|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Distinguish|Antigenic drift|Antigenic shift}}
| | When investing in a new device such as a router or possibly a DVR, it could be so exciting that you simply just desire to have it all quickly connected and able to use. Having a CCTV alarm system in place will be capable to give you peace of mind your property will probably be safe if you are not as part of your property. Iphone cctv dvr viewer video So soon after the movie is captured you are able to go for the DVR and watch not merely dwell movie but additionally movie that's recorded inside the previous.<br><br> |
| {{Good article}}
| |
| {{Evolutionary biology}}
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Genetic drift''' or '''allelic drift''' is the change in the frequency of a gene variant ([[allele]]) in a population due to [[Sampling (statistics)|random sampling]].<ref name="Masel 2011">{{Cite journal
| | Ultimately when getting a DVR on your surveillance system make sure you take a serious look in the features you may need and what is likely to best [http://tagman.thebodyshop.co.uk/thebodyshop/tman.cgi/tmcampid=5&tmad=c&tmloc=cctvdvrreviews.com cctv dvr software update] satisfy your surveillance system. In theory DVR is certainly not but a recording device with a harddrive inside to hold all the programs that you get from satellite or cable best cctv TV providers.<br><br>com is focused on providing a custom essay writing service which is both top-quality and affordable. But you may earn money [http://t.appff.com/api/redirect/Service?&userAppId=5fd50d7f02b5642290faf629528593d6&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcctvdvrreviews.com cctv dvr software linux] from becoming long hopefully, [http://www.topfootballsites.com/cgi-bin/out.cgi?id=ronnie&url=http://cctvdvrreviews.com topfootballsites.com], since it stays active for the websites and sale. [http://www.medvik.cz/link/access.do?source=ss&url=http://cctvdvrreviews.com 16-channel cctv recording dvr pci card] cctv dvr ebay When I first started writing and submitting articles I liked to go to Ezine - Articles. There are a amount of reasons because of this; however it could be easily corrected with a little bit of energy and effort. |
| | volume = 21
| |
| | pages = R837–R838
| |
| | author = Masel J
| |
| | title = Genetic drift
| |
| | journal = Current Biology
| |
| | year = 2011
| |
| | doi = 10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.007
| |
| | url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211008827
| |
| | issue=20
| |
| | pmid = 22032182
| |
| }}</ref>
| |
| The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's [[allele frequency]] is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Futuyma
| |
| | first = Douglas
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Evolutionary Biology
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1998
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-189-9
| |
| | page = Glossary}}</ref> Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce [[genetic variation]].
| |
| | |
| When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. Vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of [[natural selection]] versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. [[Ronald Fisher]] held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968, [[Motoo Kimura]] rekindled the debate with his [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]], which claims that most instances where a genetic change [[Fixation (population genetics)|spreads across a population]] (although not necessarily changes in [[phenotypes]]) are caused by genetic drift.<ref name="Futuyma 1998 320">{{cite book
| |
| | last = Futuyma
| |
| | first = Douglas
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Evolutionary Biology
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]] | |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1998
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-189-9
| |
| | page = 320}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Analogy with marbles in a jar ==
| |
| The process of genetic drift can be illustrated using 20 marbles in a jar to represent 20 organisms in a population.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID1Samplingerror.shtml|title=Evolution 101:Sampling Error and Evolution|work=University of California Berkeley |accessdate=2009-11-01}}</ref>
| |
| Consider this jar of marbles as the starting population. Half of the marbles in the jar are red and half blue, and both colors correspond to two different [[allele]]s of one [[gene]] in the population. In each new generation the organisms reproduce at random. To represent this reproduction, randomly select a marble from the original jar and deposit a new marble with the same color as its "parent" into a new jar. (The selected marble remains in the original jar.) Repeat this process until there are 20 new marbles in the second jar. The second jar then contains a second generation of "offspring", consisting of 20 marbles of various colors. Unless the second jar contains exactly 10 red and 10 blue marbles, a random shift occurred in the allele frequencies.
| |
| | |
| Repeat this process a number of times, randomly reproducing each generation of marbles to form the next. The numbers of red and blue marbles picked each generation fluctuates: sometimes more red, sometimes more blue. This fluctuation is analogous to genetic drift – a change in the population's allele frequency resulting from a random variation in the distribution of alleles from one generation to the next.
| |
| | |
| It is even possible that in any one generation no marbles of a particular color are chosen, meaning they have no offspring. In this example, if no red marbles are selected the jar representing the new generation contains only blue offspring. If this happens, the red allele has been lost permanently in the population, while the remaining blue allele has become [[fixation (population genetics)|fixed]]: all future generations are entirely blue. In small populations, fixation can occur in just a few generations.
| |
| [[File:Random sampling genetic drift.svg|thumb|center|550px|In this simulation, there is [[Fixation (population genetics)|fixation]] in the blue "allele" within five generations.]]
| |
| | |
| == Probability and allele frequency ==
| |
| | |
| The mechanisms of genetic drift can be illustrated with a simplified example. Consider a very large colony of bacteria isolated in a drop of solution. The bacteria are genetically identical except for a single gene with two alleles labeled '''A''' and '''B'''. Half the bacteria have allele '''A''' and the other half have allele '''B'''. Thus both '''A''' and '''B''' have allele frequency 1/2.
| |
| | |
| '''A''' and '''B''' are neutral alleles—meaning they do not affect the bacteria's ability to survive and reproduce. This being the case, all bacteria in this colony are equally likely to survive and reproduce. The drop of solution then shrinks until it has only enough food to sustain four bacteria. All the others die without reproducing. Among the four who survive, there are sixteen possible [[combination]]s for the '''A''' and '''B''' alleles:
| |
| | |
| '''(A-A-A-A), (B-A-A-A), (A-B-A-A), (B-B-A-A), <br /> (A-A-B-A), (B-A-B-A), (A-B-B-A), (B-B-B-A),<br /> (A-A-A-B), (B-A-A-B), (A-B-A-B), (B-B-A-B),<br /> (A-A-B-B), (B-A-B-B), (A-B-B-B), (B-B-B-B).'''
| |
| | |
| If each of the combinations with the same number of '''A''' and '''B''' respectively are counted, we get the following table. The probabilities are calculated with the slightly faulty premise that the peak population size was infinite.
| |
| | |
| {| class=wikitable
| |
| |-
| |
| | '''A'''
| |
| | '''B'''
| |
| | Combinations
| |
| | Probability
| |
| |-
| |
| | 4
| |
| | 0
| |
| | 1
| |
| | 1/16
| |
| |-
| |
| | 3
| |
| | 1
| |
| | 4
| |
| | 4/16
| |
| |-
| |
| | 2
| |
| | 2
| |
| | 6
| |
| | 6/16
| |
| |-
| |
| | 1
| |
| | 3
| |
| | 4
| |
| | 4/16
| |
| |-
| |
| | 0
| |
| | 4
| |
| | 1
| |
| | 1/16
| |
| |}
| |
| | |
| The probability of any one possible combination is
| |
| | |
| :<math>
| |
| \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{16}
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| where 1/2 (the probability of the '''A''' or '''B''' allele for each surviving bacterium) is multiplied four times (the total sample size, which in this example is the total number of surviving bacteria).
| |
| | |
| As seen in the table, the total number of possible combinations to have an equal (conserved) number of '''A''' and '''B''' alleles is six, and its probability is 6/16. The total number of possible alternative combinations is ten, and the probability of unequal number of '''A''' and '''B''' alleles is 10/16.
| |
| | |
| The total number of possible combinations can be represented as [[binomial coefficient]]s and they can be derived from [[Pascal's triangle]]. The probability for any one of the possible combinations can be calculated with the formula
| |
| | |
| :<math>
| |
| {N\choose k} (1/2)^N\!
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| where ''N'' is the number of bacteria and ''k'' is the number of '''A''' (or '''B''') alleles in the combination. The function''' '()' '''signifies the binomial coefficient and can be expressed as "''N'' ''choose'' ''k''". Using the formula to calculate the probability that between them the surviving four bacteria have two '''A''' alleles and two '''B''' alleles.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html|title=Introduction to Probability and Statistics|author=Walker J |work=The RetroPsychoKinesis Project |publisher=Fourmilab|accessdate=2009-11-17}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| :<math>
| |
| {4\choose 2} \left ( \frac{1}{2} \right )^4 = 6 \cdot \frac{1}{16} = \frac{6}{16}
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| Genetic drift occurs when a population's allele frequencies change due to random events. In this example the population contracted to just four random survivors, a phenomenon known as [[population bottleneck]]. The original colony began with an equal distribution of '''A''' and '''B''' alleles but chances are that the remaining population of four members has an unequal distribution. The probability that this surviving population will undergo drift (10/16) is higher than the probability that it will remain the same (6/16).
| |
| | |
| == Mathematical models of genetic drift ==
| |
| | |
| Mathematical models of genetic drift can be designed using either [[branching process]]es or a [[diffusion equation]] describing changes in allele frequency in an [[idealised population]].<ref>{{Cite journal
| |
| | volume = 188
| |
| | pages = 783–785
| |
| | author = Wahl L.M.
| |
| | title = Fixation when ''N'' and ''s'' Vary: Classic Approaches Give Elegant New Results
| |
| | journal = Genetics
| |
| | year = 2011
| |
| | doi = 10.1534/genetics.111.131748
| |
| | url = http://www.genetics.org/content/188/4/783.full
| |
| | issue=4
| |
| | pmid = 21828279
| |
| | pmc = 3176088
| |
| }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Wright–Fisher model===
| |
| Consider a gene with two alleles, '''A''' or '''B'''. In [[diploid]] populations consisting of ''N'' individuals there are 2''N'' copies of each gene. An individual can have two copies of the same allele or two different alleles. We can call the frequency of one allele ''p'' and the frequency of the other ''q''. The Wright–Fisher model (named after [[Sewall Wright]] and [[Ronald Fisher]]) assumes that generations do not overlap. For example, [[annual plants]] have exactly one generation per year. Each copy of the gene found in the new generation is drawn independently at random from all copies of the gene in the old generation. The formula to calculate the probability of obtaining ''k'' copies of an allele that had frequency ''p'' in the last generation is then<ref name="Hartl">{{cite book
| |
| | last = Daniel Hartl
| |
| | first = Andrew Clark
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Principles of Population Genetics, 4th edition
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 2007
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 978-0-87893-308-2
| |
| | page = 112}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| :<math>\frac{(2N)!}{k!(2N-k)!} p^k q^{2N-k} </math>
| |
| | |
| where the symbol "'''!'''" signifies the [[factorial]] function. This expression can also be formulated using the binomial coefficient,
| |
| | |
| :<math>{2N \choose k} p^k q^{2N-k} </math>
| |
| | |
| === Moran model ===
| |
| The [[Moran process|Moran model]] assumes overlapping generations. At each time step, one individual is chosen to reproduce and one individual is chosen to die. So in each timestep, the number of copies of a given allele can go up by one, go down by one, or can stay the same. This means that the [[transition matrix]] is [[tridiagonal matrix|tridiagonal]], which means that mathematical solutions are easier for the Moran model than for the Wright–Fisher model. On the other hand, [[computer simulations]] are usually easier to perform using the Wright–Fisher model, because fewer time steps need to be calculated. In the Moran model, it takes ''N'' timesteps to get through one generation, where ''N'' is the [[effective population size]]. In the Wright–Fisher model, it takes just one.
| |
| | |
| In practice, the Moran model and Wright–Fisher model give qualitatively similar results, but genetic drift runs twice as fast in the Moran model.
| |
| | |
| === Other models of drift ===
| |
| If the variance in the number of offspring is much greater than that given by the [[binomial distribution]] assumed by the Wright–Fisher model, then given the same overall speed of genetic drift (the [[Effective_population_size#Variance_effective_size|variance effective population size]]), genetic drift is a less powerful force compared to selection.<ref name="Charlesworth09" /> Even for the same variance, if higher [[Moment (mathematics)|moments]] of the offspring number distribution exceed those of the binomial distribution then again the force of genetic drift is substantially weakened.<ref>{{Cite journal
| |
| | volume = 80
| |
| | pages = 80–99
| |
| | author = Der R, Epstein CL, Plotkin JB
| |
| | title = Generalized population models and the nature of genetic drift
| |
| | journal = Theoretical Population Biology
| |
| | year = 2011
| |
| | doi = 10.1016/j.tpb.2011.06.004
| |
| | pmid = 21718713
| |
| | issue = 2
| |
| }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| === Random effects other than sampling error ===
| |
| Random changes in allele frequencies can also be caused by effects other than sampling error, for example random changes in selection pressure.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Li
| |
| | first = Wen-Hsiung
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | coauthors = Dan Graur
| |
| | title = Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1991
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-452-9
| |
| | page = 28}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| One important alternative source of stochasticity, perhaps more important than genetic drift, is [[genetic hitchhiking|genetic draft]].<ref name="gillespie 2001">{{Cite journal
| |
| | volume = 55
| |
| | issue = 11
| |
| | pages = 2161–2169
| |
| | last = Gillespie
| |
| | first = John H.
| |
| | title = Is the population size of a species relevant to its evolution?
| |
| | journal = Evolution
| |
| | year = 2001
| |
| | pmid = 11794777
| |
| }}</ref> Genetic draft is the effect on a locus by selection on [[genetic linkage|linked]] loci. The mathematical properties of genetic draft are different from those of genetic drift.<ref>{{Cite journal
| |
| | volume = 188
| |
| | pages = 975–996
| |
| | author = R.A. Neher and B.I. Shraiman
| |
| | title = Genetic Draft and Quasi-Neutrality in Large Facultatively Sexual Populations
| |
| | journal = Genetics
| |
| | year = 2011
| |
| | doi = 10.1534/genetics.111.128876
| |
| | issue = 4
| |
| | pmid = 21625002
| |
| | pmc = 3176096
| |
| }}</ref> The direction of the random change in allele frequency is [[autocorrelation|autocorrelated]] across generations.<ref name="Masel 2011" />
| |
| | |
| == Drift and fixation ==
| |
| The [[Hardy–Weinberg principle]] states that within sufficiently large populations, the allele frequencies remain constant from one generation to the next unless the equilibrium is disturbed by [[gene flow|migration]], genetic [[mutation]], or [[selection]].<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | author = [[Warren Ewens]]
| |
| | title = Mathematical Population Genetics I. Theoretical Introduction
| |
| | publisher = Springer-Verlag
| |
| | series = Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics
| |
| | year = 2004}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Populations do not gain new alleles from the random sampling of alleles passed to the next generation, but the sampling can cause an existing allele to disappear. Because [[random sample|random sampling]] can remove, but not replace, an allele, and because random declines or increases in allele frequency influence expected allele distributions for the next generation, genetic drift drives a population towards genetic uniformity over time. When an allele reaches a frequency of 1 (100%) it is said to be "fixed" in the population and when an allele reaches a frequency of 0 (0%) it is lost. Once an allele becomes [[Fixation (population genetics)|fixed]], genetic drift comes to a halt, and the allele frequency cannot change unless a new allele is introduced in the population via mutation or [[gene flow]]. Thus even while genetic drift is a random, directionless process, it acts to eliminate [[genetic diversity|genetic variation]] over time.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Li
| |
| | first = Wen-Hsiung
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | coauthors = Dan Graur
| |
| | title = Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1991
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-452-9
| |
| | page = 29}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Rate of allele frequency change due to drift===
| |
| [[File:Random genetic drift chart.png|thumb|250px|Ten simulations of random genetic drift of a single given allele with an initial frequency distribution 0.5 measured over the course of 50 generations, repeated in three reproductively synchronous populations of different sizes. In these simulations, alleles drift to loss or fixation (frequency of 0.0 or 1.0) only in the smallest population.]]
| |
| Assuming genetic drift is the only evolutionary force acting on an allele, after t generations in many replicated populations, starting with allele frequencies of p and q, the variance in allele frequency across those populations is
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| V_t \approx pq\left(1-\exp\left\{-\frac{t}{2N_e} \right\}\right)
| |
| </math><ref>{{cite book
| |
| | author = Nicholas H. Barton, Derek E. G. Briggs, Jonathan A. Eisen, David B. Goldstein, Nipam H. Patel
| |
| | title = Evolution
| |
| | publisher = Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
| |
| | year = 2007
| |
| | isbn = 0-87969-684-2
| |
| | page = 417}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Time to fixation or loss===
| |
| Assuming genetic drift is the only evolutionary force acting on an allele, at any given time the probability that an allele will eventually become fixed in the population is simply its frequency in the population at that time.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Futuyma
| |
| | first = Douglas
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Evolutionary Biology
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1998
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-189-9
| |
| | page = 300}}</ref>
| |
| For example, if the frequency ''p'' for allele '''A''' is 75% and the frequency ''q'' for allele '''B''' is 25%, then given unlimited time the probability '''A''' will ultimately become fixed in the population is 75% and the probability that '''B''' will become fixed is 25%.
| |
| | |
| The expected number of generations for fixation to occur is [[Proportionality (mathematics)|proportional]] to the population size, such that fixation is predicted to occur much more rapidly in smaller populations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Otto S, Whitlock M |title=The Probability of Fixation in Populations of Changing Size |journal=Genetics |volume=146 |issue=2 |pages=723–33 |date=1 June 1997|pmid=9178020 |pmc=1208011 }}</ref> Normally the [[effective population size]], which is smaller than the total population, is used to determine these probabilities. The effective population (''N''<sub>''e''</sub>) takes into account factors such as the level of inbreeding, the stage of the lifecycle in which the population is the smallest, and the fact that some neutral genes are genetically linked to others that are under selection.<ref name="Charlesworth09">{{cite journal |author=Charlesworth B |title=Fundamental concepts in genetics: Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation |journal=Nat. Rev. Genet. |volume=10 |pages=195–205 |date=March 2009 |pmid=19204717 |doi=10.1038/nrg2526 |issue=3}}</ref> The effective population size may not be the same for every gene in the same population.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Asher D. Cutter and Jae Young Choi |title=Natural selection shapes nucleotide polymorphism across the genome of the nematode Caenorhabditis briggsae|journal=Genome Research|volume=20 |pages=1103–1111 |year=2010 |doi=10.1101/gr.104331.109 |pmid=20508143 |issue=8 |pmc=2909573}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| One forward-looking formula used for approximating the expected time before a neutral allele becomes fixed through genetic drift, according to the Wright–Fisher model, is
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| \bar{T}_\text{fixed} = \frac{-4N_e(1-p) \ln (1-p)}{p}
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| where ''T'' is the number of generations, ''N''<sub>''e''</sub> is the effective population size, and ''p'' is the initial frequency for the given allele. The result is the number of generations [[Expected value|expected]] to pass before fixation occurs for a given allele in a population with given size (''N''<sub>''e''</sub>) and allele frequency (''p'').<ref name="hedrick">{{Cite book |title=Genetics of Populations |last=Hedrick |first=Philip W. |publisher=Jones and Bartlett Publishers |year=2004 |pages=737 |isbn=0-7637-4772-6}}<!--p315--></ref>
| |
| | |
| The expected time for the neutral allele to be lost through genetic drift can be calculated as<ref name="Hartl"/>
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| \bar{T}_\text{lost} = \frac{-4N_ep}{1-p} \ln p.
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| When a mutation appears only once in a population large enough for the initial frequency to be negligible, the formulas can be simplified to<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last1 = Li
| |
| | first1 = Wen-Hsiung
| |
| | first2 = Dan
| |
| | last2= Graur | |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1991
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-452-9
| |
| | page = 33}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| \bar{T}_\text{fixed} = 4N_e
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| for average number of generations expected before fixation of a neutral mutation, and
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| \bar{T}_\text{lost} = 2 \left ( \frac{N_e}{N} \right ) \ln (2N)
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| for the average number of generations expected before the loss of a neutral mutation.<ref name="kimuraohta">{{Cite book |title=Theoretical Aspects of Population Genetics |last=Kimura |first=Motoo |last2=Ohta |first2=Tomoko |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2001 |pages=232 |isbn=0-691-08098-4}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Time to loss with both drift and mutation===
| |
| | |
| The formulae above apply to an allele that is already present in a population, and which is subject to neither [[mutation]] nor [[natural selection|selection]]. If an allele is lost by mutation much more often than it is gained by mutation, then mutation, as well as drift, may influence the time to loss. If the allele prone to mutational loss begins as fixed in the population, and is lost by mutation at rate m per replication, then the expected time in generations until its loss in a haploid population is given by
| |
| | |
| : <math>
| |
| \bar{T}_\text{lost} \approx \begin{cases}
| |
| \frac{1}{m}, \text{ if } mN_e \ll 1\\
| |
| \frac{\ln{(mN_e)}+\gamma}{m} \text{ if } mN_e \gg 1
| |
| \end{cases}
| |
| </math>
| |
| | |
| where <math>\gamma</math> is equal to [[Euler's constant]].<ref>{{cite journal |author=Masel J, King OD, Maughan H |title=The loss of adaptive plasticity during long periods of environmental stasis |doi= 10.1086/510212 |journal=American Naturalist|volume=169 |issue=1 |pages=38–46 |year=2007 |pmid=17206583 |pmc=1766558}}</ref> The first approximation represents the waiting time until the first mutant destined for loss, with loss then occurring relatively rapidly by genetic drift, taking time N<sub>e</sub><<1/m. The second approximation represents the time needed for deterministic loss by mutation accumulation. In both cases, the time to fixation is dominated by mutation via the term 1/m, and is less affected by the [[effective population size]].
| |
| | |
| ==Genetic drift versus natural selection==
| |
| The [[law of large numbers]] predicts little change over time due to genetic drift when the population is large. When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of [[sampling error]] can alter the [[allele frequency|allele frequencies]] significantly. Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zimmer |first=Carl |title=Evolution : The Triumph of an Idea |publisher=Perennial |location=New York, NY |year=2002 |pages=364 |isbn=0-06-095850-2}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Although both processes affect evolution, genetic drift operates randomly while natural selection functions non-randomly. While natural selection has a direction, guiding evolution towards heritable [[adaptation]]s to the current environment, genetic drift has no direction and is guided only by the [[probability|mathematics of chance]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html|title=Natural Selection: How Evolution Works (An interview with Douglas Futuyma, see answer to question Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?)|work=ActionBioscience.org|accessdate=2009-11-24}}</ref> As a result, drift acts upon the [[genotype frequency|genotypic frequencies]] within a population without regard to their phenotypic effects. In contrast, selection favors the spread of alleles whose phenotypic effects increase survival and/or reproduction of their carriers, lowers the frequencies of alleles that cause unfavorable traits, and ignores those that are neutral.<ref name="humangenes">{{Cite book |last3=Piazza |first3=Alberto |last=Cavalli-Sforza |first= L. L. |last2=Menozzi |first2=Paolo |title=The history and geography of human genes |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton, N.J. |year=1996 |pages=413 |isbn=0-691-02905-9}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In natural populations, genetic drift and [[natural selection]] do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play. However, the degree to which alleles are affected by drift or selection varies according to population size. The magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger in small populations. The magnitude of drift is large enough to overwhelm selection when the [[selection coefficient]] is less than 1 divided by the [[effective population size]]. As a result, drift affects the frequency of more alleles in small populations than in large ones.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Small KS, Brudno M, Hill MM, Sidow A |title=Extreme genomic variation in a natural population |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=104 |issue=13 |pages=5698–703 |date=March 2007 |pmid=17372217 |pmc=1838466 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0700890104 |url=http://www.pnas.org/content/104/13/5698.long}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| When the allele frequency is very small, drift can also overpower selection—even in large populations. For example, while disadvantageous mutations are usually eliminated quickly in large populations, new advantageous mutations are almost as vulnerable to loss through genetic drift as are neutral mutations. Not until the allele frequency for the advantageous mutation reaches a certain threshold will genetic drift have no effect.<ref name="humangenes"/>
| |
| | |
| The mathematics of genetic drift depend on the [[effective population size]], but it is not clear how this is related to the actual number of individuals in a population.<ref name="gillespie 2001" /> [[Genetic linkage]] to other genes that are under selection can reduce the effective population size experienced by a neutral allele. With a higher [[homologous recombination|recombination]] rate, linkage decreases and with it this local effect on effective population size.<ref>{{cite book | title=Non-neutral evolution: theories and molecular data | author=Golding B| year=1994| pages=46| publisher=Springer| isbn=978-0-412-05391-7}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Charlesworth B, Morgan MT, Charlesworth D |title=The Effect of Deleterious Mutations on Neutral Molecular Variation |journal=Genetics |volume=134 |issue=4 |pages=1289–303 |date=August 1993 |pmid=8375663 |pmc=1205596 |url=http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/134/4/1289}}</ref> This effect is visible in molecular data as a correlation between local recombination rate and genetic diversity,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Presgraves DC |title=Recombination enhances protein adaptation in ''Drosophila melanogaster'' |journal=Curr. Biol. |volume=15 |issue=18 |pages=1651–6 |date=September 2005 |pmid=16169487 |doi=10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.065}}</ref> and negative correlation between gene density and diversity at noncoding sites.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Nordborg M, Hu TT, Ishino Y, ''et al''. |title=The Pattern of Polymorphism in Arabidopsis thaliana |journal=PLoS Biol. |volume=3 |issue=7 |pages=e196 |date=July 2005 |pmid=15907155 |pmc=1135296 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030196}}</ref> Stochasticity associated with linkage to other genes that are under selection is not the same as sampling error, and is sometimes known as [[genetic hitchhiking|genetic draft]] in order to distinguish it from genetic drift.<ref name="gillespie 2001" />
| |
| | |
| ==Population bottleneck==
| |
| {{Main|Population bottleneck}}
| |
| [[File:Population bottleneck.jpg|thumb|350px|Changes in a population's allele frequency following a population bottleneck: the rapid and radical decline in population size has reduced the population's genetic variation.]]
| |
| A [[population bottleneck]] is when a population contracts to a significantly smaller size over a short period of time due to some random environmental event.<ref>[http://www.bookrags.com/research/population-bottleneck-gen-03/ Population Bottleneck | Macmillan Genetics]</ref> In a true population bottleneck, the odds for survival of any member of the population are purely random, and are not improved by any particular inherent genetic advantage. The bottleneck can result in radical changes in allele frequencies, completely independent of selection.
| |
| | |
| The impact of a population bottleneck can be sustained, even when the bottleneck is caused by a one-time event such as a natural catastrophe. After a bottleneck, [[inbreeding]] increases. This increases the damage done by recessive deleterious mutations, in a process known as [[inbreeding depression]]. The worst of these mutations are selected against, leading to the loss of other alleles that are [[linkage disequilibrium|genetically linked]] to them, in a process of [[background selection]].<ref name="Masel 2011" /> For recessive harmful mutations, this selection can be enhanced as a consequence of the bottleneck, due to [[genetic purging]].This leads to a further loss of genetic diversity. In addition, a sustained reduction in population size increases the likelihood of further allele fluctuations from drift in generations to come.
| |
| | |
| A population's genetic variation can be greatly reduced by a bottleneck, and even beneficial adaptations may be permanently eliminated.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Futuyma
| |
| | first = Douglas
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Evolutionary Biology
| |
| | publisher = [[Sinauer Associates]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1998
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-87893-189-9
| |
| | pages = 303–304}}</ref>
| |
| The loss of variation leaves the surviving population vulnerable to any new selection pressures such as disease, climate change or shift in the available food source, because adapting in response to environmental changes requires sufficient genetic variation in the population for natural selection to take place.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Climate change and the molecular ecology of arctic marine mammals |author=O'Corry-Crowe G |journal=Ecological Applications |volume=18 |pages=S56–S76 |year=2008 |url=http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/06-0795.1 |doi=10.1890/06-0795.1 |pmid=18494363 |issue=2 Suppl}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Cornuet JM, Luikart G |title=Description and Power Analysis of Two Tests for Detecting Recent Population Bottlenecks from Allele Frequency Data |journal=Genetics |volume=144 |issue=4 |pages=2001–14 |year=1996 |pmid=8978083 |pmc=1207747}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| There have been many known cases of population bottleneck in the recent past. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, North American prairies were habitat for millions of [[greater prairie chicken]]s. In [[Illinois]] alone, their numbers plummeted from about 100 million birds in 1900 to about 50 birds in the 1990s. The declines in population resulted from hunting and habitat destruction, but the random consequence has been a loss of most of the species' [[genetic diversity]]. DNA analysis comparing birds from the mid century to birds in the 1990s documents a steep decline in the genetic variation in just in the latter few decades. Currently the greater prairie chicken is experiencing low [[reproductive success]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hillis |first=David M. |last2=Sadava |first2=David E. |last3=Heller |first3=Craig H. |last4=Orians |first4= Gordon H. |last5=Purves |first5=William K. |title=Life: The Science of Biology |volume=II: Evolution, Diversity and Ecology |chapter=Chs. 1, 21–33, 52–57 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |location=San Francisco |year=2006 |pages=1251 |isbn=978-0-7167-9856-9 }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| Over-hunting also caused a severe population bottleneck in the [[northern elephant seal]] in the 19th century. Their resulting decline in genetic variation can be deduced by comparing it to that of the [[southern elephant seal]], which were not so aggressively hunted.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml |title=Evolution 101: Bottlenecks and Founder Effects |work=University of California, Berkeley |accessdate=2009-04-07}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| ===Founder effect===
| |
| {{Main|Founder effect}}
| |
| [[File:Founder effect with drift.jpg|thumb|right|350px|When very few members of a population migrate to form a separate new population, the founder effect occurs. For a period after the foundation, the small population experiences intensive drift. In the figure this results in fixation of the red allele.]]
| |
| The founder effect is a special case of a population bottleneck, occurring when a small group in a population splinters off from the original population and forms a new one. The random sample of alleles in the just formed new colony is expected to grossly misrepresent the original population in at least some respects.<ref>{{cite book
| |
| | last = Neill
| |
| | first = Campbell
| |
| | authorlink =
| |
| | title = Biology; Fourth edition
| |
| | publisher = [[The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company]]
| |
| | series =
| |
| | year = 1996
| |
| | doi =
| |
| | isbn = 0-8053-1940-9
| |
| | page = 423}}</ref> It is even possible that the number of alleles for some genes in the original population is larger than the number of gene copies in the founders, making complete representation impossible. When a newly formed colony is small, its founders can strongly affect the population's genetic make-up far into the future.
| |
| | |
| A well documented example is found in the [[Amish]] migration to [[Pennsylvania]] in 1744. Two members of the new colony shared the recessive allele for [[Ellis–van Creveld syndrome]]. Members of the colony and their descendants tend to be religious isolates and remain relatively insular. As a result of many generations of inbreeding, Ellis-van Creveld syndrome is now much more prevalent among the Amish than in the general population.<ref name="humangenes"/><ref name="pbs">{{cite web |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html |title=Genetic Drift and the Founder Effect |work=Evolution |publisher=Public Broadcast System |accessdate=2009-04-07}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| The difference in gene frequencies between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to [[genetic divergence|diverge]] significantly over the course of many generations. As the difference, or [[genetic distance]], increases, the two separated populations may become distinct, both [[genotype|genetically]] and [[phenotype|phenetically]], although not only genetic drift but also natural selection, gene flow, and mutation contribute to this divergence. This potential for relatively rapid changes in the colony's gene frequency led most scientists to consider the founder effect (and by extension, genetic drift) a significant driving force in the evolution of [[speciation|new species]]. [[Sewall Wright]] was the first to attach this significance to random drift and small, newly isolated populations with his [[shifting balance theory]] of speciation.<ref>{{cite book |author=Wade, Michael S.; Wolf, Jason; Brodie, Edmund D. |title=Epistasis and the evolutionary process |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [Oxfordshire] |year=2000 |page=330 |isbn=0-19-512806-0}}</ref> Following after Wright, [[Ernst Mayr]] created many persuasive models to show that the decline in genetic variation and small population size following the founder effect were critically important for new species to develop.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Systematics and the Origin of Species: on Ernst Mayr's 100th anniversary |author=Mayr, Ernst, Jody Hey, Walter M. Fitch, Francisco José Ayala |publisher=National Academies Press |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-309-09536-5 |page=367 |edition=Illustrated }}</ref> However, there is much less support for this view today since the hypothesis has been tested repeatedly through experimental research and the results have been equivocal at best.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Endless Forms |last=Howard |first=Daniel J. |last2=Berlocher |first2=Steward H. |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn= 978-0-19-510901-6 |page=470 |edition=Illustrated |location=United States |year=1998 }}</ref>
| |
| Founder effect was first well investigated in USSR by [[Science and technology in the Soviet Union|Soviet scientists]] Lisovskiy V.V., Kuznetsov M.A. and [[Nikolay Dubinin]].
| |
| | |
| {{Clear}}
| |
| | |
| ==History of the concept==
| |
| | |
| The concept of genetic drift was first introduced by one of the founders in the field of [[population genetics]], [[Sewall Wright]]. His first use of the term "drift" was in 1929,<ref>{{cite journal |title=The evolution of dominance |journal=The American Naturalist |author=Wright S |year=1929 |volume=63 |issue=689 |pages=556–61 |doi=10.1086/280290}}</ref> though at the time he was using it in the sense of a directed process of change, or natural selection. Random drift by means of sampling error came to be known as the "Sewall–Wright effect", though he was never entirely comfortable to see his name given to it. Wright referred to all changes in allele frequency as either "steady drift" (e.g. selection) or "random drift" (e.g. sampling error).<ref name="Wright55">{{cite journal |title=Classification of the factors of evolution |journal=Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol |author=Wright S |year=1955 |volume=20 |pages=16–24 |url=http://symposium.cshlp.org/content/20/16.full.pdf+html
| |
| |doi=10.1101/SQB.1955.020.01.004}}</ref> "Drift" came to be adopted as a technical term in the [[stochastic]] sense exclusively.<ref name="dictionary">{{cite book |author=Stevenson, Joan C. |title=Dictionary of Concepts in Physical Anthropology |publisher=Greenwood Press |location=Westport, Conn |year=1991 |pages= |isbn=0-313-24756-0}}</ref> Today it is usually defined still more narrowly, in terms of sampling error,<ref>Freeman and Herron. ''Evolutionary Analysis.'' 2007. Pearson Education, NJ. p.801</ref> although this narrow definition is not universal.<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| |title=Rethinking Hardy–Weinberg and genetic drift in undergraduate biology
| |
| |journal=BioEssays
| |
| |year=2012
| |
| |doi=10.1002/bies.201100178
| |
| |author=Masel, Joanna
| |
| |volume=34
| |
| |issue=8
| |
| |pages=701–10
| |
| |pmid=22576789}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Lynch|first=Michael|title=The Origins of Genome Architecture |year=2007|publisher=Sinauer Associates|isbn=0-87893-484-7}}</ref> Wright wrote that the "restriction of "random drift" or even "drift" to only one component, the effects of accidents of sampling, tends to lead to confusion."<ref name="Wright55" /> Sewall Wright considered the process of random genetic drift by means of sampling error equivalent to that by means of [[inbreeding]], but later work has shown them to be distinct.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Wright and Fisher on Inbreeding and Random Drift |journal=Genetics |author=[[James F. Crow]] |year=2010 |volume=184 |issue=3 |pages=609–611 |doi=10.1534/genetics.109.110023 |pmc=2845331 |pmid=20332416}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In the early days of the [[modern evolutionary synthesis]], scientists were just beginning to blend the new science of population genetics with [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of natural selection. Working within this new framework, Wright focused on the effects of inbreeding on small relatively isolated populations. He introduced the concept of an [[adaptive landscape]] in which phenomena such as cross breeding and genetic drift in small populations could push them away from adaptive peaks, which in turn allow natural selection to push them towards new adaptive peaks.<ref name="Larson221-243">{{Cite book | last = Larson | first = Edward J. | author-link = Edward Larson | year = 2004 | title = Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory | publisher = Modern Library | isbn = 978-0-679-64288-6}}</ref><!--from article Modern Evolutionary Synthesis--> Wright thought smaller populations were more suited for natural selection because "inbreeding was sufficiently intense to create new interaction systems through random drift but not intense enough to cause random nonadaptive fixation of genes."<ref name="dictionary">{{cite book |author=Stevenson, Joan C. |title=Dictionary of Concepts in Physical Anthropology |publisher=Greenwood Press |location=Westport, Conn |year=1991 |pages= |isbn=0-313-24756-0}}; Quote attributed to William B. Provine in ''The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics''', Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1971)</ref>
| |
| | |
| Wright's views on the role of genetic drift in the evolutionary scheme were controversial almost from the very beginning. One of the most vociferous and influential critics was colleague [[Ronald Fisher]]. Fisher conceded genetic drift played some role in evolution, but an insignificant one. Fisher has been accused of misunderstanding Wright's views because in his criticisms Fisher seemed to argue Wright had rejected selection almost entirely. To Fisher, viewing the process of evolution as a long, steady, adaptive progression was the only way to explain the ever-increasing complexity from simpler forms. But the debates have continued between the "gradualists" and those who lean more toward the Wright model of evolution where selection and drift together play an important role.<ref name = avers>{{Cite book | last = Avers | first = Charlotte | year = 1989 | title = Process and Pattern in Evolution | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 0-19-505275-7}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| In 1968,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Kimura M |title=Evolutionary rate at the molecular level |journal=Nature |volume=217 |issue=5129 |pages=624–26 |year=1968 |pmid=5637732 |doi=10.1038/217624a0}}</ref> population geneticist [[Motoo Kimura]] rekindled the debate with his [[neutral theory of molecular evolution]], which claims that most of the genetic changes are caused by genetic drift acting on neutral mutations.<ref name="Futuyma 1998 320"/>
| |
| | |
| The role of genetic drift by means of sampling error in evolution has been criticized by [[John H Gillespie]]<ref>{{cite journal |author=Gillespie JH |title=Genetic drift in an infinite population. The pseudohitchhiking model |journal=Genetics |volume=155 |issue=2 |pages=909–919 |year=2000 |pmid=10835409 |pmc=1461093}}</ref> and [[Will Provine]], who argue that selection on linked sites is a more important stochastic force.
| |
| | |
| == See also ==
| |
| * [[Allopatric speciation]]
| |
| * [[Antigenic drift]]
| |
| * [[Gene pool]]
| |
| * [[Small population size]]
| |
| * [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution]]
| |
| * [[Coalescent theory]]
| |
| | |
| == Notes and references ==
| |
| {{Reflist|2}}
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| * [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html The TalkOrigins Archive]
| |
| * [http://www.evolution-textbook.org/content/free/figures/ch15.html Genetic drift illustrations in Barton et al.]
| |
| * [http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/groups/evolution/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl_msg_id=000190&topic_id=54&topic=Genetic_Draft.html Drift vs. draft]
| |
| | |
| | |
| {{Evolution}}
| |
| {{Population genetics}}
| |
| {{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology}}
| |
| | |
| {{Use dmy dates|date=January 2011}}
| |
| | |
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Genetic Drift}}
| |
| [[Category:Population genetics]]
| |
| [[Category:Evolutionary biology]]
| |
| [[Category:Genetic genealogy]]
| |