4.4 Article

Nucleotide diversity in gorillas

Journal

GENETICS
Volume 166, Issue 3, Pages 1375-1383

Publisher

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.166.3.1375

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM30998, GM55759] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Comparison of the levels of nucleotide diversity in humans and apes may provide valuable information for inferring the demographic history of these species, the effect of social structure on genetic diversity, patterns of past migration, and signatures of past selection events. Previous DNA sequence data from both the mitochondrial and the nuclear genomes suggested a much higher level of nucleotide diversity in the African apes than in humans. Noting that the nuclear DNA data from the apes were very limited, we previously conducted a DNA polymorphism study in humans and another in chimpanzees and bonobos, using 50 DNA segments randomly chosen from the noncoding, nonrepetitive parts of the human genome. The data revealed that the nucleotide diversity (pi) in bonobos (0.077%) is actually lower that) that in humans (0.087%) and that pi in chimpanzees (0.134%) is only 50% higher than that in humans. In the present study we sequenced the same 50 segments in 15 western lowland gorillas and estimated pi to be 0.158%. This is the highest value among the African apes but is only about two times higher than that in humans. Interestingly, available mtDNA sequence data also suggest a twofold higher nucleotide diversity in gorillas than in humans, but suggest a threefold higher nucleotide diversity in chimpanzees than in humans. The higher mtDNA diversity in chimpanzees might be due to the unique pattern in the evolution of chimpanzee mtDNA. From the nuclear DNA pi values, we estimated that the long-term effective population sizes Of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas are, respectively, 10,400, 12,300, 21,300, and 25,200.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available