Lecture Note
Migration, Drift, and Non-random Mating
-
University:
California State University, Northridge -
Course:
BIOL 322 | Evolutionary Biology Academic year:
2006
-
Views:
482
Pages:
41
Author:
Glenn Gomez
Migration, drift, and non-random
mating Hardy-Weinberg conditions
•
•
•
•
•
No mutation
No selection
No migration
No genetic drift
No non-random mating If Hardy-Weinberg holds, then…
• No allele frequency change
p = frequency of allele A
q = frequency of allele a
• Genotype frequencies follow from
p2 + 2pq + q2 Migration
• Not seasonal movement
– E.g. birds
• Movement of alleles form one population to
another
– Called ‘gene flow’
• Makes populations more similar to each
other Migration Nerodia sipedon Selection on banding pattern
• Mainland
– Banded snakes favored (dappled light)
• Islands
– Unbanded snakes favored
• Barren limestone basking surfaces
• Banded alleles on island persist due to
migration from mainland Migration of alleles
• Changes allele frequencies
• Can alter genotype frequencies
• Makes populations more similar Measuring genetic similarity of
populations
• Fst statistic ranges from 0 to 1
• Measures variation among subpopulations
relative to the total variation (s and t)
• Fst high, then subpopulations pretty distinct
• Fst low, subpopulations homogenous Silene dioica Swedish islands
• Colonize young island
– Genes that get to any specific island mostly a matter
of chance
• Pollination by insects
– Over time, genes get spread from island to island
(migration of alleles)
• Die off through ecological succession
– Old populations survivors stochastic Giles and Goulet, 1997 Genetic drift
• In Giles and Goulet’s study, what accounts
for the high Fst values for young
populations?
• Chance founder events
– Populations drawn from small potential pool Population size and genetic drift
• Flip a coin, odds are even (50:50) heads or
tails
• If you flip the coin 10, 000, 000 times
– You’d better get really close to 50:50
• If you flip the coin only 4 times, you have a
good chance of getting either all heads or all
tails
12.5% chance, even if the coin is a fair coin Sampling error in small populations Chance of random allele frequency
change, N = 10 zygotes Drift versus sample size
• 3 runs of a simulation
model
• True allele frequency
60:40 Drift as an evolutionary force
• Drift not an important evolutionary force in
large populations
• Can be important in small populations
– Founding of new populations
– Fixation of alleles, loss of heterozygosity Founder effect
• High Fst in Silene dioica young populations
• In humans,
– Ellis-van-Creveld syndrome
• Rare form of Dwarfism
• Allele frequency around 0.001 in most populations
• But found at 0.07 in Pennsylvania Amish descended
from 200 founding individuals Drift and allele frequency change
• small populations over
many generations
• Fixation: an allele is fixed
at a locus if it is at a
frequency of 100%
• Heterozygosity decreases
as alleles becomes rarer
Note: 2(p)*(1-p)
= 2pq Fixation of alleles
• If allele frequency goes to 1 it is fixed
• If it goes to 0 the allele is lost, and the
alternative allele is fixed (if there are only
two alleles)
• Probability that an allele goes to fixation
equal to its initial frequency
– With drift alone that is (no mutation, no
selection, etc.) Loss of heterozygosity
• Heterozygote frequency = 2 pq
– Alternatively 2p(1-p)
– At a maximum when p = 0.5
• Buri Drosophila experiment
• 107 lines of 8 females 8 males
• Start p = q = 0.5
• Qualitative: heterozygosity
decrease
• Quantitative: for population with
size 16, heterozygosity should
follow dashed line; instead
followed solid gray line - the
prediction for n = 9 Effective population size
• Buri’s fly populations lost heterozygosity as
predicted IF the population size was 9 not 16
• If some died, or failed to reproduce, then the
effective population size can be smaller than the
actual population size
• Ne = (4 NmNf)/(Nm + Nf)
Nm = number of sexually reproductive males
Nf = number of sexually reproducing females
• 5 males 5 females, Ne = 10
• 1 male 9 females, Ne = 3.6 Drift and the neutral theory
• Alleles that have no fitness effect called
neutral
• Allelic substitution can be by drift or
selection
• If most mutations produce selectively neutral
alleles, the fate of those alleles will be
governed mostly by drift
– Basis of idea behind molecular clock Genetic drift summary
• Random effects
• Importance highly dependent on population
size
– Effective population size even smaller
• Can allow a neutral allele to replace another
simply by chance
• Decreases allelic diversity and heterozygosity Non-random mating
• Obviously individuals do not mate randomly
– Really, would you want to mate randomly?
• We are talking about random mating with
respect to particular alleles
• Not non-random mating with respect to money,
sexiness, or ability to make your heart go pitterpatter
– That is sexual selection, a form of natural selection Non-random mating with respect
to alleles
• Positive assortative mating
– Like mates with like
• Mating among genetic relatives called
Inbreeding Inbreeding and heterozygosity
•
•
•
•
Imagine extreme inbreeding
Self fertilization
Homozygotes produce all homozygotes
Heterozygotes produce 1/2 homozygotes
and 1/2 heterozygotes
• Proportion of heterozygotes decreases by
1/2 each generation Selfing and heterozygosity Inbreeding produces excess
homozygotes
• More homozygotes than predicted by
Hardy-Weinberg suggests something,
perhaps inbreeding is going on
• One generation of random mating reestablishes Hardy-Weinberg genotype
frequencies Inbreeding depression
• Does not mean you are sad you kissed your
cousin
• Inbreeding produces a deficit of
heterozygotes and a surplus of homozygotes
• What if those homozygotes are of
deleterious recessive alleles? Inbreeding reduces fitness: humans Also, plants, non-human animals
Blue outcrossed controls; red selfed Conservation Genetics:
the case of the greater prairie
chicken in Illinois Decline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Millions pre-1837 steel plow
25000 in 1933
2000 in 1962
500 in 1972
76 in 1990
50 or less 1994 Habitat loss: steel plow 1837
Two remaining habitats protected in 1962 and 1967 Protection and population decline Why the post mid 1970’s decline?
• Migration
• Drift
• Inbreeding Allelic diversity Egg viability Evolutionary forces
• Drift
– Small population
– Even smaller effective population size
• Lek mating system
• Low allelic diversity, low heterozygosity
• Migration reintroduces new alleles
– Gene flow
Migration, Drift, and Non-random Mating
of 41
Report
Tell us what’s wrong with it:
Thanks, got it!
We will moderate it soon!
Free up your schedule!
Our EduBirdie Experts Are Here for You 24/7! Just fill out a form and let us know how we can assist you.
Take 5 seconds to unlock
Enter your email below and get instant access to your document