john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

genetic drift

  • Founder effect

    Sat, 2011-08-06 13:34 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    The founder effect is a special case of genetic drift that can happen when a small number of individuals found a new population
    The founder effect is caused by genetic drift in a small number of initial founders of a new population.

    One of the most important manifestations of genetic drift is in the founding of new populations by a small number of colonists. For example, the Afrikaner population of the country of South Africa today descends from Dutch colonists who arrived during the seventeenth century. Some of the earliest colonists to arrive had a large genetic contribution to the later Afrikaner population, because they had a chance to have lots of offspring who intermarried with later arrivals. The first Dutch colonists landed in 1652, and one of these colonists was a man who carried an allele causing Huntington's disease, a rare genetic disorder of the nervous system. Huntington's is a dominant genetic disorder, affecting all individuals who carry the allele, but it exerts most of its effect late in life --- after people generally reproduce. Although this harmful allele was carried by only one individual, it was a relatively large proportion of the new founder population --- much higher in frequency than it had been in Holland. After strong population growth, today's Afrikaners have a high frequency of the Huntington's allele, mainly from this single founder (Ridley 2002). This phenomenon of genetic drift is often called the \term{founder effect}.

    \subsection{Population structure and genetic drift}

    Genetic drift is stronger when there is more variability in reproduction.

    A simple reason for variability in reproduction is the different reproductive efforts of males and females. Female mammals face a high cost of reproduction. Mothers provide space and nutrients to their developing young while they still in the womb, and mothers provide high-energy milk and protection to their young after they are born. Although female fish and frogs may lay hundreds --- or even thousands --- of eggs, female mammals are limited to many fewer offspring over the course of their lifetimes. Males, on the other hand, do not face the same reproductive costs. If a male can mate with many females, he can potentially have many times the number of offspring of any single female. But males face a different cost: if they want to mate at all, they must first face competition from other males. In many species, a lucky few males may mate with many females, while most males do not mate at all. Thus, males are often much more variable in their reproductive success than females. Each generation of offspring in such a population includes the genes of many different females but only a few males. Only a few genes may be responsible for the and all the genes of these few males are boosted by genetic drift.

    Human history appears to have included some cases where single male lineages had exceptionally high mating success. Geneticists can trace male reproduction through the Y chromosome, which is passed from only from father to son. Because of this unique pattern of inheritance, the Y chromosome marks \term{patrilines}, lineages of males. In many human societies, social status or power may also be passed along patrilines, as kings and chiefs pass power to their sons. This cultural pattern of inheritance generally lasts only for a few generations, as some member of the male lineage ultimately fails to have a son as an heir, or the patriline simply loses power. But the history of some cultures gave a few patrilines exceptional mating opportunities, as kings and other high-ranking men sometimes kept harems of dozens or more women for their own exclusive mating.

    \begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{genghis.png}
    \caption[Frequency of ``Genghis Khan'' Y chromosome haplotype in Asia]{Frequency of the ``Genghis Khan'' Y chromosome haplotype in samples of Asian populations. The ``star cluster'' refers to the rapid expansion in numbers of the haplotype in different populations since its origin around 1000 years ago. Reprinted from Zerjal \emph{et al.} (2003).}
    \label{fig:genghis}
    \end{figure}

    Two Y chromosome haplotypes in Asia are shared by many millions of men, even though they emerged within the past thousand years. One of these, carried by 8 percent of men in Central and Northeast Asia, appears to have originated in Mongolia around a thousand years ago [1]. At this frequency, the haplotype would occur in as many as 16 million men, all descendants of a single man within the past 1000 years. The large current population implies that these men descend from an exceptionally widespread and productive patriline. During the past 1000 years in Asia, the best candidate for such a patriline is that of the Mongol emperor Genghis Khan, who lived from around A.D. 1162--1227. After conquering history's largest land empire, Genghis and his descendants installed their male relatives as rulers of much of Asia. These descendants themselves must often have had extraordinary reproductive opportunities, so that their Y chromosomes became more and more common in Asian populations. A second Y chromosome haplotype is carried by around 3 percent of people in China and Mongolia, and may derive from the Manchu dynasty, which dates to the year 1644 [2]. Together, these haplotypes illustrate the chance for some rare alleles to increase greatly in frequency due to genetic drift in human history.


    References

    1. Zerjal T, Xue Y, Bertorelle G, Wells RS, Bao W, Zhu S, Qamar R, Ayub Q, Mohyuddin A, Fu S, et al. The Genetic Legacy of the {Mongols}. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2003;72:717–721.
    2. Xue Y, Zerjal T, Bao W, Zhu S, Lim S-K, Shu Q, Xu J, Du R, Fu S, Li P, et al. Recent Spread of a Y-Chromosomal Lineage in {Northern China} and {Mongolia}. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2005;77:1112–1116.
    Study questions: 
    1. Can you think of other populations in human history that might have undergone a founder effect?
    2. What evidence can we use to test whether a founder effect can explain the high frequency of an allele?
  • Genetic drift

    Fri, 2011-08-05 01:24 -- John Hawks
    Synopsis: 
    Many changes in gene frequencies are caused by random chance differences in reproduction.

    If everyone in a population lived a long life, mated, and reproduced absolutely equally (two offspring per person), then the population size would never change. There would always be approximately the same number of individuals, allowing for variations in when people are born or die. In this population, every gene has an equal chance of being passed into the next generation. Natural selection depends on differences in the chance that genes will survive and reproduce, so this population would not evolve by natural selection.

    But the population would still evolve by random chance. A single chromosome can illustrate this potential for evolution. The Y chromosome determines whether humans will be male or female: males have one X chromosome and one Y, females have no Y and two X chromosomes. Mendelian genetics predicts that if a father has two offspring, each of these children has a 50 percent chance of inheriting his Y chromosome and thereby being a son. But these odds mean that the man has a substantial chance of having no sons at all --- 25 percent of the time, both children will be daughters. If the man has no sons, then his Y chromosome is simply lost from the next generation. Genes disappear due to chance, even if everyone mates and reproduces equally.

    Genetic drift is a random change in allele frequencies.

    These random changes in allele frequency can accumulate over time. Across many generations, the frequency of an allele can gradually increase, gradually decrease, or fluctuate back and forth. In other words, the frequencies of different alleles seem to ``drift'' up and down, without any direction. This is why the random change in allele frequencies is called \term{genetic drift}. Over time, genetic drift can make once rare alleles common, or eliminate alleles altogether.

    Genetic drift is stronger in small populations.

    \begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=4in]{genetic_variation_drift.png}
    \label{fig:genetic_drift}
    \caption[Genetic variation under genetic drift]{Genetic variation under genetic drift as a function of population size. The expected amount of genetic variation increases as a linear function of the size of the population, when genetic drift and mutation are the only causes of evolution. Larger populations are more variable; smaller populations are less variable. }
    \end{figure}

    The most obvious factor affecting the rate of genetic drift is the size of the population. If the population is small, then a small sample is taken of the gametic population in every generation. Small samples can vary more markedly from the larger sets from which they are selected than larger samples, so genetic drift is more powerful in smaller populations. For example, in a population of five individuals, an allele that exists in a single copy in one individual has a frequency of ten percent. Nevertheless, this allele is in constant jeopardy of being eliminated from the population, requiring only the chance of not being passed on once to never again be found. Likewise, it is very possible that in a very few generations this allele might increase from one copy to ten, eliminating all other alleles. In contrast, in a population of a thousand individuals, an allele with a frequency of ten percent exists in 200 copies. While random sampling of gametes will cause this number to fluctuate over time, it is extremely unlikely that chance alone would allow no copy of this allele to be passed on in any given generation. Indeed, it would likely take many hundreds of generations for random events to either eliminate this allele or all the others.

    Study questions: 
    1. Can you think of other human populations that have undergone founder effects?
  • Selection versus drift in Neandertal evolution

    Sat, 2011-01-01 11:05 -- John Hawks

    My graduate student Marc Kissel and I are putting on a poster today at the AAPA meetings. Marc has prepared a nice PDF of the poster and we're putting it here for people to have access after and beyond the meeting. Thanks to the magic of QR codes, we're able to direct people to this page from the poster itself, so welcome!

    It's scaled giantly at the moment and I'll work on finding a way to decrease the zoom level. But it will download and display fine on any PDF viewer. Enjoy!

  • Genealogy and genetics

    Thu, 2009-10-15 18:03 -- John Hawks

    Larry Moran writes, "Are you a descendant of Charlemagne?"

    Thousands of amateur genealogists have contributed to a huge database of family relationships, including genetic analyses. What does this teach us about human populations and evolution?

    It touches on some issues covered in more detail in Steve Olson's book, Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins, which remains surprisingly relevant today despite the explosion in genetic data. That's because Olson did a good job on the population genetics side.

    Oh, and yes I am a descendant of Charlemagne. Woo-hoo!

  • The Finnish line

    Sat, 2009-09-26 09:30 -- John Hawks

    A new paper by Jukka Palo and colleagues investigates the population history of Finland:

    The Finnish population in Northern Europe has been a target of extensive genetic studies during the last decades. The population is considered as a homogeneous isolate, well suited for gene mapping studies because of its reduced diversity and homogeneity. However, several studies have shown substantial differences between the eastern and western parts of the country, especially in the male-mediated Y chromosome. This divergence is evident in non-neutral genetic variation also and it is usually explained to stem from founder effects occurring in the settlement of eastern Finland as late as in the 16th century. Here, we have reassessed this population historical scenario using Y-chromosomal, mitochondrial and autosomal markers and geographical sampling covering entire Finland. The obtained results suggest substantial Scandinavian gene flow into south-western, but not into the eastern, Finland. Male-biased Scandinavian gene flow into the south-western parts of the country would plausibly explain the large inter-regional differences observed in the Y-chromosome, and the relative homogeneity in the mitochondrial and autosomal data. On the basis of these results, we suggest that the expression of 'Finnish Disease Heritage' illnesses, more common in the eastern/north-eastern Finland, stems from long-term drift, rather than from relatively recent founder effects.

    So you've got a cline of genetic variation. How do you explain it? This paper reminds us that for a single locus there are always multiple explanations: asymmetric migration, natural selection, founder effect and population growth are the simple unicausal scenarios. Considering a cline by itself, there's no reason to prefer any of these except for assumptions that come from outside that gene -- maybe you know something about the history, maybe the gene's function gives you a clue.

    If you're going to test these hypotheses with genes alone, then you need to sample multiple loci, and you need to make an adequate spatial sampling of the population. And when you do, sometimes the evidence points in a different way than you had expected.

    References:

    Palo JU, Ulmanen I, Lukka M, Ellonen P, Sajantila A. 2009. Genetic markers and population history: Finland revisited. Eur J Hum Genet 17:1336-1346. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.53

  • "The worm in the fruit of the mitochondrial DNA tree"

    Thu, 2009-09-17 09:39 -- John Hawks

    François Balloux (2009) has a polemic in the online access area of Heredity presenting references about mtDNA selection, and arguing that the use of this single genetic marker is no longer warranted without support from other loci.

    Yay! I've been saying that both here, and in peer-reviewed articles, for several years. I think serious workers know that one gene is not enough; two genes (mtDNA and Y chromosome, for example) aren't enough -- we have to integrate information across every possible source, genetic, skeletal, and anthropological, to really test hypotheses about the past.

    Still, an industry of mtDNA sequencing has grown up, reviewing each others' grants and papers, and shutting down any discussion of adaptive changes. Balloux's commentary addresses this problem -- I'm going to quote the same paragraph as Dienekes:

    Let us assume I gave a seminar. I would tell the audience about my latest results on the population history of the pigmy shrew. My findings would be based on a stretch of DNA comprising several metabolic genes, showing no signs of genetic recombination. Armed with sequences from a large number of individuals sampled over a broad geographical area, I would make some inference on the colonization routes and times. To make life easier, I would restrict my analysis to the mutations I liked best, with nice names having been given to related sequences, rather than relying on dull mathematical quantities. As I reach one of the key conclusions of the lecture, which would go as follows: 'It is obvious from the distribution of haplotypes Amanda, Eugenie* and Hector_2 that the Outer Hebrides were colonised about 50,000 years ago, this was followed by considerable population fluctuations, a bottleneck during the last Ice Age, a swift recovery and a dramatic recent expansion over the last 200 years and...'. Imagine that, at that climactic stage I was interrupted by someone in the audience. The impertinent would say, 'Sir, can I just ask you whether this confidence in your conclusions may not be misplaced; your analysis is based on a single genetic marker, which comprises genes with a central role in metabolism and is thus likely to have been affected by natural selection'. An awkward silence may ensue, as I would find it difficult to dismiss this criticism easily.

    Well, let me tell you, I've been in dozens of audiences, and have raised that exact point. Here is a sample of the bogus responses I've gotten to this question:

    Bogus answer 1: There are no functional differences between humans and chimpanzees in the mtDNA, so it can't have been selected during human evolution. False, false false!

    Bogus answer 2: Metabolic processes are highly conserved, and humans couldn't have changed much. Hello? Have you noticed that your breakfast didn't exist in the Paleolithic?

    Bogus answer 3: But the pattern of variation can be equally explained by a bottleneck. Some aspects can, others can't so easily.

    Bogus answer 4: We examined only noncoding parts of the mtDNA, so there could be no selection. Yes, believe it or not, this is the most common response. I guess they don't teach people about linkage anymore.

    Bogus answer 5: There's little or no evidence of selection on any gene in recent human evolution. Human evolution may have stopped entirely. Oh, lord. Yes, I've gotten this one many times.

    There have been others over the years. Yet mtDNA is a big business -- people seem to be worried that the slightest criticism will bring down the whole thing like a house of cards. That's not true, even if mtDNA has sometimes been selected during human prehistory or history, that doesn't mean it isn't a useful marker for many purposes. But many seem more comfortable avoiding the issue entirely.

    I think that taking the hypothesis of selection seriously would improve most of the work in this field. The possibility of selection doesn't eliminate demographic interpretation -- for example, the high ancient African mtDNA variation allows us to test hypotheses about African demography before 50,000 years ago, and there the data appear to reject the hypothesis of selection, at least after around 150,000 years ago. Gene genealogies don't allow us to see the whole past, just the time and forces that they experienced. If we ignore one of the major forces, we are reducing our knowledge.

    There is an obvious problem testing the hypothesis of selection with mtDNA. When we consider any one single locus, it's always possible to find some demographic scenario that yields exactly the same predictions as selection. It's just a mathematical necessity -- selection is fundamentally a demographic phenomenon, and the increase in frequency of selected alleles looks similar to exponential growth of a small population.

    So what can we do? Fortunately we have lots of options. We can test the proposed demographic hypotheses against the historical record. When we make observations that show that people 1000 years ago had very different frequencies of common haplotypes, well, we know it was selection. There hasn't been any genetically significant bottleneck in the last 1000 years! When we see small Neolithic population samples dominated by haplotypes that are very rare today, again, no historically possible bottleneck could have caused that.

    Balloux with his colleagues (2009) has shown that one aspect of mtDNA patterning -- the association of haplogroup diversity with geography -- is very unlikely to have arisen by genetic drift. Here's part of their abstract:

    We show that populations living in colder environments have lower mitochondrial diversity and that the genetic differentiation between pairs of populations correlates with difference in temperature. These associations were unique to mtDNA; we could not find a similar pattern in any other genetic marker. We were able to identify two correlated non-synonymous point mutations in the ND3 and ATP6 genes characterized by a clear association with temperature, which appear to be plausible targets of natural selection producing the association with climate. The same mutations have been previously shown to be associated with variation in mitochondrial pH and calcium dynamics. Our results indicate that natural selection mediated by climate has contributed to shape the current distribution of mtDNA sequences in humans.

    They took a dual approach to testing the hypothesis of selection. First, they modeled the evolution of haplotype diversity under neutrality, and showed that the empirical distribution lies significantly outside that range of results. But even so, we might imagine some bottleneck scenario that would cause low diversity in high-latitude peoples, and this would be difficult to refute historically because many of those populations have poor historical documentation. But demography should have similar effects on other genes, and they were able to show that the rest of the genome doesn't share the mtDNA pattern.

    It's really not that hard to test demographic hypotheses, using comparative genomics and anthropological knowledge. That's what anthropological genetics should be doing more and more. There was a time when obtaining a reasonable sample of mtDNA was an accomplishment, and comparing that sample to other genes was not feasible. But that time is past, and hopefully the review process -- journals and grants -- will start demanding some integration of mtDNA phylogeography with results from the rest of the genome.

    Back to Balloux's conclusion:

    Exploiting these new resources of autosomal variation will present significant challenges, but it will not help overcoming them if a large fraction of the community of human population biologists persists in sticking to mtDNA as the marker of choice.

    Mitochondrial DNA isn't the tip of the iceberg -- it's an ice cube on top of the tip of the iceberg.

    Related:

    "Mitochondrial DNA selection review"

    "Mitochondrial DNA and sperm"

    "mtDNA selection in Iceland?"

    "Complete Neandertal mitochondrial sequence, and selection on human (not Neandertal) mtDNA"

    "Did Neandertals need better mitochondria?"

    "Has the dam broken on mtDNA selection?"

    Mitochondrial DNA adaptations in living human populations"

    OK, that's enough related posts. But you can find a whole lot more by searching the topic!

    References:

    Balloux F. 2009. Mitochondrial phylogeography: The worm in the fruit of the mitochondrial DNA tree. Heredity (advance online): doi:10.1038/hdy.2009.122

    Balloux F, Lawson Handley L-J, Jombart T, Liu H, Manica A. 2009. Climate shaped the worldwide distribution of human mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Proc Roy Soc Lond B 276:3447-3455. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0752

  • Mailbag: Statistics and future evolution

    Mon, 2009-08-24 09:16 -- John Hawks

    I was trying to find out more
    about recent research predicting a relative convergence of racial features in
    future generations (but I don't know anything about "rapid evolution by drift"
    or things like that). I'm aware of debunked claims (inc. your debunking) from
    media reports, but I'm not aware of research that actually contains enough
    scientific merit to make a valid prediction. I decided to write to you after reading
    your review of a lecture by UCL geneticist Steve Jones.

    If there is any reference you can give to someone like me who has very little genetic
    training (past Mendel, anyway) I would greatly appreciate it.

    I'll be glad to help if I can. Population genetics shouldn't be too much of a challenge for you; it's basically statistics (e.g., evolution by genetic drift is modeled by repeated binomial sampling).

    We have a very high rate of gene flow between "racial" or geographic groups today compared to the past, and so we can predict that gene frequencies should converge in the future. But there are two issues -- first, the rate of change by chance in very large populations is very slow; and second, some genes may be (or recently have been) subject to selection processes that maintain diversity. That second is a complicated problem because selection pressures may be different for every gene.

  • An (old) interview with Warren Ewens

    Sun, 2009-08-23 08:30 -- John Hawks

    I ran across an interview between Anna Plutinski and population geneticist Warren Ewens.

    I cannot say enough about Ewens' book, Mathematical Population Genetics. If you can work through it, you can do population genetics. It doesn't cover every au courant topic, but those will change next week anyway. And it's on Kindle now. Which I suppose probably looks pretty good on the DX, assuming the math displays well -- the book's format is just the right size for it.

    Anyway, this interview from 2004 was probably conducted around the time the book was released. It covers pretty much the gamut of his career. I have to select some part to quote for you, so I'll select the passage that would be most likely to come out of my own math in my genetics class:

    WE: Of course there is a strong possibility that the neutral theory is assumed not because it is appropriate but because the math of that theory is so very simple compared to the math applying for any selective theory.

    AP: Can I follow that up? Do you think that that has lead to models of phylogenetic change that is not very well supported by the evidence?

    WE: I think that that is quite possible. However, here we enter into another question. In mathematical population genetics theory you know from the very start that you are making big simplifying assumptions. You are in a very different position from a physicist, who might believe that his mathematical models describe reality exactly. No sensible population geneticist would make any claim along those lines. He or she is forced to simplify, because reality is so complicated that you don’t know it in any detail, and even if you did know it and used math describing it faithfully, the analysis would be impossible to carry through. So simplification is unavoidable. I do not know whether the use of the neutral theory is too much of a simplification and has lead us to incorrect and distorted views about the true evolutionary tree, it’s shape and dimensions, but I suspect that there has been quite a significant distortion.

    There is much more at the link, some history of association testing, genetic draft, a lot on Ewens sampling theory, and a touch about his work here in Madison.

  • More on the X variation conundrum

    Sun, 2009-05-17 13:30 -- John Hawks

    Last winter I noted the contradiction between two papers that each attempted to explain variation on the X chromosome compared to the autosomes. They had come to opposite conclusions, based on discrepancies in their data. I noticed that they had used different methods of determining mutation rates for X chromosome loci:

    So, for their current paper, Keinan and colleagues (2008) try to correct for the recent divergence of human and chimpanzee X chromosomes. Simple enough -- rescale all X chromosome mutation events by the some ratio proportional to the human-chimp divergence discrepancies. In this case, they attempt to rescale to the human-macaque divergence. Since that divergence happened in the Oligocene, the discrepancies among chromosomes should slight compared to the overall divergence. I'd feel better if they actually tested this idea.

    Meanwhile, Mike Hammer and colleagues scaled X chromosome diversity to the human-orangutan divergence. They claimed that this gave the same results as the human-chimpanzee divergence. Which, if true, would obviously give a different outcome than the procedure followed by Keinan and colleagues, which was predicated on the idea that the human-chimpanzee X divergence is the wrong number to use.

    I had sort of forgotten about this (which drove me crazy at the time), but another question led me to revisit it late this week. In the intervening time, I see that Carlos Bustamante and Sohini Ramachandran (2009) happened across the same explanation that I had offered:

    It appears that the rest of the discrepancy is explained by different normalizations for background mutation rate differences between the X chromosome and autosomes (Hammer et al.10 used human-orangutan divergence and Keinan et al.9 used human-macaque divergence).

    So you read it here first. Which I suppose means that I should submit letters to journals more often. I don't because it seems to me that all I'm doing is reading and trying to understand papers, which sometimes takes more work than it should. On the other hand, I wonder how many people are really putting much effort into their reading...

    Meanwhile, Bustamante and Ramachandran add an additional explanation -- the different means of ascertainment, since Mike Hammer's group used resequencing to find variation, while Keinan and colleagues (2008) had used HapMap SNPs under a specific ascertainment model. They end their short piece by pointing out the value of further resequencing data:

    In order to address continuing questions on the nature of sex-biased processes, full genome sequencing of large numbers of individuals sampled from diverse populations will be needed. The upcoming 1,000 Genomes Project (http://www.1000genomes.org/), for example, will provide orders of magnitude more data for these types of analyses. We share the enthusiasm of the population genetics community that this will bring the potential for resolving continuing questions regarding how human history and cultural practices have shaped global patterns of genomic diversity.

    Ascertainment is a serious issue with the existing SNP data, because different SNPs were ascertained in different, non-commensurable ways. That's how I was led into reconsidering this issue this week, another set of data seem to have features that are partially explained by ascertainment, but partially not. It's hard to use existing data for some kinds of population genetics analysis, although others are less affected by ascertainment biases.

    So the 1000 Genomes effort will make some kinds of analyses simpler to accomplish. I suppose if ascertainment becomes less of a problem, we may see people focus more effort into understanding non-genetic sources of information, too!

    References:

    Bustamante CD, Ramachandran S. 2009. Evaluating signatures of sex-specific processes in the human genome. Nat Genet 41:8-10. doi:10.1038/ng0109-8

  • "Hundreds of natural selection studies could be wrong"

    Mon, 2009-03-30 19:49 -- John Hawks

    Happily, though, the study isn't about our method for finding recent selection!

    Instead, Masatoshi Nei and colleagues at Penn State have the long knives out for tests of selection based on excess amino acid substitutions:

    Nei said that for many years he has suspected that the statistical methods were faulty. "The methods assume that when natural selection occurs the number of nucleotide substitutions that lead to changes in amino acids is significantly higher than the number of nucleotide substitutions that do not result in amino acid changes," he said. "But this assumption may be wrong. Actually, the majority of amino acid substitutions do not lead to functional changes, and the adaptive change of a protein often occurs by a rare amino acid substitution. For this reason, statistical methods may give erroneous conclusions." Nei also believes that the methods are inaccurate when the number of nucleotide substitutions observed is small.

    Well, that's not us -- we're studying much more recent events, based on linkage disequilibrium. Hey, the observation that selection was rare through most of human evolution actually strongly supports our observation that the recent rate of selection represents a massive acceleration over the long-term rate.

    Still, I'm skeptical about Nei's conclusions. According to the press release, they identify a number of cases in which sites inferred to be under selection are actually not the functional change, because other functional changes have been identified by experiment. That's hardly a general argument that selection has been overcounted in these analyses.

    I find that in most counts of selection based on amino acid substitutions, the criteria for counting selection are ridiculously conservative. Often, you see the inference of selection only for cases where the number of amino acid changes actually exceed the number of silent changes. That's silly -- there's a strong bias against amino acid substitutions because of purifying selection. Only in repeated instances of positive selection are you ever going to see more amino acid substitutions than silent ones.

    Meanwhile, the press release mis-states some research into human-chimpanzee genetic differences:

    "These statistical methods have led many scientists to believe that natural selection acted on many more genes in humans than it did in chimpanzees, and they conclude that this is the reason why humans have developed large brains and other morphological differences," said Nei. "But I believe that these scientists are wrong. The number of genes that have undergone selection should be nearly the same in humans and chimps. The differences that make us human are more likely due to mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through time."

    In fact, Margaret Bakewell and colleagues (2007) in the same journal showed that chimpanzees have more selected amino acid substitutions than humans. Nei's got it completely backward.

    Now, I think Bakewell and colleagues might be wrong. The chimpanzee genome draft had many more sequencing artifacts at that time than the human genome, and these might account for the apparent excess in chimpanzees. But it's simply not true that researchers have shown "many more genes" under selection in humans than chimpanzees.

    Well, except for us, referring to very recent human evolution. But in that case, as Nei notes, we're talking about "mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into which we moved." It's the massive environmental and demographic changes of the last 50,000 years that have made the difference. For most of the six million years before that, human genetic evolution seems to have gone at almost the same rate as in chimpanzees.

    (via Gene Expression)

Pages

Subscribe to genetic drift

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.