Relative sensitivity of neutral versus adaptive genetic data for assessing population differentiation

Population differentiation is often quantified using putatively neutral genetic markers. While adaptive (i.e., selection-driven) genetic markers are becoming increasingly popular, they are mostly used for research on evolutionary processes, such as local adaptation or speciation. Here, we use simulations to evaluate the potential of adaptive genetic data for estimating population differentiation under a range of gene flow, population size, and selection scenarios. Our results suggest that reduced migration can lead to more pronounced genetic differentiation in adaptive versus neutral genetic differentiation, provided that a difference in local selection pressures among spatial locations exists (i.e., spatial selection gradients). These results encourage the use of adaptive genetic data for quantifying genetic differentiation, even in studies focusing on contemporary or recent processes, such as habitat loss and fragmentation. Furthermore, our results illustrate that not testing for selection in putatively neutral markers may lead to incorrect inferences about the processes underlying population differentiation.

[1]  L. A. Whittingham,et al.  Rapid loss of MHC class II variation in a bottlenecked population is explained by drift and loss of copy number variation , 2011, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[2]  Helene H. Wagner,et al.  Landscape Genetics , 2008 .

[3]  S. Cushman,et al.  cdpop: A spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program , 2010, Molecular ecology resources.

[4]  François Pompanon,et al.  Population Adaptive Index: a New Method to Help Measure Intraspecific Genetic Diversity and Prioritize Populations for Conservation , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  R. Frankham Genetics and landscape connectivity , 2006 .

[6]  M. Fortin,et al.  Perspectives on the use of landscape genetics to detect genetic adaptive variation in the field , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[7]  P. Boursot,et al.  Interpretation of variation across marker loci as evidence of selection. , 2001, Genetics.

[8]  Falk Huettmann,et al.  Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation , 2010 .

[9]  Shinichi Nakagawa,et al.  Disentangling the roles of natural selection and genetic drift in shaping variation at MHC immunity genes , 2011, Molecular ecology.

[10]  L. Jost GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[11]  A. Hoffmann,et al.  Detecting genetic responses to environmental change , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[12]  N. Wagemaker,et al.  Genomic toolboxes for conservation biologists , 2011, Evolutionary applications.

[13]  P. Taberlet,et al.  The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing , 2003, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[14]  Gordon Luikart,et al.  Landscape Genomics: A Brief Perspective , 2010 .

[15]  F. Allendorf,et al.  Identification of management units using population genetic data. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  N. Johnson,et al.  Simulating natural selection in landscape genetics , 2012, Molecular ecology resources.

[17]  Michael S. Taylor,et al.  Widespread genomic divergence during sympatric speciation , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  G. Luikart,et al.  Relationships between migration rates and landscape resistance assessed using individual‐based simulations , 2010, Molecular ecology resources.

[19]  L. Waits,et al.  Landscape genetics: where are we now? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[20]  B. Calcott Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species , 2005 .