4.7 Article

A new method for estimating effective population sizes from a single sample of multilocus genotypes

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 2148-2164

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04175.x

关键词

effective population size; full-sibs; half-sibs; genetic markers; sibship assignments

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/D011035/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D011035/1] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D011035/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Equations for the effective size (N-e) of a population were derived in terms of the frequencies of a pair of offspring taken at random from the population being sibs sharing the same one or two parents. Based on these equations, a novel method (called sibship assignment method) was proposed to infer Ne from the sibship frequencies estimated from a sibship assignment analysis, using the multilocus genotypes of a sample of offspring taken at random from a single cohort in a population. Comparative analyses of extensive simulated data and some empirical data clearly demonstrated that the sibship assignment method is much more accurate [measured by the root mean squared error, RMSE, of 1/(2N(e))] than other methods such as the heterozygote excess method, the linkage disequilibrium method, and the temporal method. The RMSE of 1/(2N(e)) from the sibship assignment method is typically a small fraction of that from other methods. The new method is also more general and flexible than other methods. It can be applied to populations with nonoverlapping generations of both diploid and haplodiploid species under random or nonrandom mating, using either codominant or dominant markers. It can also be applied to the estimation of N-e for a subpopulation with immigration. With some modification, it could be applied to monoecious diploid populations with self-fertilization, and to populations with overlapping generations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据