4.4 Article

Heterogeneous patterns of variation among multiple human x-linked loci: The possible role of diversity-reducing selection in non-Africans

期刊

GENETICS
卷 167, 期 4, 页码 1841-1853

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.103.025361

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM-53566] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies of human DNA sequence polymorphism reveal a range of diversity patterns throughout the genome. This variation among loci may be due to natural selection, demographic influences, and/or different sampling strategies. Here we build on a continuing study of noncoding regions on the X chromosome in a panel of 41 globally sampled humans representing African and non-African populations by examining patterns of DNA sequence variation at four loci (APXL, AMELX, TNFSF5, and RRM2P4) and comparing these patterns with those previously reported at six loci in the same panel of 41 individuals. We also include comparisons with patterns of noncoding variation seen at five additional X-linked loci that were sequenced in similar global panels. We find that, while almost all loci show a reduction in non-African diversity, the magnitude of the reduction varies Substantially across loci. The large observed variance in non-African levels of diversity results in the rejection of a neutral model of molecular evolution with a multi-locus HKA test under both a constant size and a bottleneck model. In non-Africans, some loci harbor an excess of rare mutations over neutral equilibrium predictions, while other loci show no such deviation in the distribution of mutation frequencies. We also observe a positive relationship between recombination rate and frequency spectra in our non-African, but not in our African, sample. These results indicate that a simple out-of-Africa bottleneck model is not sufficient to explain the observed patterns of sequence variation and that diversity reducing selection acting at a Subset of loci and/or a more complex neutral model must be invoked.

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

4.4
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