Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Department of Biology, Ecological Sciences Research Laboratories, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Mol Ecol. 2018 Feb;27(4):839-842. doi: 10.1111/mec.14502. Epub 2018 Feb 28.
The age of DHP and how pupfish colonized Devils Hole have always been a topic of interest. Recently, two different publications (Martin, Crawford, Turner, & Simons, & Sağlam et al., ) tackled this issue using genomic data sets and demographic models but came to widely different conclusions. In their comment, Martin and Höhne () argue that our results (Sağlam et al., ) were misleading because we used inappropriate calibration information and biased a priori assumptions. They then re-analysed our data using a "biologically informed" mutation rate prior and concluded that our data support a much younger age of DHP (12.6 kya) as opposed to 60 kya reported in our study. Below we will summarize why their arguments do not hold up and explore some of the inconsistencies between their claims and what was actually presented in our study. Furthermore, we will demonstrate their re-analyses provide no new information compared to what was presented in our original manuscript and reinforce our estimate of a 60 kya divergence of DHP as outweighing competing hypotheses.
德文霍氏鱼的起源时间以及如何在魔鬼洞完成种群定居一直是人们关注的话题。最近，两份不同的出版物（Martin、Crawford、Turner 和 Simons，以及 Sağlam 等人）使用基因组数据集和人口模型来解决这个问题，但得出了截然不同的结论。在他们的评论中，Martin 和 Höhne（）认为，我们的结果（Sağlam 等人）具有误导性，因为我们使用了不恰当的校准信息和有偏差的先验假设。然后，他们使用“生物启发”的突变率先验重新分析了我们的数据，并得出结论，我们的数据支持德文霍氏鱼的起源时间更年轻（12.6 kya），而不是我们研究报告中的 60 kya。下面，我们将总结他们的论点为何站不住脚，并探讨他们的主张与我们研究中实际呈现内容之间的一些不一致之处。此外，我们将证明他们的重新分析与我们原始手稿中呈现的内容相比没有提供新的信息，并且加强了我们对德文霍氏鱼起源于 60 kya 的推断，使其更能排除其他假说。
