Conservation Genetics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

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

  • Clare E. Holleley
  • Richard A. Nichols
  • Michael R. Whitehead
  • Aaron T. Adamack
  • Melissa R. Gunn
  • William B. Sherwin
Research Article

Abstract

The effective population size (Ne) is a key parameter in evolutionary and population genetics. Single-sample Ne 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 LdNe) in replicated and controlled genetically structured populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Using experimentally controlled population parameters, we calculated the Wright–Fisher expected Ne for the structured population (TotalNe) and demonstrated that the loss of heterozygosity did not significantly differ from Wright’s model. We found that disregarding the population substructure resulted in TotalNe 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 LdNe (with appropriate priors). Both methods performed best when dispersal rates were high and the population structure was approaching panmixia.

Keywords

Effective population size Population structure Ne onesamp  LdNe 

Supplementary material

10592_2013_518_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (520 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 520 kb)

References

  1. Antao T, Perez-Figueroa A, Luikart G (2011) Early detection of population declines: high power of genetic monitoring using effective population size estimators. Evol Appl 4:144–154PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Averhoff WW, Richardson RH (1974) Pheromonal control of mating patterns in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet 4:207–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Averhoff WW, Richardson RH (1975) Multiple pheromone system controlling mating in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 73:591–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banks SC, Lindenmayer DB, Ward SJ, Taylor AC (2005) The effects of habitat fragmentation via forestry plantation establishment on spatial genotypic structure in the small marsupial carnivore, Antechinus agilis. Mol Ecol 14:1667–1680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker JSF (2011) Effective population size of natural populations of Drosophila buzzatii, with a comparative evaluation of nine methods of estimation. Mol Ecol 20:4452–4471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebee TJC (2009) A comparison of single-sample effective size estimators using empirical toad (Bufo calamita) population data: genetic compensation and population size-genetic diversity correlations. Mol Ecol 18:4790–4797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beerli P, Felsenstein J (2001) Maximum likelihood estimation of a migration matrix and effective population size in n subpopulations by using a coalescent approach. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 98:4563–4568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Dewar RC, Sherwin WB, Thomas E, Holleley CE, Nichols RA (2011) Predictions of single-nucleotide polymorphism differentiation between two populations in terms of mutual information. Mol Ecol 20:3156–3166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. England PR, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (1996) Microsatellite polymorphisms in a wild population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res 67:285–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. England PR, Luikart G, Waples RS (2010) Early detection of population fragmentation using linkage disequilibrium estimation of effective population size. Conserv Genet 11:2425–2430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewens WJ (1979) Mathematical population genetics. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group Ltd, EssexGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilligan DM (2001) Conservation genetics and long-term survival: testing conservation models using Drosophila. PhD Thesis, Macquarie University, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilligan DM, Briscoe DA, Frankham R (2005) Comparative losses of quantitative and molecular genetic variation in finite populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res Cam 85:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gomez-Uchida D, Palstra FP, Knight TW, Ruzzante DE (2013) Contemporary effective population and metapopulation size (N e and meta-N e): comparison among three salmonids inhabiting a fragmented system and differing in gene flow and its asymmetries. Ecol Evol 3:569–580PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulcher J (2012) Microsatellite markers for linkage and association studies. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2012:425–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunn M (2003) The use of microsatellites as a surrogate for quantitative trait variation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  20. Haliburton R (2004) Introduction to population genetics. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  21. Henle K, Lindenmayer DB, Margules CR, Saunders DA, Wissel C (2004) Species survival in fragmented landscapes: Where are we now? Biodivers Conserv 13:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoehn M, Gruber B, Sarre SD, Lange R, Henle K (2012) Can genetic estimators provide robust estimates of the effective number of breeders in small populations? PLoS ONE 7:e48464PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holleley CE (2007) Economical high-throughput DNA extraction procedure in 96-well format for Drosophila tissue. Dros Inf Serv 90:137–138Google Scholar
  24. Holleley CE, Geerts PG (2009) Multiplex Manager 1.0: a cross platform computer program that plans and optimizes multiplex PCR. Biotechniques 46:511–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holleley CE, Sherwin WB (2007) Two robust multiplex PCR reactions for high-throughput microsatellite genotyping in Drosophila melanogaster. Dros Inf Serv 90:140–144Google Scholar
  26. Holleley CE, Hocking AD, Schubert TL, Whitehead MR (2008) Control of Penicillium roqueforti (Thom) infection in cultures of Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen) (Drosophilidae: Diptera). Aust J Entomol 47:149–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holleley CE, Nichols RA, Whitehead MR, Gunn MR, Gupta J, Sherwin WB (2011) Induced dispersal in wildlife management: experimental evaluation of the risk of hybrid breakdown and the benefit of hybrid vigor in the F1 generation. Conserv Genet 12:31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jansson E, Ruokonen M, Kojola I, Aspi J (2012) Rise and fall of a wolf population: genetic diversity and structure during recovery, rapid expansion and drastic decline. Mol Ecol 21:5178–5193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnstone DL, O’Connell MF, Palstra FP, Ruzzante DE (2013) Mature male parr contribution to the effective size of an anadromous Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) population over 30 years. Mol Ecol 22:2394–2407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhner MK (2006) LAMARC 2.0: maximum likelihood and Bayesian estimation of population parameters. Bioinformatics 22:768–770PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science 241:1455–1460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Luikart G, Ryman N, Tallmon DA, Schwartz MK, Allendorf FW (2010) Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches. Conserv Genet 11:355–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maio G (2008) Asymmetrical dispersal in simulation analysis. Masters Thesis, University of New South Wales, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  34. Navarro A, Barton NH (2002) The effects of multilocus balancing selection on neutral variability. Genetics 161:849–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nei M, Tajima F (1981) Genetic drift and estimation of effective population size. Genetics 98:625–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Phillipsen IC, Funk WC, Hoffman EA, Monsen KJ, Blouin MS (2011) Comparative analyses of effective population size within and among species: ranid frogs as a case study. Evolution 65:2927–2945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GenePop (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 86:248–249Google Scholar
  38. Skrbinsek T, Jelencic M, Waits L, Kos I, Jerina K, Trontelj P (2012) Monitoring the effective population size of a brown bear (Ursus arctos) population using new single-sample approaches. Mol Ecol 21:862–875PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tallmon DA, Koyuk A, Luikart G, Beaumont M (2008) ONeSAMP: a program to estimate effective population size using approximate Bayesian computation. Mol Ecol Notes 8:299–301Google Scholar
  40. Templeton AR (2006) Population genetics and microevolutionary theory. John Wiley & Sons, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilman D, May RM, Lehman CL, Nowak MA (1994) Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang J (2001) A pseudo-likelihood method for estimating effective population size from temporally spaced samples. Genet Res 78:243–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang J, Caballero A (1999) Developments in predicting the effective size of subdivided populations. Heredity 82:212–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Waples RS (1989) A generalized approach for estimating effective population size from temporal changes in allele frequency. Genetics 121:379–391PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Waples RS (2006) A bias correction for estimates of effective population size based on linkage disequilibrium at unlinked loci. Conserv Genet 7:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waples RS (2010) Spatial-temporal stratifications in natural populations and how they affect understanding and estimation of effective population size. Mol Ecol Resour 10:785–796PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waples RS, Do C (2007) User’s Manual for LDNE. http://conserver.iugo-cafe.org/user/RobinWaples/LDNe/
  48. Waples RS, Do C (2008) LDNE: a program for calculating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol Ecol Notes 8:753–756Google Scholar
  49. Waples RS, Do C (2010) Linkage disequilibrium estimates of contemporary N e using highly variable genetic markers: a largely untapped resource for applied conservation and evolution. Evol Appl 3:244–262PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Waples RS, England PR (2011) Estimating contemporary effective population size on the basis of linkage disequilibrium in the face of migration. Genetics 189:633–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weir BS (1979) Inferences about linkage disequilibrium. Biometrics 35:235–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984) Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38:1358–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitlock MC (1992) Temporal fluctuations in demographic parameters and the genetic variance among populations. Evolution 46:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright S (1931) Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wright S (1943) Isolation by distance. Genetics 28:114–138PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clare E. Holleley
    • 1
    • 4
  • Richard A. Nichols
    • 2
  • Michael R. Whitehead
    • 1
    • 3
  • Aaron T. Adamack
    • 4
  • Melissa R. Gunn
    • 1
  • William B. Sherwin
    • 1
  1. 1.Evolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth & Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Biological & Chemical SciencesQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Evolution, Ecology and Genetics, Research School of BiologyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Institute for Applied EcologyUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations