2015
DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esv019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationships Between Wright's FST and FIS Statistics in a Context of Wahlund Effect

Abstract: Waples (2015) has suggested a formula for the Wahlund effect in a case of unequal contribution of samples from genetically different populations that relates Wright's inbreeding coefficient, F IS , and normalized variance in allele frequencies between populations, F ST . I generalize this relationship to a case of multiple alleles and multiple populations not assuming Hardy-Weinberg ratios prior to mixing. This can help to evaluate the impact of a Wahlund effect on heterozygote deficiency relative to other fac… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
1
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
7
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…the herds exhibited little genetic differentiation (F ST values in the range from 0.01 to 0.09), the Wahlund effect is an unlikely explanation for the observed negative relationship between inbreeding and H O . Furthermore, in contrast to the positive correlation between interlocus f st and f is that is theoretically expected as a result of the Wahlund effect [20,21], here a low negative correlation (r = -0.063, p<0.001) was estimated (results not shown). Finally, cryptic relatedness i.e.…”
Section: Plos Onecontrasting
confidence: 80%
“…the herds exhibited little genetic differentiation (F ST values in the range from 0.01 to 0.09), the Wahlund effect is an unlikely explanation for the observed negative relationship between inbreeding and H O . Furthermore, in contrast to the positive correlation between interlocus f st and f is that is theoretically expected as a result of the Wahlund effect [20,21], here a low negative correlation (r = -0.063, p<0.001) was estimated (results not shown). Finally, cryptic relatedness i.e.…”
Section: Plos Onecontrasting
confidence: 80%
“…For instance, heterozygote deficits could be due to the presence of null alleles 45 or an artificial Wahlund effect caused by non-random sampling of multiple distinct genetic groups of individuals. 70 Although possible, it is unlikely that null alleles could be responsible for the observed heterozygote deficit because there is evidence of significant deviations from HWE in some populations in the overall (Table 1) or per-locus F IS estimates (Table S3 of Supplemental Appendix 1) that had no indication of null alleles in the Micro-Checker analysis in this study (Table S2 of Supplemental Appendix 1), or in past studies. 38 Another possibility is that these population samples were non-random, and included a biased sample from multiple distinct groups (i.e., genetic clusters or families of closely related individuals).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Further support for substructure is the presence of a Wahlund effect. This is when the subdivision of genetically distinct demes causes a deviation from HWE at the population level resulting in the appearance of a deficit of heterozygotes [4245]. Across Zambia, mean H O versus H E shows a heterozygote deficiency at the population level, however, when separated into sub-populations, mean values no longer deviate from HWE (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%