Can a sex-biased human demography account for the reduced effective population size of chromosome X in non-Africans?
Sex-biased demographic events can result in asymmetries in female and male effective population size that can lead to different patterns of genetic variation on chromosome X than are expected based on the patterns on the autosomes. Previous studies point to a period around the time of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans out of Africa when chromosome X experienced a significant reduction in effective population size relative to the autosomes. Here, we explore whether a sex-biased demographic history could explain these observations. We use coalescent simulations to show that a model of primarily male migration during the out-of-Africa dispersal can produce the striking patterns that are observed when comparing patterns of genetic variation on the autosomes and chromosome X. The model involves a history in which after the founder population of non-Africans lost much of its genetic diversity, subsequent mostly male gene flow from an African source brought new diversity into the population. We also explore two additional models, one of sex-biased generation time and one of a substructured population during the dispersal out of Africa with primarily female migration among demes. These latter models cannot account for the magnitude of the observed reduction in chromosome X effective population size, although it is plausible that they played a more minor role in producing the striking chromosome X/autosome patterns.
Keinan
Alon
A
Department of Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA. ak735@cornell.edu
Reich
David
D
D041321:Chromosomes, Human, X / Q000235:genetics*; D003198:Computer Simulation; D003710:Demography; D004641:Emigration and Immigration; D019143:Evolution, Molecular; D005260:Female; D014644:Genetic Variation; D005828:Genetics, Population; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008957:Models, Genetic; D011156:Population Density; D012737:Sex Factors
PLoS One. 2009 Nov 20;4(11):e7927
19936260
Genetics. 2004 Jan;166(1):351-72
15020430
Mol Biol Evol. 2008 Aug;25(8):1728-36
18511425
Genet Res. 2001 Apr;77(2):153-66
11355571
Am J Hum Genet. 2000 Sep;67(3):697-717
10931763
Genetics. 2002 Sep;162(1):501-19
12242257
Evolution. 2007 Dec;61(12):3001-6
17971168
Nat Genet. 2009 Jan;41(1):66-70
19098910
Nat Genet. 2009 Jan;41(1):8-10
19112457
Nature. 2007 Oct 18;449(7164):851-61
17943122
Bioinformatics. 2002 Feb;18(2):337-8
11847089
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Oct 22;273(1601):2651-7
17002951
Am J Hum Genet. 2010 Mar 12;86(3):353-63
20188344
Nat Genet. 1998 Nov;20(3):278-80
9806547
Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1251-5
17828266
PLoS Genet. 2008 Sep 26;4(9):e1000202
18818765
Genetics. 2004 Nov;168(3):1699-712
15579718
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Sep;21(9):1800-11
15201398
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Feb;72(2):281-302
12532283
Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1299-320
16255080
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 9;103(19):7234-9
16648268
J Hum Evol. 2014 Jun;71:119-28
24746602
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Dec;63(6):1839-51
9837836
Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):1007-11
7713404
PLoS One. 2009 Jul 29;4(7):e6366
19641603
Genome Res. 2001 Jun;11(6):994-1004
11381027
Genetics. 2002 Jul;161(3):1209-18
12136023
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Dec 20;102(51):18508-13
16352722
Nature. 2001 May 10;411(6834):199-204
11346797