The ratio of human X chromosome to autosome diversity is positively correlated with genetic distance from genes

Journal name:
Nature Genetics
Volume:
42,
Pages:
830–831
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/ng.651
Received
Accepted
Published online

The ratio of X-linked to autosomal diversity was estimated from an analysis of six human genome sequences and found to deviate from the expected value of 0.75. However, the direction of this deviation depends on whether a particular sequence is close to or far from the nearest gene. This pattern may be explained by stronger locally acting selection on X-linked genes compared with autosomal genes, combined with larger effective population sizes for females than for males.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Diversity ([pi]/D) as a function of genetic distance from genes.
    Figure 1: Diversity (π/D) as a function of genetic distance from genes.

    The values shown are means ± s.e.m. See Supplementary Figure 2 and Supplementary Methods for a summary of the strategy for sampling genomes and Supplementary Figure 3 for a comparison with diversity as a function of physical distance from genes1.

  2. Scatterplot of [pi]/D versus genetic distance from genes.
    Figure 2: Scatterplot of π/D versus genetic distance from genes.

    (a) Autosomes. (b) X chromosome. Each point represents a 0.1 cM region. The regression line was determined by iterated weighted least-squares regression (Supplementary Methods). Red curves show local regression estimates for one standard deviation.

References

  1. Keinan, A., Mullikin, J.C., Patterson, N. & Reich, D. Nat. Genet. 41, 6670 (2009).
  2. Hammer, M.F., Mendez, F.L., Cox, M.P., Woerner, A.E. & Wall, J.D. PLoS Genet. 4, e1000202 (2008).
  3. Bustamante, C.D. & Ramachandran, S. Nat. Genet. 41, 810 (2009).
  4. Charlesworth, B., Morgan, M.T. & Charlesworth, D. Genetics 134, 12891303 (1993).
  5. Smith, J.M. & Haigh, J. Genet. Res. 23, 2335 (1974).
  6. Pool, J.E. & Nielsen, R. Evolution 61, 30013006 (2007).
  7. Vicoso, B. & Charlesworth, B. Genetics 181, 16991701 (2009).
  8. Charlesworth, B. Genet. Res. 68, 131149 (1996).
  9. Hudson, R.R. & Kaplan, N.L. Genetics 141, 16051617 (1995).
  10. Lu, J. & Wu, C.I. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 40634067 (2005).
  11. Tapper, W. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 1183511839 (2005).
  12. Wang, E.T., Kodama, G., Baldi, P. & Moyzis, R.K. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 135140 (2006).
  13. Betancourt, A.J., Kim, Y. & Orr, H.A. Genetics 168, 22612269 (2004).
  14. Ross, M.T. et al. Nature 434, 325337 (2005).
  15. Payseur, B.A. & Nachman, M.W. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19, 336340 (2002).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Arizona Research Laboratories, Division of Biotechnology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

    • Michael F Hammer,
    • August E Woerner &
    • Murray P Cox
  2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

    • Michael F Hammer &
    • Fernando L Mendez
  3. Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

    • Joseph C Watkins
  4. Institute for Human Genetics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.

    • Jeffrey D Wall

Contributions

M.F.H., A.E.W. and J.D.W. conceived and designed the study and wrote the paper. F.L.M., M.P.C. and J.C.W. designed the statistical analyses. A.E.W. performed bioinformatics and statistical analyses. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary Text and Figures (388K)

    Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Figures 1–4 and Supplementary Methods

Additional data