TY - JOUR
T1 - Widespread selective sweeps affecting microsatellites in Drosophila populations adapting to captivity
T2 - implications for captive breeding programs
AU - Montgomery, Margaret E.
AU - Woodworth, Lynn M.
AU - England, Phillip R.
AU - Briscoe, David A.
AU - Frankham, Richard
PY - 2010/8
Y1 - 2010/8
N2 - Many threatened species are being maintained in captivity to save them from extinction, often with the eventual aim of reintroduction. The objective of genetic management in captivity is to 'freeze' evolution i.e. to avoid genetic adaptation to captivity and to retain genetic diversity. Most current genetic management of threatened species addresses the latter, but does not explicitly address the former. The theory underlying current genetic management and its practical implementation assumes neutrality of loci. However, genetic adaptation in captive populations may cause non-neutral behavior at neutral loci due to selective sweeps (hitchhiking) caused by rapid allele frequency changes at linked fitness loci. We compared changes in microsatellite genetic diversity at eight non-coding loci with neutral predictions in 23 pedigreed captive populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained with effective sizes of 25 (eight replicates), 50 (6), 100 (4), 250 (3) and 500 (2) for 48 generations. Loss of microsatellite heterozygosity was significantly faster (by 12%) than predicted by neutral theory, as assessed by regressing proportion of heterozygosity retained on pedigree inbreeding coefficients. Further, greater than neutral changes were observed for both variances in allele frequencies across replicates (by 25%), and for temporal changes in allele frequencies (by 33%). All eight microsatellite loci showed signals of selectively-driven changes. Rather than having their evolution 'frozen', captive populations are undergoing major genome-wide selective sweeps that affect not only fitness loci but linked neutral loci. Captive genetic management for threatened species destined for reintroduction requires modification to explicitly minimize genetic adaptation to captivity.
AB - Many threatened species are being maintained in captivity to save them from extinction, often with the eventual aim of reintroduction. The objective of genetic management in captivity is to 'freeze' evolution i.e. to avoid genetic adaptation to captivity and to retain genetic diversity. Most current genetic management of threatened species addresses the latter, but does not explicitly address the former. The theory underlying current genetic management and its practical implementation assumes neutrality of loci. However, genetic adaptation in captive populations may cause non-neutral behavior at neutral loci due to selective sweeps (hitchhiking) caused by rapid allele frequency changes at linked fitness loci. We compared changes in microsatellite genetic diversity at eight non-coding loci with neutral predictions in 23 pedigreed captive populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained with effective sizes of 25 (eight replicates), 50 (6), 100 (4), 250 (3) and 500 (2) for 48 generations. Loss of microsatellite heterozygosity was significantly faster (by 12%) than predicted by neutral theory, as assessed by regressing proportion of heterozygosity retained on pedigree inbreeding coefficients. Further, greater than neutral changes were observed for both variances in allele frequencies across replicates (by 25%), and for temporal changes in allele frequencies (by 33%). All eight microsatellite loci showed signals of selectively-driven changes. Rather than having their evolution 'frozen', captive populations are undergoing major genome-wide selective sweeps that affect not only fitness loci but linked neutral loci. Captive genetic management for threatened species destined for reintroduction requires modification to explicitly minimize genetic adaptation to captivity.
KW - genetic adaptation to captivity
KW - genetic diversity
KW - hitchhiking
KW - microsatellites
KW - reintroduction
KW - selective sweeps
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954818914&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.022
DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.01.022
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:77954818914
VL - 143
SP - 1842
EP - 1849
JO - Biological Conservation
JF - Biological Conservation
SN - 0006-3207
IS - 8
ER -