Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:41:00.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of distributions of single-locus heterozygosity as a test of neutral theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

M. Woodwark ,
D. O. F. Skibinski  and
R. D. Ward
M. Woodwark
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University College of Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, U.K.
D. O. F. Skibinski*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University College of Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, U.K.
R. D. Ward
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O., Division of Fisheries, G.P.O. Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
*
* Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Three tests of neutral theory were carried out using a large dataset of vertebrate allozyme studies. The first test considered the relationship between the mean and variance of single locus heterozygosity across a sample of enzymes and non-enzymatic proteins. The second test compared the distributions of heterozygosity between paired proteins in balanced datasets in which each protein is scored for the same sample of species. The third test compared the observed distribution of single locus heterozygosity with theoretical distributions predicted by neutral theory. The results show an excellent quantitative fit with the predictions of neutral theory, though some small deviations from neutrality were observed which are consistent with the action of natural selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 223 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Ayala, F. J. & Gilpin, M. E. (1973 a). Lack of evidence for the neutral theory of protein polymorphism. Journal of Heredity 64, 297–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayala, F. J. & Gilpin, M. E. (1973 b). Lack of evidence for the neutral theory of protein polymorphism: a rejoinder. Journal of Heredity 65, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayala, F. J. & Gilpin, M. E. (1974). Gene frequency comparisons between taxa: support for the natural selection of protein polymorphisms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 71(12), 4847–4849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, R., Fuerst, P. A. & Nei, M. (1978). Statistical studies on protein polymorphism in natural populations. II. Gene differentiation between populations. Genetics 88, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chakraborty, R., Fuerst, P. A. & Nei, M. (1980). Statistical studies on protein polymorphism in natural populations. III. Distribution of allele frequencies and the number of alleles per locus. Genetics 94, 1039–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuerst, P. A., Chakraborty, R. & Nei, M. (1977). Statistical studies on protein polymorphism in natural populations. I. Distribution of single locus heterozygosity. Genetics 86, 455–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, J. H. (1991). The Causes of Molecular Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gojobori, T. (1982). Means and variances of heterozygosity and protein function. In: Molecular Evolution, Protein Polymorphism and the Neutral Theory (ed. Kimura, M.). Tokyo: Japanese Scientific Press.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. (1968a). Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature 217, 624–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M. (1968b). Genetic variability maintained in a finite population due to mutational production of neutral and nearly neutral isoalleles. Genetical Research 11, 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimura, M. & Crow, J. F. (1964). The number of alleles that can be maintained in a finite population. Genetics 49, 725–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehn, R. K. & Eaucs, W. F. (1978). Moiecuiar structure and protein variation within and among populations. Evolutionary Biology 11, 39–100.Google Scholar
Nass, C. A. G. (1959). The x2 test for small expectations in contingency tables with special reference to accidents and absenteeism. Biometrika 46, 366–385.Google Scholar
Nei, M., Fuerst, P. A. & Chakraborty, R. (1976). Testing the neutral mutation hypothesis by distribution of single locus heterozygosity. Nature 262, 491–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nei, M., Fuerst, P. A. & Chakraborty, R. (1978). Subunit molecular weight and genetic variability of proteins in natural populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 75, 3359–3362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nei, M. & Graur, D. (1984). Extent of protein polymorphism and the neutral mutation theory. Evolutionary Biology 17, 73–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevo, E. (1983). Adaptive significance of protein variation. In: Protein Polymorphism: Adaptive and Taxonomic Significance (ed. Oxford, G. S. and Rollinson, D.). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nevo, E. & Beiles, A. (1988). Genetic parallelism of protein polymorphism in nature: ecological test of the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 35, 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevo, E., Beiles, A. & Ben-Shlomo, R. (1984). The evolutionary significance of genetic diversity: Ecological, demographic and life history correlates. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 53, 13–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, T. (1973). Slightly deleterious mutant substitutions in evolution. Nature 246, 96–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohta, T. (1976). Role of very slightly deleterious mutations in molecular evolution and polymorphism. Theoretical Population Biology 10, 254–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohta, T. & Kimura, M. (1973). A model of mutation appropriate to estimate the number of electrophoretically detectable alleles in a population. Genetical Research 22, 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, W. R. (1989). Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43, 223–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Biometry. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Solé-Cava, A. M. & Thorpe, J. P. (1991). High levels of genetic variation in natural populations of marine lower invertebrates. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 44, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, F. M. (1976). Variability in the amount of heterozygosity maintained by neutral mutations. Theoretical Population Biology 9, 188–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, F. M. (1977) in appendix to: Fuerst P. A. & Chakraborty R. (1977). Statistical studies on protein polymorphism in natural populations. I. Distribution of single locus heterozygosity. Genetics 86, 455–483.Google Scholar
Ward, R. D. (1978). Subunit size of enzymes and genetic heterozygosity in vertebrates. Biochemical Genetics 16, 799–810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, R. D., Skibinski, D. O. F. & Woodwark, M. (1992). Protein heterozygosity, protein structure and taxonomic differentiation. Evolutionary Biology 26, 73–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watterson, G. A. (1978). The heterozygosity test of neutrality. Genetics 84, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodwark, M., Skibinski, D. O. F. & Ward, R. D. (1992). A study of interiocus aiiozyme heterozygosity correlations: Implications for neutral theory. Heredity 69, 190–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, T. & Maruyama, T. (1972). Evidence for the neutral hypothesis of protein polymorphism. Science 178, 56–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, T. & Maruyama, T. (1974). Lack of evidence for the neutral hypothesis of protein polymorphism: a reply. Journal of Heredity 65, 376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed