Genetica

, Volume 141, Issue 1–3, pp 119–131 | Cite as

Tests of two methods for identifying founder effects in metapopulations reveal substantial type II error

Article

Abstract

Genetic analysis has been promoted as a way to reconstruct recent historical dynamics (“historical demography”) by screening for signatures of events, such as bottlenecks, that disrupt equilibrium patterns of variation. Such analyses might also identify “metapopulation” processes like extinction and recolonization or source-sink dynamics, but this potential remains largely unrealized. Here we use simulations to test the ability of two currently used strategies to distinguish between a set of interconnected subpopulations (demes) that have undergone bottlenecks or extinction and recolonization events (metapopulation dynamics) from a set of static demes. The first strategy, decomposed pairwise regression, provides a holistic test for heterogeneity among demes in their patterns of isolation-by-distance. This method suffered from a type II error rate of 59–100 %, depending on parameter conditions. The second strategy tests for deviations from mutation-drift equilibrium on a deme-by-deme basis to identify sites likely to have experienced recent bottlenecks or founder effects. Although bottleneck tests have good statistical power for single populations with recent population declines, their validity in structured populations has been called into question, and they have not been tested in a metapopulation context with immigration (or colonization) and population recovery. Our simulations of hypothetical metapopulations show that population recovery can rapidly eliminate the statistical signature of a bottleneck, and that moderate levels of gene flow can generate a false signal of recent population growth for demes in equilibrium. Although we did not cover all possible metapopulation scenarios, the performance of the tests was disappointing. Our results indicate that these methods might often fail to identify population bottlenecks and founder effects if population recovery and/or gene flow are influential demographic features of the study system.

Keywords

Bottleneck Decomposed pairwise regression Equilibrium/nonequilibrium Extinction-colonization Historical demography Metapopulation 

Supplementary material

10709_2013_9711_MOESM1_ESM.doc (3.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 3245 kb)

References

  1. Beaumont MA (1999) Detecting population expansion and decline using microsatellites. Genetics 153:2013–2029PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaumont MA, Nichols RA (1996) Evaluating loci for use in the genetic analysis of population structure. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1619–1626Google Scholar
  3. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (1999) Maximum-likelihood estimation of migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations using a coalescent approach. Genetics 152:763–773PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (2001) Maximum likelihood estimation of a migration matrix and effective population sizes in n subpopulations by using a coalescent approach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:4563–4568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray TC, Parreira B, Bruford MW, Chikhi L (2010) 2BAD: an application to estimate the parental contributions during two independent admixture events. Mol Ecol Resour 3:538–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodal inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chikhi L, Sousa VC, Luisi P, Goossens B, Beaumont MA (2010) The confounding effects of population structure, genetic diversity and the sampling scheme on the detection and quantification of population size changes. Genetics 186:983–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conner JK, Hartl DL (2004) A primer of ecological genetics. Sinauer Associates, Inc., MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornuet JM, Ravigné V, Estoup A (2010) Inference on population history and model checking using DNA sequence and microsatellite data with the software DIYABC (v1.0). BMC Bioinform 11:401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cristescu R, Sherwin WB, Handasyde K, Cahill V, Cooper DW (2010) Detecting bottlenecks using BOTTLENECK 1.2.02 in wild populations: the importance of the microsatellite structure. Conserv Genet 11:1043–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzpatrick BM, Fordyce JA, Niemiller ML, Reynolds RG (2012) What can DNA tell us about biological invasions? Biol Invasions 14:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fu YX (1997) Statistical tests of neutrality of mutations against population growth, hitchhiking and background selection. Genetics 133:693–709Google Scholar
  14. Hanski I, Gaggiotti O (eds) (2004) Ecology, genetics, and evolution of metapopulations. Elsevier Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanski I, Simberloff D (1997) The metapopulation approach, its history, conceptual domain, and application to conservation. In: Hanski I, Gilpin ME (eds) Metapopulation biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hundertmark KJ, Van Daele LJ (2010) Founder effect and bottleneck signatures in an introduced, insular population of elk. Conserv Genet 11:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchinson DW, Templeton AR (1999) Correlation of pairwise genetic and geographic distance measures: inferring the relative influences of gene flow and drift on the distribution of genetic variability. Evolution 53:1898–1914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimura M, Weiss G (1964) The stepping stone model of population structure and the decrease of genetic correlations with distance. Genetics 49:561–576PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Koizumi I, Yamamoto S, Maekawa K (2006) Decomposed pairwise regression analysis of genetic and geographic distances reveals a metapopulation structure of stream-dwelling Dolly Varden char. Mol Ecol 15:3175–3189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laval G, Excoffier L (2004) simcoal version 2.0: a program to simulate genomic diversity over large recombining regions in a subdivided population with a complex history. Bioinformatics 20:2485–2487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leblois R, Estoup A, Streiff R (2006) Genetics of recent habitat contraction and reduction in population size: does isolation by distance matter? Mol Ecol 15:3601–3615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levins R (1969) Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeneity for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am 15:237–240Google Scholar
  23. Li H, Meng SJ, Men ZM, Fu YX, Zhang YP (2006) Genetic diversity and population history of golden monkeys (Rhinopithecus roxellana). Genetics 164:269–275Google Scholar
  24. Luikart G, Allendorf FW, Cornuet JM, Sherwin WB (1998) Distortion of allele frequency distributions provides a test for recent bottlenecks. J Hered 89:238–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manier MK, Arnold SJ (2005) Population genetic analysis identifies source-sink dynamics for two sympatric garter snake species (Thamnophis elegans and Thamnophis sirtalis). Mol Ecol 14:3965–3976Google Scholar
  26. Marth GT, Czabarka E, Murvai J, Sherry ST (2004) The allele frequency spectrum in genome-wide human variation data reveals signals of different demographic history in three large world populations. Genetics 166:351–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maruyama T, Fuerst PA (1985) Population bottlenecks and non-equilibrium models in population genetics. II. Number of alleles in a small population that was formed by a recent bottleneck. Genetics 111:675–689PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nei M (1972) Genetic distance between populations. Am Nat 106:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nei M (1978) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Nei M, Kumar S (2000) Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nielsen R, Beaumont MA (2009) Statistical inferences in phylogeography. Mol Ecol 18:1034–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pannell JR (2003) Coalescence in a metapopulation with recurrent local extinction and recolonization. Evolution 57:949–961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Pannell JR, Charlesworth B (1999) Neutral genetic diversity in a metapopulation with recurrent local extinction and recolonization. Evolution 53:664–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes 6:288–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peter BM, Wegmann D, Excoffier L (2010) Distinguishing between population bottleneck and population subdivision by a Bayesian model choice procedure. Mol Ecol 19:4648–4660PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Piry S, Luikart G, Cornuet JM (1999) bottleneck: a computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. J Hered 90:502–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2010) r: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramos-Onsins SE, Rozas J (2002) Statistical properties of new neutrality tests against population growth. Mol Biol Evol 19:2092–2100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) genepop version 1.2: population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  41. Rousset F (1997) Genetic differentiation and estimation of gene flow from F-statistics under isolation by distance. Genetics 145:1219–1228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Slatkin M (1993) Isolation by distance in equilibrium and non-equilibrium populations. Evolution 47:264–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Städler T, Haubold B, Merino C, Stephan W, Pfaffelhuber P (2009) The impact of sampling schemes on the site frequency spectrum in nonequilibrium subdivided populations. Genetics 182:205–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stouffer SA, Suchman EA, DeVinney LC, Star SA, Williams RM Jr (1949) The American soldier, vol. 1: adjustment during army life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  45. Tajima F (1989) Statistical methods for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics 123:585–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wakeley J (1999) Nonequilibrium migration in human history. Genetics 153:1863–1871PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wakeley J (2004) Metapopulation models for historical inference. Mol Ecol 13:865–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wares JP (2009) Natural distributions of mitochondrial sequence diversity support new null hypotheses. Evolution 64:1136–1142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watterson GA (1975) On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol 7:256–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watterson GA (1984) Allele frequencies after a bottleneck. Theor Popul Biol 26:387–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whitlock MC (2005) Combining probability from independent tests: the weighted Z-method is superior to Fisher’s approach. J Evol Biol 18:1368–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitlock MC, McCauley MJ (1990) Some population genetic consequences of colony formation and extinction: genetic correlations within founding groups. Evolution 44:1717–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright S (1939) Statistical genetics in relation to evolution. Actualites scientifiques et industrielles 802. Exposes de biometrie et de la statistique biologique XIII. Hermann et Cie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright S (1940) Breeding structure of populations in relation to speciation. Am Nat 74:232–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Graham Reynolds
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benjamin M. Fitzpatrick
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations