Abstract
The Moran discrete process and the Wright–Fisher model are the most popular models in population genetics. The Wright–Fisher diffusion is commonly used as an approximation in order to understand the dynamics of population genetics models. Here, we give a quantitative large-population limit of the error occurring by using the approximating diffusion in the presence of weak selection and weak immigration in one dimension. The approach is robust enough to consider the case where selection and immigration are Markovian processes, whose large-population limit is either a finite state jump process, or a diffusion process.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bürger R, Ewens W (1995) Fixation probabilities of additive alleles in diploid populations. J Math Biol 33(5):557–575
Chumley T, Aydogmus O, Matzavinos A, Roitershtein A (2018) Moran-type bounds for the fixation probability in a frequency-dependent Wright-Fisher model. J Math Biol 76(1–2):1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-017-1137-2
Danino M, Shnerb N (2018a) Fixation and absorption in a fluctuating environment. J Theor Biol 441:84–92
Danino M, Shnerb N (2018b) ‘Theory of time-averaged neutral dynamics with environmental stochasticity’. Phys Rev E 97(4):042406
Danino M, Shnerb N, Azaele S, Kunin W, Kessler D (2016) The effect of environmental stochasticity on species richness in neutral communities. J Theor Biol 409:155–164
Dawson D (2009) Stochastic Population Systems, Summer school in probability at PIMS-UBC, 8 June-3 July
Depperschmidt A, Greven A, Pfaffelhuber P (2012) Tree-valued fleming-viot dynamics with mutation and selection. Ann Appl Probab 22:2560–2615
Etheridge AM (2011) Some mathematical models from population genetics. Springer, Heidelberg
Ethier S (1976) A class of degenerate diffusion processes occurring in population genetics. Commun Pure Appl Math 29(5):483–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160290503
Ethier S, Nagylaki T (1989) Diffusion approximations of the two-locus Wright-Fisher model. J Math Biol 27(1):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00276078
Ethier S, Norman M (1977) Error estimate for the diffusion approximation of the wright-fisher model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74(11):5096–5098
Ethier S, Stewart N, Kurtz T (1986) Markov processes, characterization and convergence. Wiley Series in probability and mathematical statistics: probability and mathematical statistics. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316658
Etienne R (2005) A new sampling formula for neutral biodiversity. Ecol lett 8(3):253–260
Etienne R, Olff H (2004) A novel genealogical approach to neutral biodiversity theory. Ecol Lett 7(3):170–175
Ewens W, Warren J (2004) Mathematical population genetics. I. Theoretical introduction, 2nd edn. Vol. 27 of interdisciplinary applied mathematics. Springer, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21822-9
Feller W (1954) Diffusion processes in one dimension. Trans Am Math Soc 77:1–30
Fisher R (1922) On the dominance ratio. Proc R Soc Edinb 42:321–341
Fisher R (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Fung T, O’Dwyer J, Chisholm R (2017) Species-abundance distributions under colored environmental noise. J Math Biol 74(1–2):289–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-016-1022-4
Hubbell S (2001) The unified neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography. Springler, Princeton University Press, Princeton
Jabot F, Guillin A, Personne A (2018) On the Simpson index for the Moran process with random selection and immigration. arXiv:1809.08890, To appear in International Journal of Biomathematics
Kalyuzhny M, Kadmon R, Shnerb N (2015) A neutral theory with environmental stochasticity explains static and dynamic properties of ecological communities. Ecol lett 18(6):572–580
Kimura M (1983) The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CB2 2RU UK
McCandlish D, Epstein C, Plotkin J (2015) Formal properties of the probability of fixation: Identities, inequalities and approximations. Theor Popul Biol 99:98–113
Moran P (1958) Random processes in genetics. Math Proc Camb Philos Soc 54(1):60–71
Norman M (1977) Ergodicity of diffusion and temporal uniformity of diffusion approximation. J Appl Probab 14(2):399–404. https://doi.org/10.2307/3213013
Simpson E (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688
Stroock D, Varadhan S (1997) Multidimensional diffusion process. Springer, Berlin
Wright S (1931) Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159
Wright S (1945) The differential equation of the distribution of gene frequencies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 31:382–389
Acknowledgements
We deeply thank two anonymous referees, the associate editor and editor for all their comments, recommandations and corrections. It greatly improved the presentation of the paper. This work has been (partially) supported by the Project EFI ANR-17-CE40-0030 of the French National Research Agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendis: Discrete Wright–Fisher model and its approximating diffusion
Appendis: Discrete Wright–Fisher model and its approximating diffusion
Let consider the Wright–Fisher discrete model with selection and immigration. The population still consists of two species, immigration and selection are still the same. But the Markovian process \(X^n_J\) evolves according to the following probability:
with \(P_x=mp+(1-m)\frac{(1+s)x}{1+sx}\).
At each step, all the population is renewed, so this process runs J times faster than the Moran process. And we usually, in the case of weak selection and immigration, it is usual to use the diffusion \(\{Y_t\}_{t>0}\) defined by the following generator to approach this discrete model, when the population goes to infinity.
Theorem 4
Let f be in \(C^5(I)\) then there exist a, \(b\in \mathbb {R}^+\), depending on \(m'\) and \(s'\) (but not on f), and a constant K which satisfy when J goes to infinity:
Proof
Even if the structure of the proof is the same as for the discrete Moran model, however the difference of scale (in \(\frac{1}{J}\) now) causes some small differences. Mainly, the calculation of the \(\{\gamma _j\}_{j \in \{1,2,3,4\}}\) is a bit different. Note that we need to have \(f \in C^5\) in the present theorem, which is stronger than for the Moran process. The main explanation comes from the calculation of \(E[(X_{n+1}^J-x)^k|X_{n}^J=x]\), for which for the Wright–Fisher discrete process it is no longer of the order of \(\frac{1}{J^k}\). Let us give some details.
First consider the moments \(\{ E[\big (X_{n+1}^J-x\big )^k|X^J_n=x]\}_{k\leqslant 5}\):
To get a quantity of the order of \(\frac{1}{J^3}\) we need to go to the fifth moment of \(X_{n+1}^J-x\), so in the Taylor development we need to have f in \(C^5\). Then,
We are now able to give the expression of the \(\{\gamma _j\}_{j \in \{1,2,3,4\}}\), as in the Lemma 1.
Lemma 5
It exists bounded functions of x, \(\{\gamma _j\}_{j \in \{1,2,3\}}\) such as when J is big enough,
where for \(i=1,\ldots ,3\), \(\vert \gamma _i^{J}\vert \) is of the order of \(\frac{1}{J^2}\).
Proof
The proof of this lemma is exactly the same as in lemma 1. Just the calculations are a little bit more tedious:
\(\square \)
The end of the proof follow exactly the same pattern. \(\square \)
So The Wright–Fisher dynamics requires more tricky calculations than the discrete Moran model but the spirit of the proof is the same. All the methods studied in this paper can be adapted in order to treat the Wright–Fisher model.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gackou, G., Guillin, A. & Personne, A. Quantitative approximation of the discrete Moran process by a Wright–Fisher diffusion. J. Math. Biol. 81, 575–602 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-020-01520-y
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-020-01520-y