Acta Theriologica

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 23–30

Patterns of genetic variation within a captive population of Amur tigerPanthera tigris altaica

  • Dong Zheng
  • Xuedong Liu
  • Jianzhang Ma


Eight founders and thirty-one descendants were sampled as the Founder group and the Offspring group respectively from a captive population of Amur tigerPanthera tigris altaica Temminck, 1844 for population genetic analysis with RAPD and ISSR markers. Integrated with demographic data during the initial recovery stage, results showed: (1) increasing the population size (N) and the effective population size (Ne) greatly retard lose of genetic variation induced mainly by genetic drift and selection; (2) recombination and admixture could cause the Offspring group (5.711%) and the Founder group (10.383%) to hold different linkage disequilibrium (LD); (3) further Ohta’s variance analysis indicated genetic drift (87.3%) and epistatic selection (12.7%) maintained LD in population, whereas GENEDROP analysis supported epistatic selection largely derived from artificial selection of managers; (4) both Tajima’s test and Fu’s test confirmed the statistic neutrality of genetic markers used, moreover the positive value of Tajima’sD (0.090) together with the result that π (25.286) was bigger than ϑ (24.898) revealed the Founder group was admixture population, while the negative Tajima’sD value (−0.053) together with the result that π (23.679) was less than ϑ (23.912) disclosed the Offspring group experienced selective sweep.

Key words

Panthera tigris altaica gene diversity captive population linkage disequilibrium neutrality test 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allendorf F. W. 1993. Delay of adaptation to captive breeding by equalizing family size. Conservation Biology 7: 416–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black W. C. IV and Krafsur E. S. 1985. A FORTRAN program for the calculation and analysis of two-locus linkage disequilibrium coefficients. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70: 491–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borlase S. C., Loebel D. A., Frankham R., Nurthen R. K., Briscoe D. A. and Daggard G. E. 1993. Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: Consequences of equalization of family sizes. Conservation Biology 7: 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conrad K. 2000. Safety in numbers: review of the Breeding Center forFelidae at Hengdaohezi. Downloadable from http://www.5tigers.orgGoogle Scholar
  5. Crow J. F. and Kimura M. (eds) 1970. An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper & Row, New York: 150–155.Google Scholar
  6. Ellstrand N. C. and Elam D. R. 1993. Population genetic consequences of small population size: implications for plant conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernández J. and Caballero A. 2001. Accumulation of deleterious mutations and equalization of parental contributions in the conservation of genetic resources. Heredity 86: 480–488.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiumera A. C., Parker P. G. and Fuerst P. A. 2000. Effective population size and maintenance of genetic diversity in captive-bred populations of a Lake Victoria Cichlid. Conservation Biology 14: 886–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frankham R. 1986. Selection in captive populations. Zoo Biology 5: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frankham R. 1996. Relationship of genetic variation to population size in wildlife. Conservation Biology 10: 1500–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fu Y-X. 1997. Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics 147: 915–925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie J. H. 1991. The cause of molecular evolution. Oxford University Press, New York: 1–250.Google Scholar
  13. Gupta S. 1996. The maintenance of strain structure in populations of recombining infectious agents. Nature Medicine 2: 437–442.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Halley J. and Hoelzel A. R. 1996. Simulation models of bottleneck events in natural populations. [In: Molecular genetic approaches in conservation. T. B. Smithand and R. K. Wayne, eds]. Oxford University Press, New York: 347–364.Google Scholar
  15. Hedrick P. W. 1986. Protein variation, fitness and captive propagation. Zoo Biology 5: 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. IUCN 1998. IUCN Guidelines for reintroductions. Nairobi, Kenya, IUCN/SSC Reintroductions Specialist Group.Google Scholar
  17. Loftin R. 1995. Captive breeding of endangered species. [In: Ethics on the Ark. B. G. Norton, ed]. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington: 164–180.Google Scholar
  18. Meffe G. K. and Carroll R. 1997. The Species in Conservation. [In: Principles of conservation biology. G. K. Meffe and R. Carroll, eds]. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland: 223–285.Google Scholar
  19. Nei M. (ed) 1975. Molecular population genetics and evolutions. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam: 110–380.Google Scholar
  20. Nei M. (ed) 1987. Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New York: 1–400.Google Scholar
  21. Nei M., Maruyama T. and Chakraborty R. 1975. The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohta T. 1982a. Linkage disequilibrium due to random genetic drift in finite subdivided populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79: 1940–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ohta T. 1982b. Linkage disequilibrium with the island model. Genetics 101: 139–155.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rand D. M. 1996. Neutrality tests of molecular markers and the connection between DNA polymorphism, demography, and conservation biology. Conservation Biology 10: 665–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider S., Roessli D. and Excoffier L. 2000. Arlequin ver 2.000: a software for population genetics data analysis. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  26. Seidensticker J., Christie S. and Jackson P. (eds) 1999. Riding the tigers: tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1–123.Google Scholar
  27. Slatkin M. 1994. Linkage disequilibrium in growing and stable population. Genetics 137: 331–336.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Smit-McBride Z., Moya A. and Ayala F. J. 1988. Linkage disequilibrium in natural and experimental populations ofDrosophila melanogaster. Genetics 120: 1043–1051.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Soulé M. E. 1976. Allozyme variation, its determinations in space and time. [In: Molecular evolution. F. J. Ayala, ed]. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland: 60–77.Google Scholar
  30. Tajima F. 1989. Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123: 585–595.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wedekind C. 2002. Sexual selection and life-history decisions: Implications for supportive breeding and the management of captive populations. Conservation Biology 16: 1204–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams J. G., Kubelik A. R., Livak K. J., Rafalski J. A. and Tingey S. V. 1990. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Research 18: 6531–6535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16: 97–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Zietkiewicz E., Rafalski A. and Labuda D. 1994. Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomics 20: 176–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Mammal Research Institute, Bialowieza, Poland 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dong Zheng
    • 1
  • Xuedong Liu
    • 1
  • Jianzhang Ma
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Wildlife ResourcesNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations