Reconsideration for conservation units of wild Primula sieboldii in Japan based on adaptive diversity and molecular genetic diversity

Microsatellite markers for the critically endangered elm species Ulmus gaussenii (Ulmaceae)

The Anhui elm Ulmus gaussenii is listed as a critically endangered species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and is endemic to China, where its only population is restricted to Langya Mountain in Chuzhou, Anhui Province. To better understand the population genetics of U. gaussenii, we developed 12 microsatellite markers using an improved technique. The 12 markers were polymorphic, with the number of alleles per locus ranging from two to nine. Observed and expected heterozygosities ranged from 0.021 to 0.750 and 0.225 to 0.744, respectively. The inbreeding coefficient ranged from -0.157 to 0.960. Significant linkage disequilibrium was detected for two pairs of loci, and significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium were found in nine loci. These microsatellite markers will contribute to the studies of population genetics in U. gaussenii, which in turn will contribute to species conservation and protection.

Q(ST) < F(ST) As a signature of canalization

A key aim of evolutionary biology - inferring the action of natural selection on wild species - can be achieved by comparing neutral genetic differentiation between populations (F(ST)) with quantitative genetic variation (Q(ST)). Each of the three possible outcomes of comparisons of Q(ST) and F(ST) (Q(ST) > F(ST), Q(ST) = F(ST), Q(ST) < F(ST)) is associated with an inference (diversifying selection, genetic drift, uniform selection, respectively). However, published empirical and theoretical studies have focused on the Q(ST) > F(ST) outcome. We believe that this reflects the absence of a straightforward biological interpretation of the Q(ST) < F(ST) pattern. We here report recent evidence of this neglected evolutionary pattern, provide guidelines to its interpretation as either a canalization phenomenon or a consequence of uniform selection and discuss the significant importance this issue will have for the area of evolutionary biology.

Comparisons between Q(ST) and F(ST) --how wrong have we been?

The comparison between quantitative genetic divergence (Q(ST) ) and neutral genetic divergence (F(ST) ) among populations has become the standard test for historical signatures of selection on quantitative traits. However, when the mutation rate of neutral markers is relatively high in comparison with gene flow, estimates of F(ST) will decrease, resulting in upwardly biased comparisons of Q(ST) vs. F(ST) . Reviewing empirical studies, the difference between Q(ST) and F(ST) is positively related to marker heterozygosity. After refuting alternative explanations for this pattern, we conclude that marker mutation rate indeed has had a biasing effect on published Q(ST) -F(ST) comparisons. Hence, it is no longer clear that populations have commonly diverged in response to divergent selection. We present and discuss potential solutions to this bias. Comparing Q(ST) with recent indices of neutral divergence that statistically correct for marker heterozygosity (Hedrick's G'st and Jost's D) is not advised, because these indices are not theoretically equivalent to Q(ST) . One valid solution is to estimate F(ST) from neutral markers with mutation rates comparable to those of the loci underlying quantitative traits (e.g. SNPs). Q(ST) can also be compared to Φ(ST) (Phi(ST) ) of amova, as long as the genetic distance among allelic variants used to estimate Φ(ST) reflects evolutionary history: in that case, neutral divergence is independent of mutation rate. In contrast to their common usage in comparisons of Q(ST) and F(ST) , microsatellites typically have high mutation rates and do not evolve according to a simple evolutionary model, so are best avoided in Q(ST) -F(ST) comparisons.