Testing single-sample estimators of effective population size in genetically structured populations

22Citations
Citations of this article
72Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The effective population size (N e) is a key parameter in evolutionary and population genetics. Single-sample N e estimation provides an alternative to traditional approaches requiring two or more samples. Single-sample methods assume that the study population has no genetic sub-structure, which is unlikely to be true in wild populations. Here we empirically investigated two single-sample estimators (onesamp and L d N e) in replicated and controlled genetically structured populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Using experimentally controlled population parameters, we calculated the Wright-Fisher expected N e for the structured population (Total N e) and demonstrated that the loss of heterozygosity did not significantly differ from Wright's model. We found that disregarding the population substructure resulted in Total N e estimates with a low coefficient of variation but these estimates were systematically lower than the expected values, whereas hierarchical estimates accounting for population structure were closer to the expected values but had a higher coefficient of variation. Analysis of simulated populations demonstrated that incomplete sampling, initial allelic diversity and balancing selection may have contributed to deviations from the Wright-Fisher model. Overall the approximate-Bayesian onesamp method performed better than L d N e (with appropriate priors). Both methods performed best when dispersal rates were high and the population structure was approaching panmixia. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holleley, C. E., Nichols, R. A., Whitehead, M. R., Adamack, A. T., Gunn, M. R., & Sherwin, W. B. (2014). Testing single-sample estimators of effective population size in genetically structured populations. Conservation Genetics, 15(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-013-0518-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free