Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 2001 Oct;159(2):893–905. doi: 10.1093/genetics/159.2.893

Gene genealogies in a metapopulation.

J Wakeley 1, N Aliacar 1
PMCID: PMC1461837  PMID: 11606561

Abstract

A simple genealogical process is found for samples from a metapopulation, which is a population that is subdivided into a large number of demes, each of which is subject to extinction and recolonization and receives migrants from other demes. As in the migration-only models studied previously, the genealogy of any sample includes two phases: a brief sample-size adjustment followed by a coalescent process that dominates the history. This result will hold for metapopulations that are composed of a large number of demes. It is robust to the details of population structure, as long as the number of possible source demes of migrants and colonists for each deme is large. Analytic predictions about levels of genetic variation are possible, and results for average numbers of pairwise differences within and between demes are given. Further analysis of the expected number of segregating sites in a sample from a single deme illustrates some previously known differences between migration and extinction/recolonization. The ancestral process is also amenable to computer simulation. Simulation results show that migration and extinction/recolonization have very different effects on the site-frequency distribution in a sample from a single deme. Migration can cause a U-shaped site-frequency distribution, which is qualitatively similar to the pattern reported recently for positive selection. Extinction and recolonization, in contrast, can produce a mode in the site-frequency distribution at intermediate frequencies, even in a sample from a single deme.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (201.8 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bahlo M., Griffiths R. C. Inference from gene trees in a subdivided population. Theor Popul Biol. 2000 Mar;57(2):79–95. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1999.1447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beerli P., Felsenstein J. Maximum-likelihood estimation of migration rates and effective population numbers in two populations using a coalescent approach. Genetics. 1999 Jun;152(2):763–773. doi: 10.1093/genetics/152.2.763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Donnelly P., Tavaré S. Coalescents and genealogical structure under neutrality. Annu Rev Genet. 1995;29:401–421. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.29.120195.002153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ewens W. J. The sampling theory of selectively neutral alleles. Theor Popul Biol. 1972 Mar;3(1):87–112. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(72)90035-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fay J. C., Wu C. I. Hitchhiking under positive Darwinian selection. Genetics. 2000 Jul;155(3):1405–1413. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.3.1405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hudson R. R., Kaplan N. L. Deleterious background selection with recombination. Genetics. 1995 Dec;141(4):1605–1617. doi: 10.1093/genetics/141.4.1605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kaplan N. L., Darden T., Hudson R. R. The coalescent process in models with selection. Genetics. 1988 Nov;120(3):819–829. doi: 10.1093/genetics/120.3.819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaplan N. L., Hudson R. R., Langley C. H. The "hitchhiking effect" revisited. Genetics. 1989 Dec;123(4):887–899. doi: 10.1093/genetics/123.4.887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kim Y., Stephan W. Joint effects of genetic hitchhiking and background selection on neutral variation. Genetics. 2000 Jul;155(3):1415–1427. doi: 10.1093/genetics/155.3.1415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu F., Zhang L., Charlesworth D. Genetic diversity in Leavenworthia populations with different inbreeding levels. Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 22;265(1393):293–301. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Maruyama T. Effective number of alleles in a subdivided population. Theor Popul Biol. 1970 Nov;1(3):273–306. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(70)90047-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Maruyama T., Kimura M. Genetic variability and effective population size when local extinction and recolonization of subpopulations are frequent. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1980 Nov;77(11):6710–6714. doi: 10.1073/pnas.77.11.6710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nagylaki T. Geographical invariance and the strong-migration limit in subdivided populations. J Math Biol. 2000 Aug;41(2):123–142. doi: 10.1007/s002850070002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nagylaki T. The expected number of heterozygous sites in a subdivided population. Genetics. 1998 Jul;149(3):1599–1604. doi: 10.1093/genetics/149.3.1599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nagylaki T. The strong-migration limit in geographically structured populations. J Math Biol. 1980 Apr;9(2):101–114. doi: 10.1007/BF00275916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Neuhauser C., Krone S. M. The genealogy of samples in models with selection. Genetics. 1997 Feb;145(2):519–534. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.2.519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Nordborg M., Charlesworth B., Charlesworth D. The effect of recombination on background selection. Genet Res. 1996 Apr;67(2):159–174. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300033619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nordborg M., Donnelly P. The coalescent process with selfing. Genetics. 1997 Jul;146(3):1185–1195. doi: 10.1093/genetics/146.3.1185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nordborg M. Linkage disequilibrium, gene trees and selfing: an ancestral recombination graph with partial self-fertilization. Genetics. 2000 Feb;154(2):923–929. doi: 10.1093/genetics/154.2.923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Nordborg M. Structured coalescent processes on different time scales. Genetics. 1997 Aug;146(4):1501–1514. doi: 10.1093/genetics/146.4.1501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Notohara M. The coalescent and the genealogical process in geographically structured population. J Math Biol. 1990;29(1):59–75. doi: 10.1007/BF00173909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Notohara M. The number of segregating sites in a sample of DNA sequences from a geographically structured population. J Math Biol. 1997 Dec;36(2):188–200. doi: 10.1007/s002850050097. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Pannell J. R., Charlesworth B. Effects of metapopulation processes on measures of genetic diversity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Dec 29;355(1404):1851–1864. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Slatkin M. Gene flow and genetic drift in a species subject to frequent local extinctions. Theor Popul Biol. 1977 Dec;12(3):253–262. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(77)90045-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Slatkin M. Gene genealogies within mutant allelic classes. Genetics. 1996 May;143(1):579–587. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.1.579. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Slatkin M., Hudson R. R. Pairwise comparisons of mitochondrial DNA sequences in stable and exponentially growing populations. Genetics. 1991 Oct;129(2):555–562. doi: 10.1093/genetics/129.2.555. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Slatkin M. Testing neutrality in subdivided populations. Genetics. 1982 Mar;100(3):533–545. doi: 10.1093/genetics/100.3.533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Tajima F. Evolutionary relationship of DNA sequences in finite populations. Genetics. 1983 Oct;105(2):437–460. doi: 10.1093/genetics/105.2.437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Tajima F. Statistical method for testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by DNA polymorphism. Genetics. 1989 Nov;123(3):585–595. doi: 10.1093/genetics/123.3.585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tavaré S. Line-of-descent and genealogical processes, and their applications in population genetics models. Theor Popul Biol. 1984 Oct;26(2):119–164. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(84)90027-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wakeley J. Segregating sites in Wright's island model. Theor Popul Biol. 1998 Apr;53(2):166–174. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1997.1355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wakeley J. The coalescent in an island model of population subdivision with variation among demes. Theor Popul Biol. 2001 Mar;59(2):133–144. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2000.1495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wakeley J. The effects of subdivision on the genetic divergence of populations and species. Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1092–1101. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00545.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Watterson G. A. On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Apr;7(2):256–276. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(75)90020-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Whitlock M. C., Barton N. H. The effective size of a subdivided population. Genetics. 1997 May;146(1):427–441. doi: 10.1093/genetics/146.1.427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wright S. Isolation by Distance. Genetics. 1943 Mar;28(2):114–138. doi: 10.1093/genetics/28.2.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES