High variance in reproductive success generates a false signature of a genetic bottleneck in populations of constant size: a simulation study

BMC Bioinformatics

Giorgio Bertorelle³  Cock van Oosterhout²  Andrea Benazzo³  Oscar E Gaggiotti¹  Massimo Mezzavilla⁴  Sean M Hoban⁵ 

[1]School of Biology, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK

[2]School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

[3]Department of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Ferrara, via Borsari 46, Ferrara I-44121, Italy

[4]Institute for Maternal and Child Health, IRCCS, University of Trieste, via dell’Istrai 65, Trieste I-34137, Italy

[5]National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBios), The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

关键词: Variance in reproductive success;    Type I error;    Sweepstakes reproduction;    FPR;    MSVAR;    M-ratio;    Heterozygosity excess;    Conservation;   

Others  :  1087727
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2105-14-309

 received in 2013-05-08, accepted in 2013-10-09,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Demographic bottlenecks can severely reduce the genetic variation of a population or a species. Establishing whether low genetic variation is caused by a bottleneck or a constantly low effective number of individuals is important to understand a species’ ecology and evolution, and it has implications for conservation management. Recent studies have evaluated the power of several statistical methods developed to identify bottlenecks. However, the false positive rate, i.e. the rate with which a bottleneck signal is misidentified in demographically stable populations, has received little attention. We analyse this type of error (type I) in forward computer simulations of stable populations having greater than Poisson variance in reproductive success (i.e., variance in family sizes). The assumption of Poisson variance underlies bottleneck tests, yet it is commonly violated in species with high fecundity.

Results

With large variance in reproductive success (V_k ≥ 40, corresponding to a ratio between effective and census size smaller than 0.1), tests based on allele frequencies, allelic sizes, and DNA sequence polymorphisms (heterozygosity excess, M-ratio, and Tajima’s D test) tend to show erroneous signals of a bottleneck. Similarly, strong evidence of population decline is erroneously detected when ancestral and current population sizes are estimated with the model based method MSVAR.

Conclusions

Our results suggest caution when interpreting the results of bottleneck tests in species showing high variance in reproductive success. Particularly in species with high fecundity, computer simulations are recommended to confirm the occurrence of a population bottleneck.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hoban et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bryant EH, Meffert LM: An analysis of selectional response in relation to a population bottleneck. Evolution 1995, 49:626-634.
• [2]Kirkpatrick M, Jarne P: The effects of a bottleneck on inbreeding depression and the genetic load. Am Nat 2000, 155:154-167.
• [3]Van Oosterhout C, Smith AM, Hänfling B, Ramnarine IW, Mohammed RS, Cable J: The guppy as a conservation model: implications of parasitism and inbreeding for reintroduction success. Conserv Biol 2007, 21:1573-1583.
• [4]Swatdipong A, Primmer C, Vasemägi A: Historical and recent genetic bottlenecks in european grayling, thymallus thymallus. Conserv Genet 2010, 11:279-292.
• [5]Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R: The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 1975, 29:1-10.
• [6]Maruyama T, Fuerst PA: Population bottlenecks and nonequilibrium models in population genetics. II. Number of alleles in a small population that was formed by a recent bottleneck. Evolution 1985, 111:675-689.
• [7]Beaumont M a: Detecting population expansion and decline using microsatellites. Genetics 1999, 153:2013-2029.
• [8]Luikart G, Allendorf FW, Cornuet JM, Sherwin WB: Distortion of allele frequency distributions provides a test for recent population bottlenecks. J Hered 1998, 89:238-247.
• [9]Cornuet JM, Luikart G: Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 1996, 144:2001-2014.
• [10]Garza JC, Williamson EG: Detection of reduction in population size using data from microsatellite loci. Mol Ecol 2001, 10:305-318.
• [11]Girod C, Vitalis R, Leblois R, Freville H: Inferring population decline and expansion from microsatellite data: a simulation-based evaluation of the msvar method. Genetics 2011, 188:165-179.
• [12]Hoelzel AR: Impact of population bottlenecks on genetic variation and the importance of life-history; a case study of the northern elephant seal. Biol J Linn Soc 1999, 68:23-39.
• [13]Brekke P, Bennett PM, Santure AW, Ewen JG: High genetic diversity in the remnant island population of hihi and the genetic consequences of re-introduction. Mol Ecol 2011, 20:29-45.
• [14]Hailer F, Helander B, Folkestad AO, Ganusevich S a, Garstad S, Hauff P, Koren C, Nygård T, Volke V, Vilà C, Ellegren H: Bottlenecked but long-lived: high genetic diversity retained in white-tailed eagles upon recovery from population decline. Biol Lett 2006, 2:316-319.
• [15]Pastor T, Garza JC, Allen P, Amos W, Aguilar A: Low genetic variability in the highly endangered mediterranean monk seal. J Hered 2004, 95:291-300.
• [16]Hoban SM, Gaggiotti OE, Bertorelle G: The number of markers and samples needed for detecting bottlenecks under realistic scenarios, with and without recovery: a simulation-based study. Mol Ecol 2013, 22:3444-3450.
• [17]Hundertmark KJ, Daele Van LJ: Founder effect and bottleneck signatures in an introduced, insular population of elk. Conserv Genet 2010, 11:139-147.
• [18]Peery MZ, Kirby R, Reid BN, Stoelting R, Doucet-Beer E, Robinson S, Vasquez-Carrillo C, Pauli JN, Palsbøll PJ: Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines. Mol Ecol 2012, 21:3403-3418.
• [19]Luikart G: Empirical evaluation of a test for identifying recently bottlenecked populations from allele frequency data. Conserv Biol 1998, 12:228-237.
• [20]Hoban SM, Borkowski DS, Brosi SL, McCleary TS, Thompson LM, McLachlan JS, Pereira MA, Schlarbaum SE, Romero-Severson J: Range-wide distribution of genetic diversity in the north american tree juglans cinerea: a product of range shifts, not ecological marginality or recent population decline. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:4876-4891.
• [21]Williamson-Natesan E: Comparison of methods for detecting bottlenecks from microsatellite loci. Conserv Genet 2005, 6:551-562.
• [22]Hoban SM, Gaggiotti OE, Bertorelle G, ConGRESS: Sample planning optimization tool for conservation and population genetics (SPOTG): a software for choosing the appropriate number of markers and samples. Methods Ecol Evol 2013, 4:299-303.
• [23]Guinand B, Scribner KT: Evaluation of methodology for detection of genetic bottlenecks: inferences from temporally replicated lake trout populations. C R Biol 2003, 326:61-67.
• [24]Araki H, Waples RS, Ardren WR, Cooper B, Blouin MS: Effective population size of steelhead trout: influence of variance in reproductive success, hatchery programs, and genetic compensation between life-history forms. Mol Ecol 2007, 16:953-966.
• [25]Hedrick P: Large variance in reproductive success and the Ne/N ratio. Evolution 2005, 59:1596-1599.
• [26]Hedgecock D, Pudovkin AI: Sweepstakes reproductive success in highly fecund marine fish and shellfish: a review and commentary. Bull Mar Sci 2011, 87:971-1002.
• [27]Eldon B, Wakeley J: Coalescent processes when the distribution of offspring number among individuals is highly skewed. Genetics 2006, 172:2621-2633.
• [28]Sjödin P, Kaj I, Krone S, Lascoux M, Nordborg M: On the meaning and existence of an effective population size. Genetics 2005, 169:1061-1070.
• [29]Hill WG: A note on effective population size with overlapping generations. Genetics 1979, 92:317-322.
• [30]Tajima F: Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 1989, 123:585-595.
• [31]Peng B, Kimmel M: SimuPOP: a forward-time population genetics simulation environment. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:3686-3687.
• [32]Hoban S, Bertorelle G, Gaggiotti OE: Computer simulations: tools for population and evolutionary genetics. Nat Rev Genet 2012, 13:110-122.
• [33]Wright S: The distribution of gene frequencies under irreversible mutation. PNAS 1938, 24:253-259.
• [34]Excoffier L, Lischer HEL: Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under linux and windows. Mol Ecol Resour 2010, 10:564-567.
• [35]Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet J-M: Computer note. BOTTLENECK: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective size using allele frequency data. J Hered 1999, 90:502-503.
• [36]Kimura M, Ota T, Ohta T: Distribution of allelic frequencies in a finite population under stepwise production of neutral alleles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1975, 72:2761-2764.
• [37]Estoup A, Angers B: Microsatellites and minisatellites for molecular ecology: theoretical and empirical considerations. In Advances in molecular ecology. Edited by Carvalho GR. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1998:55-86.
• [38]Hedgecock D: Does variance in reproductive success limit effective population size of marine organisms? In Genetics and evolution of aquatic organisms. Edited by Beaumont A. London: Chapman and Hall; 1994:122-134.
• [39]Gaggiotti OE, Vetter R: Effect of life history strategy, environmental variability, and overexploitation on the genetic diversity of pelagic fish populations. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 1999, 56:1376-1388.
• [40]Wang J: Estimation of effective population sizes from data on genetic markers. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 2005, 360:1395-1409.
• [41]Eldon B: Structured coalescent processes from a modified moran model with large offspring numbers. Theor Popul Biol 2009, 76:92-104.
• [42]Sargsyan O, Wakeley J: A coalescent process with simultaneous multiple mergers for approximating the gene genealogies of many marine organisms. Theor Popul Biol 2008, 74:104-114.
• [43]Eldon B: Estimation of parameters in large offspring number models and ratios of coalescence times. Theor Popul Biol 2011, 80:16-28.
• [44]Möhle M, Sagitov S: A classification of coalescent processes for haploid exchangeable population models. Ann Probab 2001, 29:1547-1562.
• [45]Beckenbach AT: Mitochondrial haplotype frequencies in oysters: neutral alternatives to selection models. In Non neutral evolution: theories and molecular data. Edited by Golding B. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1994:187-198.
• [46]Ford MJ, Hanson MB, Hempelmann J a, Ayres KL, Emmons CK, Schorr GS, Baird RW, Balcomb KC, Wasser SK, Parsons KM, Balcomb-Bartok K: Inferred paternity and male reproductive success in a killer whale (orcinus orca) population. J Hered 2011, 102:537-553.
• [47]Anderson EC, Dunham KK: Spip 1.0: a program for simulating pedigrees and genetic data in age-structured populations. Mol Ecol Notes 2005, 5:459-461.
• [48]Guillaume F, Rougemont J: Nemo: an evolutionary and population genetics programming framework. Bioinformatics 2006, 22:2556-2557.
• [49]Landguth EL, Cushman SA: Cdpop: a spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program. Mol Ecol Resour 2010, 10:156-161.
• [50]Bertorelle G, Benazzo A, Mona S: ABC as a flexible framework to estimate demography over space and time: some cons, many pros. Mol Ecol 2010, 19:2609-2625.
• [51]Navascués M, Depaulis F, Emerson BC: Combining contemporary and ancient DNA in population genetic and phylogeographical studies. Mol Ecol Resour 2010, 10:760-772.
• [52]Tallmon DA, Gregovich D, Waples RS, Baker CS, Jackson J, Taylor BL, Archer E, Martien KK, Allendorf FW, Schwartz MK, Scott Baker C: When are genetic methods useful for estimating contemporary abundance and detecting population trends? Mol Ecol Resour 2010, 10:684-692.
• [53]Pertoldi C, Bijlsma R, Loeschcke V: Conservation genetics in a globally changing environment: present problems, paradoxes and future challenges. Biodivers Conserv 2007, 16:4147-4163.