.
. CSHL Press .
. . . . .
.
 
.
.
. .
 

Request an Exam Copy of Evolution
 

.
. . .
.  BOOK COVER .
. . .
.
.  cover .
.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
 
Buy the Book
 
.
. Register at our site
www.cshlpress.com
to join our
Discount Program
and receive 10% discounts
on all website purchases.
.
.
 

CSH Protocols

 

You may also be interested in:

Evolution: The Molecular Landscape

Cold Spring Harbor’s 74th Symposium
EVOLUTION
The Molecular Landscape
Edited by Bruce Stillman,
David Stewart, and
Jan Witkowski,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

   
 

Genetic Variability under the Infinite-Alleles Model

Once we know the shape of the genealogy that relates the genes in a sample, it is easy to work out the pattern of mutation that would be seen. Under the infinite-sites model, in which every mutation occurs at a new site, the average number of differences between two genes is 4Neµ (see p. 426, top). Using the infinite-alleles model, we can only ask whether or not two genes carry the same allele or different alleles. Here, we show how the probability that two genes are in the same allelic state (i.e., the homozygosity, denoted F) can be found.

Two genes can share the same allelic state only if there have been no mutations since they shared a common ancestor. If that ancestor lived t generations back, then the two lineages span 2t generations, and the chance that there have been no mutations is (1 – µ)2t ~ exp(–2µt). Now, we know that the distribution of coalescence time, ψ(t), is exponential, with mean 2Ne generations (i.e., ψ(t) = 1/2Ne)exp(–t/2Ne); see Properties of the Colescent Process and Table 28.1). Averaging over this distribution,


The chance that two randomly chosen genes carry different alleles (i.e., the gene diversity) is H = 1 – F = 4Neµ/(1 + 4Neµ).

We can get to the same result by following two genes from one generation back to the previous generation. For these genes to be in the same state, there must have been no mutations to either gene; the chance of this is (1 – µ)2. There is a chance 1/(2Ne) that they descend from the same ancestral gene in the previous generation. If they did not, then the probability that they were identical in state was just F. Putting all this together, we can relate the homozygosity now to the homozygosity one generation back:


Assuming that mutation and drift are slow (µ << 1, Ne >> 1), the solution to this equation gives the same result as before. Either of these two methods can be extended to make predictions for more complicated models of mutation or population structure.

 
 
 

 
. .