Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 69, Issue 1–4, pp 261–273 | Cite as

Moderately and Highly Polymorphic Microsatellites Provide Discordant Estimates of Population Divergence in Sockeye Salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka

  • Jeffrey B. Olsen
  • Chris Habicht
  • Joel Reynolds
  • James E. Seeb
Article

Abstract

Mutation rate can vary widely among microsatellite loci. This variation may cause discordant single-locus and multi-locus estimates of FST, the commonly used measure of population divergence. We use 16 microsatellite and five allozyme loci from 14 sockeye salmon populations to address two questions about the affect of mutation rate on estimates of FST: (1) does mutation rate influence FST estimates from all microsatellites to a similar degree relative to allozymes?; (2) does the influence of mutation rate on FST estimates from microsatellites vary with geographic scale in spatially structured populations? For question one we find that discordant estimates of FST among microsatellites as well as between the two marker classes are correlated with mean within-population heterozygosity (HS) and thus are likely due to differences in mutation rate. Highly polymorphic microsatellites (HS > 0.84) provide significantly lower estimates of FST than moderately polymorphic microsatellites and allozymes (HS < 0.60). Estimates of FST from binned allele frequency data and RST provide more accurate measures of population divergence for highly polymorphic but not for moderately polymorphic microsatellites. We conclude it is more important to pool loci of like HS rather than marker class when estimating FST. For question two we find the FST values for moderately and highly polymorphic loci, while significantly different, are positively correlated for geographically proximate but not geographically distant population pairs. These results are consistent with expectations from the equilibrium approximation of Wright's infinite island model and confirm that the influence of mutation on estimates of FST can vary in spatially structured populations presumably because the rate of migration varies inversely with geographic scale.

mutation migration population genetics population structure FST Pacific salmon 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ABI (Applied Biosystems Inc.) 1996a. GeneScan 672 Users Manual Rev. A. Perkin-Elmer Corp., Foster City, CA. 337 pp.Google Scholar
  2. ABI (Applied Biosystems Inc.) 1996b. Genotyper 2.0 Users Manual. Perkin-Elmer Corp., Foster City, CA. 75 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Allendorf, F.W. & L.W. Seeb. 2000. Concordance of genetic divergence among sockeye salmon populations at allozyme, nuclear DNA, and mitochondrial DNA markers. Evolution 54: 640–651.Google Scholar
  4. Balloux, F., H. Brünner, N. Lugon-Moulin, J. Hausser & J. Goudet. 2000. Micro-satellites can be misleading: An empirical and simulation study. Evolution 54: 1414–1422.Google Scholar
  5. Balloux, F. & J. Goudet. 2002. Statistical properties of population differentiation estimators under stepwise mutation in a finite island model. Mol. Ecol. 11: 771–783.Google Scholar
  6. Bowcock, A.M., A. Ruiz-Linares, J. Tomfohrde, E. Minch, J.R. Kidd & L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. 1994. High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368: 455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonaccorsi,V.P., J.R. McDowell & J.E. Graves. 2001. Reconciling patterns of inter-ocean molecular variance from four classes of molecular markers in blue marlin (Makaira nigricans). Mol. Ecol. 10: 1179–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charlesworth, B. 1998. Measures of divergence between populations and the effect of forces that reduce variability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15: 538–543.Google Scholar
  9. Estoup, A., F. Rousset, Y. Michalakis, J.-M. Cornuet, M. Adriamanga & R. Guyomard. 1998. Comparative analysis of microsatellite and allozyme markers: A case study investigating microgeographic differentiation in brown trout (Salmo trutta). Mol. Ecol. 7: 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freville, H., F. Justy & I. Olvieri. 2001. Comparative allozyme and microsatellite population structure in a narrow endemic plant species, Centaurea corymbosa Pourret (Asteraceae). Mol. Ecol. 10: 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, S.J. 1997. RST Calc: A collection of computer programs for calculating estimates of genetic differentiation from microsatellite data and determining their significance. Mol. Ecol. 6: 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hedrick, P.W. 1999. Perspectives: Highly variable loci and their interpretation in evolution and conservation. Evolution 53: 313–318.Google Scholar
  13. Hendry, A.P., J.K. Wenburg, P. Bentzen, E.C. Volk & T.P. Quinn. 2000. Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: Evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchison, D.W. & A.R. Templeton. 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: 1898–1914.Google Scholar
  15. Jarne, P. & J.L. Lagoda. 1996. Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. TREE 11: 424–429.Google Scholar
  16. Landry, C. & L. Bernatchez. 2001. Comparative analysis of population structure across environments and geographical scales at major histocompatibility complex and microsatellite loci in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Mol. Ecol. 10: 2525–2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nei, M. 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, Columbia University Press, New York. 512 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Neigel, J.E. 2002. Is FST obsolete? Conserv. Genet. 3: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olsen, J.B., S.L.Wilson, E.J. Kretschmer, K.C. Jones & J.E. Seeb. 2000. Characterization of 14 tetranucleotide microsatellite loci derived from sockeye salmon. Mol. Ecol. 9: 2155–2234.Google Scholar
  20. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223–225.Google Scholar
  21. Seeb, L.W., C. Habicht, W.D. Templin, K.E. Tarbox, R.Z. Davis, L.K. Brannian & J.E. Seeb. 2000. Genetic diversity of sockeye salmon of Cook Inlet, Alaska, and its application to management of populations affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 129: 1223–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shaw, P.W., C. Turan, J.M. Wright, M. O'Connell & G.R. Carvalho. 1999. Microsatellite DNA analysis of population structure in Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), with direct comparison to allozyme and mtDNA RFLP analysis. Heredity 83: 4990–4499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slatkin, M. 1995. A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics 139: 457–462.Google Scholar
  24. Wood, C.C. 1995. Life history variation and population structure in sockeye salmon. pp. 195–216. In: J.L. Nielsen (ed.) Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units of Population Conservation, American Fisheries Society Symposium 17, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  25. Wright, S. 1969. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, The Theory of Gene Frequencies, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 511 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey B. Olsen
    • 1
  • Chris Habicht
    • 1
  • Joel Reynolds
    • 1
    • 2
  • James E. Seeb
    • 1
  1. 1.Gene Conservation LaboratoryAlaska Department of Fish and GameAnchorageU.S.A.
  2. 2.Division of Natural ResourcesU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations