gmail.com

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2226-4213
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1827-1493
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9892-1056
                Article
                EVA12590
                10.1111/eva.12590
                6050183
                30026802
                8a5797a6-225b-4830-b372-5f7a35c99729
                © 2018 The Authors. Evolutionary Applications published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 September 2017
                : 08 December 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Pages: 10, Words: 8013
                Funding
                Funded by: Next Generation Genetic Monitoring Investigative Workshop at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, sponsored by the National Science Foundation through award #DBI‐1300426; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
                Categories
                Original Article
                Original Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                eva12590
                August 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.4.3 mode:remove_FC converted:17.07.2018

                Evolutionary Biology
                fixation indices,genetic differentiation indices,genetic diversity
                Evolutionary Biology
                fixation indices, genetic differentiation indices, genetic diversity

                Comments

                Comment on this article