Cargando…

Differentiation measures for conservation genetics

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 str...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jost, Lou, Archer, Frederick, Flanagan, Sarah, Gaggiotti, Oscar, Hoban, Sean, Latch, Emily
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6050183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12590
_version_ 1783340282513719296
author Jost, Lou
Archer, Frederick
Flanagan, Sarah
Gaggiotti, Oscar
Hoban, Sean
Latch, Emily
author_facet Jost, Lou
Archer, Frederick
Flanagan, Sarah
Gaggiotti, Oscar
Hoban, Sean
Latch, Emily
author_sort Jost, Lou
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6050183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60501832018-07-19 Differentiation measures for conservation genetics Jost, Lou Archer, Frederick Flanagan, Sarah Gaggiotti, Oscar Hoban, Sean Latch, Emily Evol Appl Original Articles 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC6050183/ /pubmed/30026802 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12590 Text en © 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.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Jost, Lou
Archer, Frederick
Flanagan, Sarah
Gaggiotti, Oscar
Hoban, Sean
Latch, Emily
Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title_full Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title_fullStr Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title_full_unstemmed Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title_short Differentiation measures for conservation genetics
title_sort differentiation measures for conservation genetics
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6050183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026802
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12590
work_keys_str_mv AT jostlou differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics
AT archerfrederick differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics
AT flanagansarah differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics
AT gaggiottioscar differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics
AT hobansean differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics
AT latchemily differentiationmeasuresforconservationgenetics