Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1997 Jan;145(1):207–216. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.1.207

Microsatellite Genetic Distances with Range Constraints: Analytic Description and Problems of Estimation

M W Feldman 1, A Bergman 1, D D Pollock 1, D B Goldstein 1
PMCID: PMC1207779  PMID: 9017402

Abstract

Statistical properties of the symmetric stepwise-mutation model for microsatellite evolution are studied under the assumption that the number of repeats is strictly bounded above and below. An exact analytic expression is found for the expected products of the frequencies of alleles separated by k repeats. This permits characterization of the asymptotic behavior of our distances D(1) and (δμ)(2) under range constraints. Based on this characterization we develop transformations that partially restore linearity when allele size is restricted. We show that the appropriate transformation cannot be applied in the case of varying mutation rates (β) and range constraints (R) because of statistical difficulties. In the special case of no variation in β and R across loci, however, the transformation simplifies to a usable form and results in a distance much more linear with time than distances developed for an infinite range. Although analytically incorrect in the case of variation in β and R, the simpler transformation is surprisingly insensitive to variation in these parameters, suggesting that it may have considerable utility in phylogenetic studies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.0 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bowcock A. M., Ruiz-Linares A., Tomfohrde J., Minch E., Kidd J. R., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature. 1994 Mar 31;368(6470):455–457. doi: 10.1038/368455a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Deka R., Jin L., Shriver M. D., Yu L. M., DeCroo S., Hundrieser J., Bunker C. H., Ferrell R. E., Chakraborty R. Population genetics of dinucleotide (dC-dA)n.(dG-dT)n polymorphisms in world populations. Am J Hum Genet. 1995 Feb;56(2):461–474. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Estoup A., Garnery L., Solignac M., Cornuet J. M. Microsatellite variation in honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations: hierarchical genetic structure and test of the infinite allele and stepwise mutation models. Genetics. 1995 Jun;140(2):679–695. doi: 10.1093/genetics/140.2.679. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Garza J. C., Slatkin M., Freimer N. B. Microsatellite allele frequencies in humans and chimpanzees, with implications for constraints on allele size. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 Jul;12(4):594–603. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Goldstein D. B., Clark A. G. Microsatellite variation in North American populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 Oct 11;23(19):3882–3886. doi: 10.1093/nar/23.19.3882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldstein D. B., Pollock D. D. Least squares estimation of molecular distance--noise abatement in phylogenetic reconstruction. Theor Popul Biol. 1994 Jun;45(3):219–226. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1994.1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goldstein D. B., Ruiz Linares A., Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Feldman M. W. An evaluation of genetic distances for use with microsatellite loci. Genetics. 1995 Jan;139(1):463–471. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.1.463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Henderson S. T., Petes T. D. Instability of simple sequence DNA in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol. 1992 Jun;12(6):2749–2757. doi: 10.1128/mcb.12.6.2749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Machugh D. E., Loftus R. T., Bradley D. G., Sharp P. M., Cunningham P. Microsatellite DNA variation within and among European cattle breeds. Proc Biol Sci. 1994 Apr 22;256(1345):25–31. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1994.0044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Moran P. A. Wandering distributions and the electrophoretic profile. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Dec;8(3):318–330. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(75)90049-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nauta M. J., Weissing F. J. Constraints on allele size at microsatellite loci: implications for genetic differentiation. Genetics. 1996 Jun;143(2):1021–1032. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.2.1021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nei M., Chakraborty R. Genetic distance and electrophoretic identity of proteins between taxa. J Mol Evol. 1973 Nov 27;2(4):323–328. doi: 10.1007/BF01654100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ohta T., Kimura M. A model of mutation appropriate to estimate the number of electrophoretically detectable alleles in a finite population. Genet Res. 1973 Oct;22(2):201–204. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300012994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Slatkin M. A measure of population subdivision based on microsatellite allele frequencies. Genetics. 1995 Jan;139(1):457–462. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.1.457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Slatkin M. Hitchhiking and associative overdominance at a microsatellite locus. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 May;12(3):473–480. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES