- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- HTML Page - index.htslp
- HTML Page - index.htslp
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Kauer, M. O.
- Articles by Schlötterer, C.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Kauer, M. O.
- Articles by Schlötterer, C.
A Microsatellite Variability Screen for Positive Selection Associated With the "Out of Africa" Habitat Expansion of Drosophila melanogaster
M. O. Kauer1,a, D. Dieringer1,a, and C. Schlöttereraa Institut für Tierzucht und Genetik, 1210 Wien, Austria
Corresponding author: C. Schlötterer, Josef Baumann Gasse 1, 1210 Wien, Austria., christian.schloetterer{at}vu-wien.ac.at (E-mail)
Communicating editor: D. CHARLESWORTH
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
We report a "hitchhiking mapping" study in D. melanogaster, which searches for genomic regions with reduced variability. The study's aim was to identify selective sweeps associated with the "out of Africa" habitat expansion. We scanned 103 microsatellites on chromosome 3 and 102 microsatellites on the X chromosome for reduced variability in non-African populations. When the chromosomes were analyzed separately, the number of loci with a significant reduction in variability only slightly exceeded the expectation under neutralitysix loci on the third chromosome and four loci on the X chromosome. However, non-African populations also have a more pronounced average loss in variability on the X chromosomes as compared to the third chromosome, which suggests the action of selection. Therefore, comparing the X chromosome to the autosome yields a higher number of significantly reduced loci. However, a more pronounced loss of variability on the X chromosome may be caused by demographic events rather than by natural selection. We therefore explored a range of demographic scenarios and found that some of these captured most, but not all aspects of our data. More theoretical work is needed to evaluate how demographic events might differentially affect X chromosomes and autosomes and to estimate the most likely scenario associated with the out of Africa expansion of D. melanogaster.
THE "neutral theory of evolution" (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Recent advances in molecular biology allow the processing of multiple samples, which permits the analysis of multiple genetic markers in many individuals. Genome scans to test for the effect of directional selection rely on the concept of hitchhiking (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Here we report a genome scan in D. melanogaster, specifically designed to identify genomic regions involved in adaptation to novel habitats. D. melanogaster originated in sub-Saharan Africa and colonized the rest of the world only
10,000 years ago (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
Microsatellites:
We surveyed 102 X chromosomal microsatellite loci and 103 microsatellites located on the third chromosome. For most loci, primers were designed using sequences available from the Drosophila genome project or the Drosophila whole-genome shotgun sequence (releases 1 and 2, http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu/). Microsatellites that were cloned in our lab were, like the above sequences, obtained from non-African flies. Only loci with an uninterrupted repeat structure longer than eight repeat units were chosen for primer design. All loci were typed in two African populations from Zimbabwe and various European populations. The main set of loci was typed without prior evidence for selection. After the first screen additional loci were genotyped in candidate regions for selection. A full list of the loci, populations, and basic statistics is available as online supplementary material (Table S1 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Loci that were also typed in the previous study of ![]()
![]()
Fly strains:
Zimbabwe flies were sampled from two locations, Sengwa Wildlife Reserve (ZS) and Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe (ZH), and were kindly provided by C. F. Aquadro and C.-I Wu. In previous studies we found different African populations, mainly from Kenya, to be very similar in variability levels to the populations from Zimbabwe (![]()
![]()
![]()
For each European population, 30 F1 individuals were used. For the African populations a minimum of 20 individuals were typed for each locus.
Variability measures:
Two measures of microsatellite variability were used: variance in repeat number (![]()
![]()
Measures to detect positive selection:
Reductions in variability below neutral expectations at individual loci can be indicative of positive selection (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The variance-based ln RV is calculated as
![]() |
(1) |
with V =
/2 (![]()
= 4Neµ, Ne is the effective population size, and µ is the mutation rate. The corresponding equation for gene diversity is
![]() |
(2) |
where H is related to
by the formula H = 1 - (1/(1 + 2
)1/2) (![]()
For the remainder of the text, we use ln R
for both ln RV and ln RH. Computer simulations indicate that under neutrality ln RV and ln RH values follow a Gaussian distribution (![]()
![]()
test statistic also holds when an ancestral and a recently derived population are compared (see web supplement, Table S2 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/). Given that ln R
values are approximately normally distributed, the probability that a given locus deviates from neutrality can be obtained from the density function of a standard normal distribution. Hence, the observed ln R
values need to be standardized by the mean and standard deviation of ln R
values from putatively neutrally evolving loci typed in the same populations. The standardized distribution of ln R
has therefore a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. After standardization, 95% of the loci are expected to have values between 1.96 and -1.96. Those loci for which ln R
values fall outside of this interval are considered as putatively selected loci. Coalescence-based computer simulations (C. SCHLÖTTERER and D. DIERINGER, unpublished results) demonstrate a higher power for ln RH than for ln RV to detect selected loci, as ln RH has a smaller variance than ln RV. On the basis of the simulations, we mainly used the ln RH test statistic for the inference of positive selection. C. SCHLÖTTERER and D. DIERINGER (unpublished results) also noted that the type I error can be reduced two- to threefold when both test statistics, ln RH and ln RV, are considered jointly (i.e., when the test is significant for both ln RV and ln RH).
We applied two methods to adjust significance levels of ln R
for multiple testing, Bonferroni correction, and the combination of ln RV and ln RH (see above). While both methods are certainly valid for ruling out false positives, they are extremely conservative. The goal of this study, however, was to provide candidate loci for positive selection that deserve a more detailed analysis, and we therefore report all significant loci.
Identification of out of Africa sweeps:
The main goal of this study was the identification of loci that show strongly reduced variability in European populations. To ensure the identification of a putative selective sweep associated with the habitat expansion of D. melanogaster, rather than local adaptation of a European population, we analyzed multiple European populations. For each locus, we took the arithmetic mean of variabilities over all populations in the two groups (European and African populations). The test statistics ln RV and ln RH are based on these averages. As we focused on positive selection in European populations, we concentrated on loci with significantly reduced variability.
To determine significance levels for the reduction of variability at individual loci, the empirical distribution of ln R
values has to be standardized (see above). When most of the loci evolve neutrally and only a small number of loci are subject to directional selection, the mean and the standard deviation of the empirical ln R
distribution can be used and the selected loci should fall into the lower tail of the distribution. When a substantial fraction of the analyzed loci have been affected by directional selection in the same population, this procedure is problematic because the whole distribution would be shifted to negative values and therefore only loci with the most extreme ln R
values would fall into the lower tail of the distribution. Alternatively, a set of neutrally evolving loci could be used for standardizing. In this study we found the distribution of ln R
values on the X chromosome to be shifted to negative values (see RESULTS). Previous studies also suggested that X chromosomal loci may be influenced by selection more than autosomal ones (![]()
![]()
distribution could be also caused by demographic events (see DISCUSSION), we used two approaches to standardize the ln RV and ln RH distributions. First we standardized both chromosomal distributions by their own mean and standard deviation (standardization procedure 1). With this treatment demographic factors such as a bottleneck or differential reproductive success of males and females (![]()
![]()
of the third chromosome (standardization procedure 2). This second procedure, which a priori assumes more selection on the X chromosome, is not appropriate if the two types of chromosomes have been differentially affected by demographic events (i.e., a bottleneck and/or differential reproductive success of males and females). Thus, the two methods of standardizing therefore provide a conservative and a nonconservative estimate of the number of candidate loci.
Using an analytical approach, we estimated whether demographic events could theoretically explain the difference between X and autosomal variation. Furthermore, we used coalescent simulations to estimate the influence of standardization procedure 2 on the number of false positives.
Analytical estimation of the relative variabilities of X chromosomes and autosomes:
Ignoring new mutations, the genetic variability at time point T (
T) can be expressed as a function of the variability level at time point 0 in the past (
0), the new effective population size (Ne), which is assumed to remain constant, and the time (t) that elapsed between time points 0 and T:
![]() |
(3) |
This equation can be used to estimate the relative loss of variability on X chromosomes and autosomes after a bottleneck by taking into account the difference of (Ne) between the chromosomes. The population is not assumed to be in equilibrium, so that
0 is arbitrary.
Solving (3) for (-t/2Ne) yields
![]() |
(4) |
From (4) it follows that the expected ratio of ln
T/
0 on the X compared to an autosome is given by
![]() |
(5) |
In Equation 5 t cancels out. Hence the relative loss of variability for X chromosomes and autosomes between time points 0 and T depends only on the ratio of the effective population sizes. For the same distribution of reproductive success for the two sexes the expectation is 1.33 irrespective of the time of the bottleneck (due to the absence of new mutations). Equation 4 and Equation 5 offer the advantage that the loss of variability due to a bottleneck can be approximated by the ln R
test statistic, which is easily obtained from experimental data. Thus, the ratio of ln R
of the autosomes and X chromosomes is conservatively estimated by Equation 5.
The expected ratio of the effective population sizes of the chromosomes for a discrete-generation model can be calculated as
![]() |
(6) |
where Nef and Nem are the effective population sizes of females and males, respectively (![]()
Coalescent simulations based on population bottlenecks and differential effective population sizes of chromosomes:
We used computer simulations to evaluate the consequences of various demographic scenarios. In a first set of simulations we assumed a constant ancestral effective population size of Ne = 106 for autosomes and 0.75 x 106 for X chromosomes. At time point t, a bottleneck instantaneously reduced the population size by a factor f. After the bottleneck the population increases exponentially in size until it reaches the current population size of 106 for autosomes and 0.75 x 106 for X chromosomes. The microsatellite mutation rate was set to µ = 5 x 10-6 (![]()
![]()
![]()
= 4Neµ) than autosomes in the ancestral populations while the distribution of reproductive success was assumed to be the same for the two sexes after the population size reduction. Finally, we simulated scenarios where more variability is present on the X chromosomes in the ancestral population but the effective population size for females is lower than that of males after the bottleneck. These scenarios were simulated only for those variability levels that were most similar to the ones observed in the empirical data set (i.e.,
X = 3
A in the ancestral population). Summary statistics for all simulations are shown in Table S3 at http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/. Coalescent simulations were performed with a modification of the Makesamples software (![]()
![]()
Coalescent simulations for evaluating the influence of nonstepwise mutations on ln RH and ln RV:
We relied on a commonly used coalescent-based computer simulation algorithm (![]()
Allele excess:
Allele excess was determined with the Bottleneck program (![]()
Genetic distance and FST:
Genetic distances (defined as 1 - proportion of shared alleles) and unbiased estimators of FST (![]()
![]()
![]()
Recombination rates:
Recombination rates (in percentage of recombination per kilobase and generation) of genomic sequence and generation were calculated as outlined in ![]()
![]()
| RESULTS |
|---|
Consistent with previous reports (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
|
In our analysis, we averaged microsatellite variabilities across populations. As the set of populations analyzed differed among loci, this could have biased our analysis. Consistent with previous reports (![]()
![]()
|
|
Influence of nonstepwise mutations and indel polymorphisms on ln RH and ln RV:
Before applying the ln R
test statistics to our data we wanted to examine a critical aspect of the two test statistics used, ln RH and ln RV: their robustness to deviations from the strict stepwise mutation model as described by ![]()
0.70.8, P < 0.01, Spearman rank correlation), suggesting some deviation from the strict stepwise mutation model. In simulations that allow for some mutations of multiple microsatellite repeat units (TPM; ![]()
![]()
Indel mutations become even more problematic when only a small number of loci are affected. As loci with indel mutations have a higher variance in ln RV, they are more frequently located in the tails of the distribution when analyzed jointly with loci varying only in microsatellite repeat number. Hence, indels in the flanking sequence not only reduce the power of ln RV to detect selective sweeps, but also increase the type I error rate. Therefore we relied mainly on ln RH for the identification of candidate loci for positive selection.
Identification of candidate loci:
Consistent with previous computer simulations (![]()
values show more negative values on the X than on the third chromosome (mean/SD of ln RH, X, -2.37/1.37; third chromosome, -1.18/0.94), indicating a larger loss of variability on the X chromosome than on the third chromosome (![]()
|
As outlined in MATERIAL AND METHODS, we pursued two different approaches to identify candidate loci for positive selection. In standardization procedure 1 we treated each chromosome separately and standardized the ln R
values by the mean and standard deviation from all loci mapping to the same chromosome. Using this approach, we identified a conservative set of candidate loci. In standardization procedure 2, the statistical significance of the ln R
values of individual loci on the X chromosome was determined by standardizing with the distribution of ln R
of the third chromosome. In the absence of demographic events, this procedure is not expected to bias the results and may be even favorable when a larger number of selective sweeps is expected on the X chromosome. Demographic events, however, may lead to a more pronounced loss in variability at X-linked loci, so that a larger number of false positives may be obtained.
Standardization procedure 1:
When both chromosomes were standardized with their own distribution of ln RH and ln RV, seven loci on the X chromosome and eight loci on the third chromosome showed a significant reduction in variability by either ln RH or ln RV or both (Table 4, Fig 1). Using ln RH, four loci were located in the lower tail and two loci in the upper tail of the X chromosomal distribution. On the third chromosome, seven significant loci were identified, five of which were in the lower tail of the distribution. The ratios of significant loci in the lower and the upper tail of the ln RV distribution were 4:2 on the X chromosome and 3:1 for chromosome 3. No difference in the power of the two test statistics was observed and only one locus on the X chromosome was significant for both ln RH and ln RV tests. After adjusting the
-value for multiple testing by Bonferroni correction (i.e., ln RH and ln RV < -3.67, Table 4) none of the loci in this set remained significant.
|
Standardization procedure 2 for the X chromosome: A total of 30 loci on the X were identified by either ln RH or ln RV using this method (Table 4, Fig 1). Because of the larger reduction of variability on the X chromosome, all 28 loci identified with ln RH were located in the lower tail and none in the upper tail of the third chromosomal ln RH distribution. Using ln RV 10 loci were found in the lower tail and 4 loci in the upper tail of the distribution. Eight loci identified with ln RH remained significant after Bonferroni correction.
Considering that deviations from the strict stepwise mutation model have a strong impact on the ln RV test statistic, and given that flanking sequence indels occur frequently in Drosophila (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
All candidate loci are shown in Fig 1, where the confidence limits for both standardization procedures are also drawn. Visual inspection suggests no obvious spatial clustering of significant loci on the third chromosome and of the nonconservative X chromosomal set. Three of the four significant X chromosomal loci (based on the conservative standardization procedure 1) are located in relatively close proximity to each other.
As microsatellite mutation rates are dependent on repeat length (![]()
![]()
Allele excess and genetic distance of candidate loci:
An excess of rare alleles is often taken as evidence for selection (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
A selective sweep removes allelic variation around a selected site. Thus the genetic distance between a selected and neutrally evolving population is increased at a locus affected by a selective sweep. As absolute genetic distances were found to be superior to relative measures of genetic distance (e.g., FST) for the comparison of variability in selected and neutrally evolving regions (![]()
Analysis of the genomic region flanking a candidate locus:
This study's purpose was to identify regions in the genome of D. melanogaster that are reasonable candidates for a thorough examination of their adaptive value in European populations. In the analysis above we presented both nonconservative and conservative estimations of the number of loci that may have been affected by selection. One approach to verifying a candidate region takes advantage of the fact that a selective sweep reduces variability in the genomic region flanking the selected site (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Table S5 shows that some of the candidate loci fall into the same genomic region and so may indicate the same putative selective sweep. This clustering would reduce the number of independent candidate sweep regions on the X chromosome from 30 to 27 (nonconservative set before correction for multiple tests). Consistent with ![]()
Note that the regions around P3B02gt, 66-95-3, and 3L2299865gt have already been reported and analyzed in detail by ![]()
A detailed discussion and a list of genes in candidate regions can be found in the web supplement accompanying this article (Tables S5 and S6; http://www.genetics.org/supplemental/).
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
In this microsatellite variability screen, we have found a more pronounced reduction in variability in non-African X chromosomes than on autosomes. This unbalanced reduction of microsatellite variability could arise from a bottleneck associated with the habitat expansion of D. melanogaster (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Influence of bottlenecks and skewed reproductive success:
Due to the different reduction of microsatellite variability on the chromosomes, we identified very different numbers of candidate loci with our two standardization procedures. While all of the loci in the conservative set are good candidates for positive selection outside of Africa, in the nonconservative set there may be a higher number of false positives than indicated by the nominal
-value of 0.05. This number depends on the demographic scenario that was associated with the colonization of non-African habitats by D. melanogaster. Therefore, to evaluate whether our data could be explained under neutrality, we explored a range of demographic models analytically and with coalescence simulations.
Analytical approach:
Using the analytical approach outlined in MATERIALS AND METHODS (Equation 3Equation 4Equation 5Equation 6), we estimated whether the different behavior of X chromosomes and autosomes could be explained by a bottleneck and/or skewed sex ratios. Because of the problematic properties of ln RV for nonstepwise mutations (see RESULTS) we relied on ln RH. Assuming no sex differences in the distribution of reproductive success outside of Africa, it follows from Equation 5 that the expectation for ln RH is identical for both chromosomes when autosomal ln RH values are multiplied by 1.33. Importantly, this expectation is independent of the relative variability levels before the bottleneck (i.e., the ratio of
0 for the chromosomes in Africa). Therefore multiplying autosomal ln RH values by 1.33 assumes an equal distribution of reproductive success for the two sexes only outside of Africa (between time points 0 and T). In contrast to this expectation, we found that the mean of ln RH values for the X chromosome are significantly more negative than the ln RH values of autosomal loci (X, -2.37; A, -1.57; P < 0.0001, t-test). Thus, relative to the autosome the X chromosome lost more variability than expected. This result is not affected by the different levels of variability on X chromosomes and autosomes in the African population (![]()
![]()
![]()
Similarly, to estimate the influence of our standardization procedure 2, we calculated the number of significant X chromosomal ln RH values when standardized with the mean and the standard deviation of ln RH values from the third chromosome multiplied by 1.33. Standardizing in this way yields twice as many significant ln RH values on the X chromosome (11 loci) as on the autosome (5 loci). These 11 X chromosomal loci are the ones with the most negative ln RH values in Table 4.
Another factor that could influence the distribution of ln RH is differential reproductive success of males and females. An effective surplus of males in Europe (![]()
![]()
With the analytical analyses we explored in a simple way (ignoring new mutations) the combined effect of a bottleneck and skewed sex ratios on the relative loss of variability on the X and the autosome outside of Africa. Assuming that different levels of variability among X chromosomes and autosomes are caused by different distributions of reproductive success for males and females, it has to be noted that an inverse difference must be present among African and non-African populations, as in Africa X chromosomes are more variable. Note that the analytical analyses implicitly assumed a bottleneck outside of Africa, because otherwise no variability would have been lost. The results from these analyses indicate that our data can be explained under certain demographic scenarios.
Coalescence simulations:
Despite the fact that D. melanogaster microsatellite mutation rates are low (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Computer simulations that assumed the same distribution of reproductive success for males and females in Africa did not result in a large excess of false positives when standardization procedure 2 was used (Table S3, 1a1h). Nevertheless, this set of simulations failed to capture the higher X chromosomal variability in Africa. Therefore, for another set of simulations we assumed different
-values for X chromosomes and autosomes (Table S3, 2a4g). The best fit to the observed African variation was obtained when
of the X chromosome was 24 times as high as
on the autosome (Table 1, Table S3). This is not surprising as the observed mean value of
(based on heterozygosity) of the X chromosome in our data is
2.5 times the one on the autosome in Zimbabwe [ Table 1, where heterozygosity (H) is related to
by the formula H = 1 - (1/(1 + 2
)1/2) (![]()
![]()
Finally, in simulations 5a5h (Table S3) we combined a threefold excess of variation (
) for African X chromosomes relative to autosomes (as for simulations 3a3h in Table S3) with an unequal distribution of reproductive success of the two sexes in non-African populations (Table S3, 5a5h). The effective population sizes of males and females in the postbottleneck population were set to 5:1. Three aspects could be highlighted in these simulations: (i) some parameter combinations closely matched the observed levels of variability in African and non-African chromosomes; (ii) the number of false positives increased when standardization procedure 2 was applied; and (iii) for some scenarios the variance in ln RH was increased on the X chromosome, although to a lesser extent than in the empirical data.
Analytical analyses and simulations indicated that the standardization of X chromosomal data with autosomal data may be associated with an error leading to an overestimation of the number of selected loci on the X chromosome. The magnitude of this error can be so large as to explain a large number of candidate loci we found on the X chromosome when using standardization procedure 2. The actual error that is made could, however, be estimated only if the true demographic scenario was known. An exhaustive likelihood approach where the probability to observe the data assuming different demographic scenarios and also incorporating selection will be a worthwhile task for future analysis but is beyond the scope of this study. Another factor that our simulations may not have captured is a different mutation rate on X chromosome and autosome. This could explain the difference in microsatellite variability in Africa and could in principle bias the distribution of the variability reduction in non-African populations. A conservative estimation of the number of candidate loci on the X is given by standardization procedure 1.
Positive selection in non-African populations of D. melanogaster:
An alternative explanation for the larger reduction of variability on the X chromosome is a higher impact of selection on the X chromosome. This could be the result of hemizygosity of the X chromosomes in males or the result of more beneficial alleles on the X chromosomes (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Although, as noted above, an exhaustive examination of demographic scenarios remains to be done, an empirical approach to disentangle the false positives from truly selected loci could be to gather more information about all candidate loci. As presented in RESULTS, a first step in this direction is a detailed analysis of variability in the genomic region flanking the candidate loci.
A question of great interest would be to extract the rate of adaptation of D. melanogaster to non-African habitats from our data. This goal is difficult to address even when the effects of demography are ignored, as the power of our approach is dependent on the impact of hitchhiking. This impact can be different for the X chromosome and autosomes (![]()
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 These authors contributed equally to this work. ![]()
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank G. Muir, B. Payseur, C. Vogl, and members of the C.S. lab for helpful discussions on the manuscript. D. Charlesworth and three anonymous reviewers provided several helpful suggestions, which significantly improved our manuscript. T. Wiehe shared unpublished software. Many thanks also go to B. Görnet and J. Tordorova for help with microsatellite typing. This work was supported by Fond fur Forderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung grants to C.S.
Manuscript received October 9, 2002; Accepted for publication June 13, 2003.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
ANDOLFATTO, P., 2001a Adaptive hitchhiking effects on genome variability. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 11:635-641.[Medline]
ANDOLFATTO, P., 2001b Contrasting patterns of X-linked and autosomal nucleotide variation in Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans.. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:279-290.
AQUADRO, C. F., D. J. BEGUN and E. C. KINDAHL, 1994 Selection, recombination, and DNA polymorphism in Drosophila, pp. 4656 in Non-Neutral Evolution, edited by B. GOLDING. Chapman & Hall, London.
BACHTROG, D., S. WEISS, B. ZANGERL, G. BREM, and C. SCHLÖTTERER, 1999 Distribution of dinucleotide microsatellites in the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:602-610.[Abstract]
BEGUN, D. and C. F. AQUADRO, 1993 African and North American populations of Drosophila melanogaster are very different at the DNA level. Nature 365:548-550.[Medline]
BOULETREAU, J., 1978 Ovarian activity and reproductive potential in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster.. Oecologia 35:319-342.
BRAVERMAN, J. M., R. R. HUDSON, N. L. KAPLAN, C. H. LANGLEY, and W. STEPHAN, 1995 The hitchhiking effect on the sites frequency spectrum of DNA polymorphisms. Genetics 140:783-796.[Abstract]
BUSTAMANTE, C. D., R. NIELSEN, S. A. SAWYER, K. M. OLSEN, and M. D. PURUGGANAN et al., 2002 The cost of inbreeding in Arabidopsis. Nature 416:531-534.[Medline]
CABALLERO, A., 1994 Developments in the prediction of effective population size. Heredity 73:657-679.
CARACRISTI, G. and C. SCHLÖTTERER, 2003 Genetic differentiation between American and European D. melanogaster populations could be attributed to admixture of African alleles. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:792-799.
CHARLESWORTH, B., 1998 Measures of divergence between populations and the effect of forces that reduce variability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:538-543.[Abstract]
CHARLESWORTH, B., 2001 The effect of life-history and mode of inheritance on neutral genetic variability. Genet. Res. 77:153-166.[Medline]
COLSON, I. and D. B. GOLDSTEIN, 1999 Evidence for complex mutations at microsatellite loci in Drosophila. Genetics 152:617-627.
COMERON, J. M., M. KREITMAN, and M. AGUADE, 1999 Natural selection on synonymous sites is correlated with gene length and recombination in Drosophila. Genetics 151:239-249.
CORNUET, J. M. and G. LUIKART, 1996 Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001-2014.[Abstract]
DABORN, P., S. BOUNDY, J. YEN, B. PITTENDRIGH, and R. FFRENCH-CONSTANT, 2001 DDT resistance in Drosophila correlates with Cyp6g1 over-expression and confers cross-resistance to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. Mol. Genet. Genomics 266:556-563.[Medline]
DAVID, J. R. and P. CAPY, 1988 Genetic variation of Drosophila melanogaster natural populations. Trends Genet. 4:106-111.[Medline]
DIERINGER, D. and C. SCHLÖTTERER, 2003 Microsatellite analyzer (MSA)a platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol. Ecol. Notes 3:167-169.
DI RIENZO, A., A. C. PETERSON, J. C. GARZA, A. M. VALDES, and M. SLATKIN et al., 1994 Mutational processes of simple-sequence repeat loci in human populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:3166-3170.
FAY, J. C. and C.-I WU, 1999 A human population bottleneck can account for the discordance between patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA variation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1003-1005.[Medline]
FAY, J. C. and C.-I WU, 2001 The neutral theory in the genomic era. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 11:642-646.[Medline]
FAY, J. C., G. J. WYCKOFF, and C.-I WU, 2001 Positive and negative selection on the human genome. Genetics 158:1227-1234.
FAY, J. C., G. J. WYCKOFF, and C.-I WU, 2002 Testing the neutral theory of molecular evolution with genomic data from Drosophila. Nature 415:1024-1026.[Medline]
GALTIER, N., F. DEPAULIS, and N. H. BARTON, 2000 Detecting bottlenecks and selective sweeps from DNA sequence polymorphism. Genetics 155:981-987.
GOLDSTEIN, D. B. and A. G. CLARK, 1995 Microsatellite variation in North American populations of Drosophila melanogaster.. Nucleic Acids Res. 23:3882-3886.
HARR, B. and C. SCHLÖTTERER, 2000 Long microsatellite alleles in Drosophila melanogaster have a downward mutation bias and short persistence times, which cause their genome-wide underrepresentation. Genetics 155:1213-1220.
HARR, B., M. KAUER, and C. SCHLÖTTERER, 2002 Hitchhiking mappinga population-based fine mapping strategy for adaptive mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:12949-12954.
HUDSON, R. R., 1990 Gene geneologies and the coalescent process. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:1-44.
HUDSON, R. R., 2002 Generating samples under a Wright-Fisher neutral model of genetic variation. Bioinformatics 18:337-338.







