Back

Temporal distribution of deleterious variations influences the estimation of FST

Subramanian, S.

2019-06-21 genetics
10.1101/678011 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Estimating the extent of genetic differentiation between populations is an important measure in population genetics, ecology and evolutionary biology. Fixation index or FST is an important measure, which is routinely used to quantify this. Previous studies have shown that FST estimated for selectively constrained regions was significantly lower than that estimated for neutral regions. By deriving the theoretical relationship between FST at neutral and constrained sites we show that an excess in the fraction of deleterious variations segregating within populations compared to that segregates between populations is the cause for the reduction in FST estimated at constrained sites. Using whole genome data, our results revealed that the magnitude of reduction in FST estimates obtained for selectively constrained regions was much higher for distantly related populations compared to those estimated for closely related pairs. For example, the reduction was 49% for comparison between European-African populations, 31% for European-Asian comparison, 16% for the Northern-Southern European pair and only 4% for the comparison involving two Southern European (Italian and Spanish) populations. Since deleterious variants are purged over time due to purifying selection, their contribution to the among population diversity at constrained sites decreases with the increase in the divergence between populations. However, within population diversity remain the same for all pairs compared above and therefore FST estimated at constrained sites for distantly related populations are much smaller than those estimated for closely related populations. Our results suggest that the level of population divergence should be considered when comparing constrained site FST estimates obtained for different pairs of populations.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.1%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 10%
8.4%
3
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.4%
4
Gene
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
5
Heredity
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
6
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.8%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
9
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
10
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
11
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
12
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
13
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
17
Genetics Selection Evolution
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
18
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Theoretical Population Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
22
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
24
Infection, Genetics and Evolution
43 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
25
Aquaculture
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Forensic Science International: Genetics
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
27
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.7%
28
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
29
National Science Review
22 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%