A genome-scan method to identify selected loci appropriate for both dominant and codominant markers: a Bayesian perspective.
Identifying loci under natural selection from genomic surveys is of great interest in different research areas. Commonly used methods to separate neutral effects from adaptive effects are based on locus-specific population differentiation coefficients to identify outliers. Here we extend such an approach to estimate directly the probability that each locus is subject to selection using a Bayesian method. We also extend it to allow the use of dominant markers like AFLPs. It has been shown that this model is robust to complex demographic scenarios for neutral genetic differentiation. Here we show that the inclusion of isolated populations that underwent a strong bottleneck can lead to a high rate of false positives. Nevertheless, we demonstrate that it is possible to avoid them by carefully choosing the populations that should be included in the analysis. We analyze two previously published data sets: a human data set of codominant markers and a Littorina saxatilis data set of dominant markers. We also perform a detailed sensitivity study to compare the power of the method using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), SNP, and microsatellite markers. The method has been implemented in a new software available at our website (http://www-leca.ujf-grenoble.fr/logiciels.htm).
Foll
Matthieu
M
Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 09, France. matthieu.foll@zoo.unibe.ch
Gaggiotti
Oscar
O
D000818:Animals; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D049851:Gastropoda / Q000235:genetics; D005787:Gene Frequency; D005819:Genetic Markers; D023281:Genomics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D018895:Microsatellite Repeats / Q000235:genetics*; D011110:Polymorphism, Genetic; D012150:Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length
D005819:Genetic Markers
Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97-159
17246615
Genetics. 2006 Oct;174(2):875-91
16951078
Mol Ecol. 2002 Jul;11(7):1157-64
12074723
Genetics. 2005 May;170(1):305-12
15716501
Theor Popul Biol. 1996 Dec;50(3):325-44
9000493
Genetics. 2008 Mar;178(3):1817-29
18245358
Genet Epidemiol. 2001 Jan;20(1):17-33
11119294
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 May;72(5):1171-86
12690579
Genetica. 1995;96(1-2):3-12
7607457
Trends Plant Sci. 2007 Mar;12(3):106-17
17303467
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Feb 1;88(3):839-43
1992475
Mol Ecol. 2004 Apr;13(4):969-80
15012769
Hum Genet. 1999 Dec;105(6):567-76
10647891
Genetics. 2000 Aug;155(4):1973-80
10924489
Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Dec;8(3):318-30
1220043
Science. 2002 Apr 12;296(5566):261-2
11954565
Genetics. 2001 Aug;158(4):1811-23
11514464
Mol Ecol. 2005 Sep;14(10):2899-914
16101761
Science. 2006 Jul 14;313(5784):172; author reply 172
16840683
Int J Legal Med. 1996;108(6):300-5
8793637
Genetics. 2003 Nov;165(3):1137-48
14668371
Evolution. 2006 Feb;60(2):268-78
16610319
Genetics. 2002 Feb;160(2):753-63
11861576
Theor Popul Biol. 2003 May;63(3):221-30
12689793
Ann Eugen. 1951 Mar;15(4):323-54
24540312
Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Aug;20(8):435-40
16701414
Genetics. 2008 Jun;179(2):927-39
18505879
Genetics. 2003 Aug;164(4):1567-87
12930761
Science. 2003 Dec 12;302(5652):1960-3
14671302
Genetics. 1973 May;74(1):175-95
4711903
PLoS Biol. 2005 Jun;3(6):e170
15869325