* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 1091-L4(ConsGen3a)
Viral phylodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Medical genetics wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacogenomics wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Dual inheritance theory wikipedia , lookup
Polymorphism (biology) wikipedia , lookup
Public health genomics wikipedia , lookup
Genetic testing wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Behavioural genetics wikipedia , lookup
Genetic drift wikipedia , lookup
Koinophilia wikipedia , lookup
Quantitative trait locus wikipedia , lookup
Inbreeding avoidance wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Population genetics wikipedia , lookup
Does reduced genetic diversity or inbreeding increase extinction risk? Barrow island rock wallaby pop’n Small, highly inbred, low genetic diversity persisted > 1600 yrs Mauritius kestrel 6 generations with N< 50 Very low genetic diversity Population still recovered Inbreeding does not always cause declines in pop’n size Does inbreeding increase extinction risk? Circumstantial evidence 1 Small populations are more prone to extinctions Does inbreeding increase extinction risk? Circumstantial evidence. 2 Number spp. extinct since 1600 % on islands Mammals 85 60 Birds 113 81 Molluscs 191 79 Flowering plants 384 36 Island populations that are usually more inbred and less genetically diverse than mainland populations are more prone to extinctions Q. Why isn’t this conclusive? What else is different about island populations? Does inbreeding increase extinction risk? Endemics Frequency Circumstantial evidence. 3 Island endemics are more inbred and more prone to extinction than non-endemics Non-endemics Higher extinction rate of endemic island species is predicted by genetic, but not demographic or ecological considerations Does inbreeding increase extinction risk? Field evidence Do small populations have lower genetic diversity? YES Does lower heterozygosity correlate with reduced survival or reproduction YES Does inbreeding reduce survival or reproduction? YES Does reduced genetic diversity or inbreeding increase extinction risk? SOMETIMES TODAY Does the loss of genetic diversity limit the ability of species to adapt to change Change and evolution Quantitative traits: the basics Data The unresolved issue Friday Population size and evolutionary potential How big is big enough? Environmental change New diseases eg canine distemper virus Pests and parasites eg Toxoplasma gondii Competitors and predators eg foxes Pollution Human induced climate change Evolutionary responses to change Eg1 rapid evolutionary changes in response to industrial pollution Peppered moth 1848 first melanic recorded 1900 melanic form 99% in midlands 2000 melanic form down to 10% Evolutionary responses to change Eg2 change in host preference in response to human induced habitat change Checkerspot Euphydras editha P. l C. p Original host: Collinsia parviflora Habitat change – cattle ranching reduces host abundance, introduces weed Plantago lanceolata Q. Does inbreeding and the loss of genetic variation observed in small populations reduce their ability to adapt? Answering this Q requires a DETOUR into the genetics of quantitative traits What do we know about genetic variation for quantitative traits? Quantitative characters - Continuous distribution Influenced by many loci Affected by the environment Phenotype = Genes it inherits + Environment P = G + E Phenotypic variance = Sum contributions from genetic diversity environment + interactions between genes and environment VP = VG + VE + 2.CovGE Covariance between genetic and env effects VP = VG + VE + 2.Cov GE VA VD genetic: Additive genetic variation alleles acting independently Dominance variance alleles affected by other alleles VI Interaction variance alleles affected by alleles at other loci Additive Genetic Variation Single locus model - additive effects d=0 Allele 1 freq = p, Allele 2 freq = q Freq heterozygote = 2pq VA = 2pqa2 Variance is highest when heterozygosity is maximum Variance depends on a half difference in mean of 2 homozygotes Evolutionary potential of quantitative traits Evolution requires: variation, heritability, selection VP = VG + VE +2CovGE S h2 = VA/VP VG = V A + VD + VI Heritability – the relationship between the traits of offspring and parents Fig 5.5 The slope is a measure of heritability (h2) Estimating heritabilities = regression of mean offspring on mean parent = 2x regression offspring on one parent = 2x correlation between full sibs = 4x correlation between half sibs Heritability estimates may be biased by shared environments, maternal effects and are specific to a particular pop’n in a particular environment Magnitude of Heritabilities Most quantitative traits in outbreeding spp have heritable variation h2 > 0 Heritabilities are consistently lower for characters related to reproductive fitness than more periperal traits Heritability of fitness trait Birds (n=19) 0.245 body size bill size 0.572 0.674 Evolutionary change - R R=Sh2 h2=slope Predicting response to selection imposed by climate oscillations in Darwin’s finches 1976 – 1978 drought --> 85% mortality survivors had wider beaks than the original population S= 0.25 mm heritability = 0.745 Predicted response = R = S.h2 =0.25.0.745 = 0.19mm observed change = 0.25 mm 1984-86 selection favoured small bill width S = -0.10 Predicted response = R = S.h2 = -0.10x0.745 = -0.07mm Observed response = - 0.16 mm Quantitative traits - key points VA determines ability of a pop’n to evolve VA is dependent on the heterozygosity of loci that affect that trait Population size influences inbreeding and the loss of heterozygosity so….. Small populations may have a reduced ability to adapt to environmental change Loss of evolutionary potential (R) in small populations Isle Royale wolf population was founded by 1 pair This bottleneck reduces heterozygosity ( Ht/H0= 1-1/2N = 1-1/4 = ¾) VA = 2pqa2 and h2 = VA/VP so reduces evol potential by 1/4 via h2 increases inbreeding which reduces juv survival (if F =0.25 by 50%) reduces competition to replace parents (2/302/15) and reduces selection pressure so reduces evol potential via S and Ne remains low (25 vs 5000) reduces heterozygosity loss = ∑[1-(1/2Ne)]t-1 so evol potential is further reduced via h2 What assumptions are involved in using these eqn’s to make this sort of argument? 1. Genetic drift is the major evolutionary force. Alleles are effectively neutral ie not selected upon 2. Mating is random No inbreeding avoidance 3. Loss of heterozygosity in quantitative trait loci conforms to theory based on neutral alleles Does inbreeding and the loss of genetic variation reduce the ability to adapt? 1. Experiments 2. Field data on small and large populations 3. Selection experiments on targeted traits EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE Wild- control Bottleneck 1 pair 1 gen Inbred - homozygous Increase to same pop’n size Increase NaCl conc’n from 0% until extinction Frankham et al. 1999 Evolutionary potential in small populations 50 gen predictions based on R=S h2 ∑[1-(1/2Ne)]t-1 Data from Mice, flies, beetles, maize R50/R1 - cumulative response after 50 gen divided by response in first gen Evolutionary potential is proportional to Ne FIELD DATA Vulnerability to dieback root rot fungus Jarrah Mortality <30% to >90% Variation in resistance is heritable Wollemi pine - 40 adults No genetic diversity - 100s of markers No variation in resistance – 100% die No evolutionary potential Adaptation to climatic stress in Drosophila RAIN >2000mm 120+ raindays <1500mm <100 raindays Hoffmann et al 2003 Science H = 0.65 A = 8.4 allele/loci D. birchii - rainforest restricted fly Adaptation to climatic stress in Drosophila RAIN wet Less wet Dessication resistance (hours to 50% mortality) increases with latititude Adaptation to climatic stress in Drosophila expected Response to selection 50 generations 30 selection events Molecular variation H=0.65 A=8.4 Quantitative variation Dessication resistanceh2=0 Wing size h2= 0.386-0.706 Evolutionary potential is best estimated in targeted ecological traits using spp in threatened habitats Do small populations have higher levels of inbreeding, reduced heterozygosity and lower levels of genetic variation? YES Does inbreeding/loss of heterozygosity reduce a population’s ability to adapt? YES What is the unresolved issue? How closely correlated are molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation? Reed and Frankham meta-analysis - 71 datasets mean corr r = 0.22 H and life history traits r = -0.11 ns H and morph traits r = 0.30 Molecular measures of variation provide a very imprecise measure of evolutionary potential After reviewing this lecture you should now be able to: Calculate Ne, H, F Understand how/why Ne influences heterozygosity, inbreeding and evolutionary potential Explain why it may be important to conserve genetic variation Argue why genetic data should/should not inform conservation actions