This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log in
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Oct;180(2):977-93.
doi: 10.1534/genetics.108.092221. Epub 2008 Sep 9.

A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective

Matthieu Foll et al. Genetics. 2008 Oct.

Abstract

Identifying loci under natural selection from genomic surveys is of great interest in different research areas. Commonly used methods to separate neutral effects from adaptive effects are based on locus-specific population differentiation coefficients to identify outliers. Here we extend such an approach to estimate directly the probability that each locus is subject to selection using a Bayesian method. We also extend it to allow the use of dominant markers like AFLPs. It has been shown that this model is robust to complex demographic scenarios for neutral genetic differentiation. Here we show that the inclusion of isolated populations that underwent a strong bottleneck can lead to a high rate of false positives. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that it is possible to avoid them by carefully choosing the populations that should be included in the analysis. We analyze two previously published data sets: a human data set of codominant markers and a Littorina saxatilis data set of dominant markers. We also perform a detailed sensitivity study to compare the power of the method using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), SNP, and microsatellite markers. The method has been implemented in a new software available at our website (http://www-leca.ujf-grenoble.fr/logiciels.htm).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

F<sc>igure</sc> 1.—
Figure 1.—
DAG of the models given in Equation 10 (A) and Equation 11 (B). The square node denotes known quantity (i.e., data) and circles represent parameters to be estimated. Lines between nodes represent direct stochastic relationships within the model. The variables within each node correspond to the different model parameters discussed in the text. N is the genetic data, that is, allele-frequency counts for codominant markers or phenotype-frequency counts for dominant data. formula image and p are, respectively, the allele frequencies in each local population and in the ancestral population. formula image is the vector of the genetic differentiation coefficient for each local population. formula image and formula image are, respectively, the vectors of locus- and population-specific effects of the genetic differentiation. The vector formula image is represented within a dashed circle because it is not actually a parameter of the model: it can be calculated directly from Equation 3, but we represent it for a better understanding of the diagram. formula image is the vector of inbreeding coefficients and a is the hyperprior determining the shape of the ancestral allele frequencies.
F<sc>igure</sc> 2.—
Figure 2.—
Influence of the α-coefficient on FST for a background formula image. On the basis of Equation 3 we calculate the FST coefficient that a locus under selection with a given αi would have. For this we first obtain the value of the population-specific effect for a chosen background FST from formula image and then obtain the corresponding value under selection using formula image. For example, if an initially neutral marker exhibiting an formula image is subject to selection with α = 2, then we expect that its FST will increase to 0.45 once a new equilibrium is reached. Dashed lines connect the FST values given in Table 1 with the corresponding αi-values.

References

    1. Balding, D. J., 2003. Likelihood-based inference for genetic correlation coefficients. Theor. Popul. Biol. 63 221–230. - PubMed
    1. Balding, D. J., and R. A. Nichols, 1995. A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity. Genetica 96 3–12. - PubMed
    1. Balding, D. J., M. Greenhalgh and R. A. Nichols, 1996. Population genetics of STR loci in Caucasians. Int. J. Leg. Med. 108 300–305. - PubMed
    1. Beaumont, M. A., 2005. Adaptation and speciation: What can F-st tell us? Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 435–440. - PubMed
    1. Beaumont, M. A., and D. J. Balding, 2004. Identifying adaptive genetic divergence among populations from genome scans. Mol. Ecol. 13 969–980. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Cite

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /