Abstract
The analysis of genetic diversity within and between populations is a routine task in the study of diploid organisms. However, population genetic studies of polyploid organisms have been hampered by difficulties associated with scoring and interpreting molecular data. This occurs because the presence of multiple alleles at each locus often precludes the measurement of genotype or allele frequencies. In allopolyploids, the problem is compounded because genetically distinct isoloci frequently share alleles. As a result, analysis of genetic diversity patterns in allopolyploids has tended to rely on the interpretation of phenotype frequencies, which loses information available from allele composition. Here, we propose the use of a simple allelic-phenotype diversity statistic (H′) that measures diversity as the average number of alleles by which pairs of individuals differ. This statistic can be extended to a population differentiation measure (F′ST), which is analogous to FST. We illustrate the behaviour of these statistics using coalescent computer simulations that show that F′ST behaves in a qualitatively similar way to FST, thus providing a useful way to quantify population differentiation in allopolyploid species.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
A primary aim of population genetics is the measurement of genetic diversity and the characterisation of its hierarchical distribution among individuals, populations, or groups of populations. For molecular markers with a clear genetic interpretation such as microsatellites, isozymes and DNA sequences, widely used measures of diversity include allelic richness (A), gene diversity (He – ‘expected heterozygosity’, see eg Hartl and Clark, 1997), and, for DNA sequence data, the proportion of pairwise site differences (π). Several different methods have been used to quantify genetic differentiation among groups, most notably differentiation statistics related to FST (Wright, 1951; Weir and Cockerham, 1984). Although the utility of FST may be limited for highly diverse loci (eg Nagylaki, 1998), and its interpretation in terms of simple population genetic models is questionable (Whitlock and McCauley, 1999), FST and related measures continue to be quoted almost universally in studies of population genetic structure.
FST and the other summary statistics cited above have been very widely employed to quantify patterns of genetic variation in diploid organisms. However, many organisms are polyploid. Indeed, although polyploidy is particularly common among plants, fish, and amphibians, it is also found among birds, mammals, and many invertebrates (Leitch and Bennett, 1997; Otto and Whitton, 2000; Legatt and Iwama, 2003).
Polyploids are often conceptually divided into two groups: autopolyploids and allopolyploids (reviewed by Ramsey and Schemske, 2002). Autopolyploids are derived from the duplication of a single genome and – at least initially – there is no significant differentiation between duplicate genomes. Conversely, allopolyploids are derived from interspecific hybridisation, and therefore comprise two (or more) differentiated genomes. However, as species boundaries are rarely clear-cut, auto- and allopolyploidy actually represent opposite ends along a spectrum of intergenome differentiation, with ‘hybrids’ between differentiated lineages from within a single species forming the middle ground.
Polyploids can be further divided by their mode of inheritance. In newly formed autopolyploids, duplicated chromosomes do not have unique partners at meiosis. Chromosomes either pair at random or form multivalents (described as ‘polysomic’ inheritance), such that a tetraploid individual carrying alleles ABCD can form gametes AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD (reviewed by Bever and Felber, 1992; Olson, 1997; Ronfort et al, 1998). Furthermore, recombination in multivalents can lead to sister chromatids segregating together, giving rise to AA, BB, CC, and DD alleles (‘Double reduction’, see discussion in Ronfort et al, 1998). Unlike newly formed autopolyploids, allopolyploids have differentiated pairs of chromosomes, which are often able to pair normally, as in the diploid progenitors (described as ‘disomic’ inheritance). As with auto- and allopolyploidy, disomic and polysomic inheritance constitute extremes from a continuum. This is both because allopolyploid hybrids between close relatives may allow for some multivalent formation, and because autopolyploids diploidise over time, eventually developing fully disomic inheritance (Wolfe, 2001; Ramsey and Schemske, 2002). Indeed, intermediate modes of inheritance may be probabilistic, with particular loci having a higher or lower probability of pairing with a partially differentiated partner (the ‘pairing preference’, eg Wu et al, 2001).
Unfortunately, the quantification of genetic diversity and population differentiation for organisms with polyploid genomes can be much more difficult than for diploids (Figure 1). In a polyploid, and unlike the diploid case, multiple alleles can be present in more than one copy. For example, a diploid carrying alleles A and B at a locus must have one copy of each, whereas a tetraploid carrying alleles A and B (‘allelic phenotype’ AB) may have any one of three different genotypes: AAAB, AABB, or ABBB.
In some species, and particularly for low-order polyploids (eg tetraploids), it is possible to estimate this allele copy number (‘dosage’) on the basis of band intensity or electropherogram peak height (eg Arft and Ranker, 1998; Prober et al, 1998; Young et al, 1999; Hardy and Vekemans, 2001; Nassar et al, 2003). When this is the case, and inheritance is polysomic, the genotype follows directly from the allelic phenotype as it does in diploids. Consequently, extensions of standard diploid summary statistics such as He and FST can be used to quantify genetic diversity and differentiation (Nei, 1987; Ronfort et al, 1998; Thrall and Young, 2000), and computer programs are available to conduct analyses (SPAGEDi – Hardy and Vekemans, 2002; AUTOTET – Thrall and Young, 2000). However, in higher order polyploids, the genotype can rarely be inferred from gel banding patterns or electropherograms (eg Kahler et al, 1980; Krebs and Hancock, 1989; Brochmann et al, 1992).
A further difficulty arises when the target polyploid population displays disomic inheritance, because it is then often not clear which alleles are associated with which of the duplicate loci (homeologous loci, or ‘isoloci’). This problem applies both to autopolyploids that have become diploidised, and to allopolyploids in which alleles from each of the two parental species segregate in a diploid manner at different isoloci (see Figure 1 for an illustration). In both cases, although the genetic segregation is effectively diploid, it is typically very difficult or impossible to know whether a particular allele, scored as a band on a gel, is segregating at which of two or more isoloci. A tetraploid genotype that produces two distinct bands on a gel, for example, may be homozygous for different alleles at each of its two isoloci, or heterozygous at one or both loci. At one extreme, all individuals may have the same heterozygous genotype (heterozygosity is ‘fixed’; Figure 1c), whereas at the other extreme, several alleles may be shared among isoloci, making disomic inheritance superficially appear polysomic (Figure 1b); this latter situation has been termed ‘cryptic disomy’ (De Silva et al, 2005).
In situations where allele dosage can be scored for populations with disomic inheritance, the underlying allele frequencies can sometimes be estimated for different isoloci using the superficial genotypes, and these estimates used to calculate genetic diversity statistics (Waples, 1988; Hedrick et al, 1991; Bouza et al, 2001). Recently, De Silva et al (2005) have provided a sophisticated approach to estimating allele frequencies in both polysomic and disomic polyploids when allele dosage cannot be scored. However, in order to provide good estimates of allele frequencies with these methods, populations must be assumed to be at equilibrium, and independent estimates of the selfing rate are required.
An alternative approach has been to interpret polyploid gel banding patterns as allelic phenotypes (Figure 1), and to calculate simple summary statistics on the basis of gel phenotypic diversity without recourse to a full genetic interpretation (eg Jain and Singh, 1979; Gaur et al, 1980; Murdy and Carter, 1985; Bayer and Crawford, 1986; Chung et al, 1991; Brochmann et al, 1992; Rogers, 2000; Berglund and Westerbergh, 2001). With this approach, diversity can be measured in terms of the total number of different banding or allelic phenotypes in the population, or by calculating statistics similar to He (Nei's gene diversity, the probability that two alleles sampled at random are different) on the basis of allelic phenotype frequencies. Two such statistics have been widely used: HPhen, which is calculated as one minus the sum of squared phenotype frequencies, and is thus analogous to He (Yunus et al, 1991; Meerts et al, 1998), and HSW, which is a Shannon–Weaver diversity index of phenotypes (eg Jain and Singh, 1979; Gaur et al, 1980; Chung et al, 1991). Both these measures can be used to calculate population differentiation as the ratio of between-population to species-wide diversity, analogous to FST. However, because they treat gel phenotypes only as being either identical or different, they do not make use of all the information present on a gel, for example, they do not recognise the greater similarity of phenotypes that share more bands over those that share fewer.
Recently, Meirmans and van Tienderen (2004) and Meirmans (2004) have used several measures of interindividual similarity, including (1) the number of steps to convert one phenotype into the other, and (2) a measure related to the Dice coincidence index (Dice, 1945), calculated as the number of shared bands (alleles) between two individuals, divided by the total number of bands present. Bruvo et al (2004) took a similar approach for microsatellite data using the number of stepwise mutations that separate allelic phenotypes. However, the behaviour of none of these measures has been compared with that of FST.
Here, we introduce a new simple measure of allelic-phenotype diversity devised for use in allopolyploid species. This diversity measure (denoted H′) accounts for the fact that allelic phenotypes may share differing numbers of bands (alleles). Specifically, H′ is defined as the average number of alleles by which pairs of individuals differ at a single locus; thus
where n is the total number of individuals and xijk equals one if allele k is carried by either individual i or by individual j (but not by both), and is otherwise equal to zero. Although devised for use with allopolyploids, it may be possible also to apply this statistic to other forms of polyploid (see Discussion).
Based on this measure of diversity, we define a differentiation statistic, F′ST, as (H′T−H′S)/H′T. A computer program, ‘FDASH’, which uses allelic phenotype data to calculate the above statistics is available from the authors upon request. Below, we compare the statistical behaviour of H′ and F′ST with that of HPhen, HSW, and their associated differentiation statistics, PFST and SWFST. Because it is not clear how statistics derived from allelic phenotype data will respond to demographic processes such as migration, we use coalescent simulations in a preliminary exploration of their behaviour under the simple ‘island model’ of population structure. Although the island model is an unrealistic caricature of a subdivided population (Whitlock and McCauley, 1999), the expectation for FST under a given migration rate is known, and it thus provides firm ground on which to test a new statistic. We also consider the extent to which the statistics are affected by the polyploid level and the degree of differentiation between isoloci, for example, the degree divergence between the parental species of an allopolyploid population.
Methods
Model
We assumed an island model of population structure. Under this simple model, a (meta)population is divided into d discrete subpopulations or demes, each of size N. Each generation, a proportion m of the individuals in each deme are replaced by migrants drawn randomly from the rest of the metapopulation. Migration is haploid, as by pollen in a diploid organism. For m much greater than u, the mutation rate to new alleles, the expected value of FST is 1/(1+4Nm); this provides a simple expectation against which to compare differentiation statistics using phenotype-based diversity measures under focus here. In an infinite-allele framework, the sharing of alleles between isoloci must be owing to common ancestry; for example, in an ancestor of the parental taxa (in the case of allopolyploidy) or before the onset of disomic inheritance (in the case of a now-diploidised autopolyploid).
We used coalescence-based simulations (eg Hudson, 1990; Nordborg and Donnelly, 1997; Nordborg, 2001) to compare genotype- and phenotype-based statistics in terms of their response to polyploid level, their deviation from the expectation of FST, and their variance. In particular, we followed (Wakeley, 2001; Wakeley and Aliacar, 2001) in separating the coalescent process into two parts: an evolutionarily rapid ‘scattering phase’, in which lineages coalesce within demes or migrate out of them, and a slow ‘collecting phase’, in which lineages from different demes first migrating into common demes and then eventually coalesce at their common ancestor. The collecting phase is just a neutral coalescent, with the effective population size scaled to account for population structure (Wakeley and Aliacar, 2001; Rousset, 2003).
We modelled populations of allopolyploids with disomic inheritance by explicitly recognising that the multiple genetically distinct pairs of homeologous loci or isoloci share a common ancestral locus in the distant past. Thus, we considered an initial sample of lineages at time zero consisting of 2x-ploid individuals, with x=2 for tetraploids, x=3 for hexaploids, and so on, and recorded migration and coalescence events as the simulation proceeded backwards in time towards increasingly more inclusive common ancestors. The sample thus passed through the scattering phase and entered the collecting phase with x simultaneous coalescent processes, one for each independent isolocus. After a given point in time, coalescence was then allowed to occur between lineages from different isoloci. This threshold determines the extent to which isoloci share alleles by descent; it corresponds either to the speciation event that separated the two parental species of the simulated allopolyploid population or to the point at which polysomic inheritance became disomic through diploidisation. If the threshold is ancient, isoloci will share no alleles and the markers will be effectively diploid (ie a paleopolyploid); in contrast, if the threshold is recent, then isoloci will share alleles, and banding patterns may look superficially like polysomic inheritance (cryptic disomy).
In each simulation run, a given number of 2x-ploid individuals were sampled from each of several demes (see below). A genealogy for the sample was simulated, and a Poisson-distributed number of mutations was applied to each branch, with the parameter proportional to branch length and mutation rate, and the mutation process following assumptions of the infinite-alleles model (as appropriate, for example, for isozymes). Finally, the allelic state of each of the sampled alleles was identified, and diversity and differentiation statistics were calculated for the sample.
We calculated differentiation statistics based on phenotype frequencies, as described above. We also calculated a genotype-based estimate of FST (θ), following Weir (1996), with multilocus (ie multi-isolocus) estimates calculated as a ratio of averages. For comparison, the same genotype-based statistic was also calculated as if the polyploid had polysomic inheritance, that is, a single locus with four alleles rather than two isoloci with two alleles each (as described by Ronfort et al, (1998)). We calculated the expectation of FST for the island model as 1/(1+4Nm). To assess the quality of FST estimators, we used the mean square error of estimates, calculated as the sum of squared bias and the variance (ie bias2+var) (Balloux and Goudet, 2002).
Model parameters
For all simulations, the population comprised 500 demes each of 250 (polyploid) individuals, and samples consisted of 25 individuals drawn from each of 10 demes. For each parameter combination, the simulation was repeated 20 000 times to estimate statistic means and variances. To examine the effect of ploidy on H′T, F′ST, and the other phenotype-based statistics, we simulated diploids, tetraploids, and hexaploid populations with three different levels of divergence between isoloci. These were chosen such that low divergence (0.01 × 2Ne generations) resulted in most alleles occurring at all isoloci (cryptic disomy), and high divergence (100 × 2Ne generations) resulted in alleles almost never occurring at multiple isoloci (paleopolyploidy). Following an initial search of parameter space, we chose a migration rate (m=0.0062) and a mutation rate (μ=5.7 × 10−5) that yielded numbers of observed alleles (A=1.99) and values of population differentiation (FST=0.197) corresponding to the means reported for isozymes in outcrossing plants (Hamrick and Godt, 1990). To examine the relative utility of genotype- and phenotype-based differentiation statistics across a range of migration rates, we ran the simulation for tetraploids only using a single level of divergence between isoloci (2Ne generations) and the same parameters otherwise, with expected FST values between 0.025 and 0.995.
Results
The response to increasing polyploidy
As expected, the genotype-based genetic diversity statistic H, calculated as an average across isoloci for the whole population (ie Nei's gene diversity; allele dosage scored and alleles attributed to isoloci), did not vary with increasing polyploid level or increasing differentiation between isoloci (Figure 2a). In contrast, the genetic diversity statistics based on phenotype data (a function of diversity across multiple isoloci) increased with the level of polyploidy and the degree of differentiation between isoloci. This was true of both phenotype diversity measures calculated from phenotype frequencies (HSW and HPhen; Figure 2c and e, respectively), and the measure of diversity based on allele differences (H′; Figure 2g). The genotype-based differentiation statistic, θ (Weir and Cockerham, 1984), calculated across isoloci, did not vary greatly with polyploid level or differentiation between isoloci (Figure 2b). For this intermediate level of differentiation, there was almost no variation in the phenotypic differentiation statistics based on phenotype frequency (SWFST and PFST), or allele differences (F′ST), (Figures 2d, f, and h, respectively).
The response to increasing migration rate
Qualitative effects
Three of the differentiation statistics deviated qualitatively from the expected FST in their response to migration rate (Figure 3). The differentiation statistics calculated from allelic-phenotype diversity (SWFST and PFST) did not approach zero as the migration rate increased (Figure 3a), although under the parameters explored here the discrepancy from expectation was extremely small for PFST (Figure 3a). This was not seen for F′ST (Figure 3a, grey line). When the polysomic genotype-based estimate θ (Ronfort et al, 1998) was calculated, as might be performed erroneously in the case of cryptic disomy, it did not tend towards one as the migration rate decreased (Figure 3b).
Phenotypes in place of genotypes
The use of phenotypic data also led to quantitative differences in measures of differentiation. To examine the relative loss of information associated with the use of allelic phenotype data in place of genotype data, the phenotype-based differentiation statistic, F′ST, was considered as an estimator of expected FST. As would be predicted, the tetraploid genotypic estimate, which requires alleles to be assigned to isoloci (two isoloci, dashed line in Figure 4) was always better than the diploid genotypic estimate (one locus, dot-dash line in Figure 4), reflecting the information gained from using two loci for the estimate in place of one. Under the parameters examined here, when differentiation was low (ie expected value of FST<ca. 0.5) genotype-based multilocus θ appeared to be a better estimator of FST than was the phenotype-based F′ST. However, when differentiation was high, F′ST and θ were very similar (Figure 4).
Discussion
The principal aim of our study was to compare statistics based on phenotype frequencies (HPhen and HSW), with one based on phenotypic similarity (H′), and to illustrate the extent to which these statistics are informative about population structure. Our results suggest that allelic phenotype-based diversity statistics for polyploids with disomic inheritance may depend strongly on details such as the polyploid level (number of isoloci) and the differentiation between isoloci (Figure 2). In contrast, differentiation statistics did not appear to be strongly affected by polyploid level (Figure 2). Differentiation statistics, when calculated as though inheritance were polysomic, and when calculated from allelic phenotype diversity, differed qualitatively from the island-model expectation of FST (Figures 2 and 3a). Below, we discuss the likely reason for these effects, and the implications for quantifying diversity and differentiation in polyploids with disomic inheritance.
Appropriate models of inheritance
When fixed heterozygosity is identified for multiple loci in a polyploid population, it is clear that inheritance must be disomic (Figure 1c). However, when isoloci share a large proportion of their alleles, the great inter-individual variation in the number of distinct alleles can make gel banding patterns look superficially polysomic (ie disomic inheritance is cryptic; Figure 1b). It is tempting to analyse such data using computer packages intended for autopolyploids (eg SPAGEDi: Ronfort et al, 1998; Hardy and Vekemans, 2002), without confirming that inheritance is polysomic. However, this procedure is inappropriate, because the apparent excess of heterozygotes (owing to disomic inheritance) will artificially inflate within-population diversity (HS), so that it is nonzero even when there are no differences between individuals within populations. Thus, the polyploid analogue of θ, calculated under the assumption that inheritance is polysomic (Ronfort et al, 1998), may be very small in a polyploid population with disomic inheritance, even when migration rates are almost zero (Figure 3b).
Utility of phenotype-based estimates of genetic diversity in disomic polyploids
Phenotype-based diversity statistics depend strongly on the number of isoloci (ie the polyploid level) and the degree of differentiation between isoloci (Figure 2). This is because phenotype-based diversity statistics simultaneously record the diversity at several duplicate isoloci. If isoloci shared no alleles, the overall phenotype diversity would be an additive function of diversity at each of the (diploid) isoloci, and thus should increase with the polyploid level (Figure 2). By contrast, genetic differentiation statistics do not vary much with polyploid level, given that other population parameters are the same (Figure 2). This is because differentiation statistics, such as FST, are essentially a ratio of within-population diversity to total diversity, and they will thus be affected relatively little by factors that simultaneously increase both. This means that, although direct comparisons of diversity statistics such as H′ and HSW cannot be made between polyploid levels, comparisons of differentiation statistics derived from them are likely to be informative.
Some of the phenotype-based differentiation statistics behave unexpectedly in response to migration, that is, they differ qualitatively from expected FST or genotype-based statistics (Figure 3). In particular, the differentiation statistic derived from the Shannon Weaver diversity of phenotype frequencies (SWFST) does not approach zero with increasing migration. We believe this is an effect of finite sample size; if FST is considered as a standardised variance in allele frequencies between populations (eg Weir, 1996), the variance in phenotype frequencies will be larger for a given sample size than the variance in allele frequencies. This is because alleles will be distributed differently between individuals in different samples, and unless the sample is very large, many rare phenotypes will not be included. The effect is strong for SWFST because HSW weights rare phenotypes disproportionately highly. However, there is also some suggestion that under high migration rates a small effect is seen for PFST (dashed line, Figure 3a). We therefore suggest that inference regarding relative migration rates, when based on differentiation statistics calculated from phenotype frequencies, should be treated with some caution as differentiation statistics may be appreciably greater than zero even under panmictic gene flow. F′ST, the differentiation statistic based on allele differences, does not appear to suffer from this limitation.
Although polyploidy presents a number of challenges, the concomitant increase in the number of loci in principle has the potential to provide more information for making inferences about population processes, such as migration. It is therefore interesting to ask whether the information gain associated with the availability of more (iso)loci outweighs the information lost through the use of allelic phenotype data in place of genetic data. The results of our simulations suggest that gains do indeed tend to balance the losses. Thus, under the parameters we examined, there was an overall loss in information when migration rates were high (ie with low differentiation), but no appreciable loss when migration rates were low (Figure 4).
Conclusions
We have made a preliminary investigation of the behaviour of phenotype-based statistics in a simple island model, for outcrossing polyploids with disomic inheritance. Our study suggests that for many purposes, the diversity statistic H′ is an informative way of summarising genetic diversity in disomic polyploids, and that the differentiation statistic derived from it (F′ST) behaves in a very similar way to other more widely used differentiation statistics. Furthermore, F′ST seems very little affected by polyploid level in disomic polyploids, so that comparisons between polyploid levels, and potentially among species that differ in ploidy, are most likely to be viable.
The statistics we have introduced here are, of course, purely descriptive. However, differences in diversity and differentiation might be tested for statistical significance using randomisation procedures. For example, by randomising population samples between ‘treatments’, we were able to infer a difference in H′S and F′ST between different sexual systems in allohexaploid Mercurialis annua (Obbard et al, 2006). For some of the polyploid statistics discussed here, this randomisation procedure has been implemented in our program ‘FDASH’ (available on request).
The statistics F′ST and H′ were devised for use in polyploids with disomic inheritance (eg most allopolyploids), thus our simulations were limited to a disomic model of inheritance and assumed an infinite-allele model of mutation. However, although information from allele frequencies will be lost, H′ and F′ST should also capture essential information regarding genetic diversity in polyploids with other modes of inheritance, such as polysomic polyploids, and cases for which allele sharing may not be owing to common ancestry, such as microsatellite markers (for an application see Refoufi and Esnault, 2006). In particular, it is worth noting that patterns of allele sharing under polysomic inheritance are superficially similar to disomic inheritance (as in Figure 4, ‘low divergence’), so long as there is little divergence between isoloci. This would suggest that H′ and F′ST may be applicable to alternative modes of inheritance, although further work is required to test this. It will also important to determine how these statistics behave under more complex population models, such as those that include selfing or metapopulation processes. The coalescent approach adopted here will be ideally suited to making these extensions (Nordborg and Donnelly, 1997; Wakeley and Aliacar, 2001).
References
Arft AM, Ranker TA (1998). Allopolyploid origin and population genetics of the rare orchid Spiranthes diluvialis. Am J Bot 85: 110–122.
Balloux F, Goudet J (2002). Statistical properties of population differentiation estimators under stepwise mutation in a finite island model. Mol Ecol 11: 771–783.
Bayer RJ, Crawford DJ (1986). Allozyme divergence among five diploid species of Antennaria (Asteraceae: Inuleae) and their allopolyploid derivatives. Am J Bot 73: 287–296.
Berglund ABN, Westerbergh A (2001). Two postglacial immigration lineages of the polyploid Cerastium alpinum (Caryophyllaceae). Hereditas 134: 171–183.
Bever JD, Felber F (1992). The theoretical population genetics of autopolyploidy. Oxford Surv Evolut Biol 8: 185–217.
Bouza C, Castro J, Sanchez L, Martinez P (2001). Allozymic evidence of parapatric differentiation of brown trout (Salmo trutta L.) within an Atlantic river basin of the Iberian Peninsula. Mol Ecol 10: 1455–1469.
Brochmann C, Soltis DE, Soltis PS (1992). Electrophoretic relationships and phylogeny of Nordic polyploids in Draba (Brassicaceae). Plant Syst Evol 182: 35–70.
Bruvo R, Michiels NK, D'Souza TG, Schulenburg H (2004). A simple method for the calculation of microsatellite genotype distances irrespective of ploidy level. Mol Ecol 13: 2101–2106.
Chung MG, Hamrick JL, Jones SB, Derda GS (1991). Isozyme variation within and among populations of Hosta (Liliaceae) in Korea. Syst Bot 16: 667–684.
De Silva HN, Hall AJ, Rikkerink E, McNeilage MA, Fraser LG (2005). Estimation of allele frequencies in polyploids under certain patterns of inheritance. Heredity 95: 327–334.
Dice LR (1945). Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26: 297–302.
Gaur PK, Lichtwardt RW, Hamrick JL (1980). Isozyme variation among soil isolates of Histoplasma capsulatum. Exp Mycol 5: 69–77.
Hamrick JL, Godt MJW (1990). Allozyme diversity in plant species. In: Brown AHD, Clegg MT, Kahler AL, Weir BS (eds) Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources. Sinauer: Sunderland, MA. pp 43–63.
Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2001). Patterns of allozyme variation in diploid and tetraploid Centaurea jacea at different spatial scales. Evolution 55: 943–954.
Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002). SPAGEDi: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population levels. Mol Ecol Notes 2: 618–620.
Hartl DL, Clark AG (1997). Principles of Population Genetics. Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA.
Hedrick PW, Hutchinson ES, Mesler M (1991). Estimation of self-fertilization rate and allelic frequencies in diploidized tetraploids. Heredity 67: 259–264.
Hudson RR (1990). Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. In: Futuyma DJ, Antonovics J (eds) Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 7: 1–44.
Jain SK, Singh RS (1979). Population biology of Avena. VII. Allozyme variation in relation to the genome analysis. Bot Gaz 140: 356–363.
Kahler AL, Allard RW, Krzakowa M, Wehrhahn CF, Nevo E (1980). Associations between isozyme phenotypes and environment in the slender Wild Oat (Avena barbata) in Israel. Theor Appl Genet 56: 31–47.
Krebs SL, Hancock JF (1989). Tetrasomic inheritance of isoenzyme markers in the highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L. Heredity 63: 11–18.
Legatt RA, Iwama GK (2003). Occurrence of polyploidy in the fishes. Rev Fish Biol Fish 13: 237–246.
Leitch IJ, Bennett MD (1997). Polyploidy in angiosperms. Trends Plant Sci 2: 470–476.
Meerts P, Baya T, Lefebvre C (1998). Allozyme variation in the annual weed species complex Polygonum aviculare (Polygonaceae) in relation to ploidy level and colonizing ability. Plant Syst Evol 211: 239–256.
Meirmans PG. (2004). GenoType and GenoDive: Users Manual. Retrieved July 1st 2004, from http://staff.science.uva.nl/~meirmans/softindex.html.
Meirmans PG, van Tienderen PH (2004). GENOTYPE and GENODIVE: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Mol Ecol Notes 4: 792–794.
Murdy WH, Carter MEB (1985). Electrophoretic study of the allopolyploidal origin of Talinum teretifolium and the specific status of T. appalachianum (Portulacaceae). Am J Bot 72: 1590–1597.
Nagylaki T (1998). Fixation indices in subdivided populations. Genetics 148: 1325–1332.
Nassar JM, Hamrick JL, Fleming TH (2003). Population genetic structure of Venezuelan chiropterophilous columnar cacti (Cactaceae). Am J Bot 90: 1628–1637.
Nei M (1987). Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. University Press: New York, Columbia.
Nordborg M (2001). Coalescent Theory. In: Balding DJ (ed) Handbook of Statistical Genetics. John Wiley, NY. pp 179–212.
Nordborg M, Donnelly P (1997). The coalescent process with selfing. Genetics 146: 1185–1195.
Obbard DJ, Harris SA, Pannell JR (2006). Sexual systems and population genetic structure in an annual plant: testing the metapopulation model. Am Nat 167: 354–366.
Olson MS (1997). Bayesian procedures for discriminating among hypotheses with discrete distributions: Inheritance in the tetraploid Astilbe biternata. Genetics 147: 1933–1942.
Otto SP, Whitton J (2000). Polyploid incidence and evolution. Annu Rev Genet 34: 401–437.
Prober SM, Spindler LH, Brown AHD (1998). Conservation of the grassy white box woodlands: effects of remnant population size on genetic diversity in the allotetraploid herb Microseris lanceolata. Conserv Biol 12: 1279–1290.
Ramsey J, Schemske DW (2002). Neopolyploidy in flowering plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33: 589–639.
Refoufi A, Esnault MA (2006). Genetic diversity and population structure of Elytrigia pycnantha (Godr.) (Triticeae) in Mont Saint–Michel Bay using microsatellite markers. Plant Biol 8: 234–242.
Rogers DL (2000). Genotypic diversity and clone size in old-growth populations of coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Can J Bot-Rev Can Bot 78: 1408–1419.
Ronfort J, Jenczewski E, Bataillon T, Rousset F (1998). Analysis of population structure in autotetraploid species. Genetics 150: 921–930.
Rousset F (2003). Effective size in simple metapopulation models. Heredity 91: 107–111.
Thrall PH, Young A (2000). AUTOTET: A program for analysis of autotetraploid genotypic data. J Hered 91: 348–349.
Wakeley J (2001). The coalescent in an island model of population subdivision with variation among demes. Theor Popul Biol 59: 133–144.
Wakeley J, Aliacar N (2001). Gene genealogies in a metapopulation. Genetics 159: 893–905.
Waples RS (1988). Estimation of allele frequencies at isoloci. Genetics 118: 371–384.
Weir BS (1996). Genetic Analysis II. Sinauer: Sunderland, MA.
Weir BS, Cockerham CC (1984). Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38: 1358–1370.
Whitlock MC, McCauley DE (1999). Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: F-ST not equal 1/(4Nm+1). Heredity 82: 117–125.
Wolfe KH (2001). Yesterday's polyploids and the mystery of diploidization. Nat Rev Genet 2: 333–341.
Wright S (1951). The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugenics 15: 323–354.
Wu RL, Gallo-Meagher M, Littell RC, Zeng ZB (2001). A general polyploid model for analyzing gene segregation in outcrossing tetraploid species. Genetics 159: 869–882.
Young AG, Brown AHD, Zich FA (1999). Genetic structure of fragmented populations of the endangered daisy Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides. Conserv Biol 13: 256–265.
Yunus AG, Jackson MT, Catty JP (1991). Phenotypic polymorphism of 6 enzymes in the Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Euphytica 55: 33–42.
Acknowledgements
We thank Gil McVean for advice on coalescent simulation and for suggesting the diversity measure H′. We thank Pete Hollingsworth and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on this paper. DJO was funded by a Long Studentship from the Queens College, Oxford. SAH and JRP acknowledge support from the Natural Environment Research Council, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Obbard, D., Harris, S. & Pannell, J. Simple allelic-phenotype diversity and differentiation statistics for allopolyploids. Heredity 97, 296–303 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800862
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800862
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Assessing the genetic diversity of Nymphoides peltata in the native and adventive range using microsatellite markers
Biological Invasions (2023)
-
Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Psidium Species from Restinga: A Coastal and Disturbed Ecosystem of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
Biochemical Genetics (2022)
-
Genetic diversity and structure of Dendrocalamus hamiltonii natural metapopulation: a commercially important bamboo species of northeast Himalayas
3 Biotech (2019)
-
Population assignment in autopolyploids
Heredity (2017)
-
Genetic Diversity, Genotype Discrimination, and Population Structure of Mexican Opuntia sp., Determined by SSR Markers
Plant Molecular Biology Reporter (2016)