Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics, University of Leuven, Ch. Deberiotstraat, 32, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Mol Ecol. 2012 Jul;21(14):3458-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05628.x. Epub 2012 May 31.
Quantifying the contribution of the various processes that influence population genetic structure is important, but difficult. One of the reasons is that no single measure appropriately quantifies all aspects of genetic structure. An increasing number of studies is analysing population structure using the statistic D, which measures genetic differentiation, next to G(ST) , which quantifies the standardized variance in allele frequencies among populations. Few studies have evaluated which statistic is most appropriate in particular situations. In this study, we evaluated which index is more suitable in quantifying postglacial divergence between three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) populations from Western Europe. Population structure on this short timescale (10 000 generations) is probably shaped by colonization history, followed by migration and drift. Using microsatellite markers and anticipating that D and G(ST) might have different capacities to reveal these processes, we evaluated population structure at two levels: (i) between lowland and upland populations, aiming to infer historical processes; and (ii) among upland populations, aiming to quantify contemporary processes. In the first case, only D revealed clear clusters of populations, putatively indicative of population ancestry. In the second case, only G(ST) was indicative for the balance between migration and drift. Simulations of colonization and subsequent divergence in a hierarchical stepping stone model confirmed this discrepancy, which becomes particularly strong for markers with moderate to high mutation rates. We conclude that on short timescales, and across strong clines in population size and connectivity, D is useful to infer colonization history, whereas G(ST) is sensitive to more recent demographic events.
量化影响种群遗传结构的各种过程的贡献很重要,但也很困难。原因之一是没有单一的衡量标准可以恰当地衡量遗传结构的所有方面。越来越多的研究使用衡量遗传分化的统计量 D 和衡量种群间等位基因频率标准化方差的 G(ST) 来分析种群结构。很少有研究评估哪种统计量在特定情况下最合适。在这项研究中,我们评估了在量化欧洲西部三刺鱼(Gasterosteus aculeatus)种群的冰川后分化时,哪种指数更合适。在这个短时间尺度(10000 代)上,种群结构可能由殖民历史塑造,随后是迁移和漂变。使用微卫星标记,并预计 D 和 G(ST) 可能具有不同的能力来揭示这些过程,我们在两个水平上评估了种群结构:(i)在低地和高地种群之间,旨在推断历史过程;和(ii)在高地种群之间,旨在量化当代过程。在第一种情况下,只有 D 揭示了种群的清晰聚类,可能暗示了种群的起源。在第二种情况下,只有 G(ST) 显示了迁移和漂变之间的平衡。在分层跳板模型中的殖民和随后的分歧模拟证实了这种差异,对于具有中等至高突变率的标记,这种差异变得尤为强烈。我们得出结论,在短时间尺度上,以及在种群大小和连通性的强烈梯度上,D 可用于推断殖民历史,而 G(ST) 对更近的人口事件敏感。