Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:53:44.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Some Theoretical Studies on Gene Differentiation in Natural Populations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Ranajit Chakraborty
Ranajit Chakraborty*
Affiliation:
Center for Demographic and Population Genetics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas, USA
*
Center for Demographic and Population Genetics, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas 77025, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Different mathematical approaches to study the extent of genetic variation of natural populations are reviewed. The modern understanding of the gene structure permits new interpretations of existing concepts like fixation or inbreeding. A more recent measure of genie divergence, which at molecular level is designed to measure net codon differences is also seen to be related with gene diversity in a substructed population. It is argued that such variations are produced and preserved possibly by simultaneous action of migration, mutation, selection, and random genetic drift. At the present moment it is very difficult to isolate out the effect of each factor because of varying degrees of variation at the different gene sites and between different sets of populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 24 , Issue 1-2 , January 1975 , pp. 111 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1975

Footnotes

*

Based on the author's presentation in a panel discussion on “Genetic and evolutionary factors in human differentiation” during the Ninth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences held at Chicago, September 1973. Research supported by Grant GM 19513-02 from the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

References

REFERENCES

Balakrishnan, V., Sanghvi, L.D. 1968. Distance between populations on the basis of attribute data. Biometrics, 24: 859–65.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1969. Human diversity. Proc. 12th Int. Congr. Genet., Tokyo, 3: 405–16.Google Scholar
Chakraborty, R., Nei, M. 1974. Dynamics of gene differentiation between incompletely isolated populations of unequal sizes. Theor. Pop. Biol., 5: 460–469.Google Scholar
Edwards, A.W.F., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1964. Reconstruction of evolutionary trees. Publs. Syst. Ass., 6: 67–76.Google Scholar
Edwards, A.W.F., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1972. Affinity as revealed by differences in gene frequencies. In Weiner, J.S. and Huizinga, J. (eds.): The Assessment of Population Affinities in Man (pp. 37–47). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hedrick, P.W. 1971. A new approach to measuring genetic similarity. Evolution, 25: 276–280.Google Scholar
Kimura, M., Crow, J.F. 1964. The numbers of alleles that can be maintained in a finite population. Genetics, 49: 725–38.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R.C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. In Dobzhansky, T., Hecht, M.K., Steere, W.C. (eds.): Evolutionary Biology (Vol. 6, pp. 381–398). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Mahalanobis, P.C. 1936. On the generalized distance in statistics. Proc. Natl. Inst. Sci., India, 12: 49–55.Google Scholar
Malecot, G. 1948. Les Mathematiques de l'Hérédité. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Malecot, G. 1967. Identical loci and relationship. Proc. 5th Berkeley Symp. Math. Stat. Prob., Vol. 4, pp. 317–32.Google Scholar
Morton, N.E. 1969. Human population structure. Ann. Rev. Genet., 3: 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, N.E., Yee, S., Harris, D.E., Lew, R. 1971. Bioassay of kinship. Theor. Pop. Biol., 2: 5-7-24.Google Scholar
Morton, N.E. 1973. Kinship and population structure. In Morton, N.E. (ed.): The Genetics of Population Structure. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Nei, M. 1971. Identity of genes and genetic distance between populations. Genetics, 68: s47.Google Scholar
Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Amer. Nat., 106: 283–92.Google Scholar
Nei, M., Feldman, M. 1972. Identity of genes by descent within and between populations under mutation and migration. Theor. Pop. Biol., 3: 460–65.Google Scholar
Nei, M., Roychoudhury, A.K. 1972. Gene differences between Caucasian, Negro, and Japanese populations. Science, 177: 434–36.Google Scholar
Nei, M. 1973 a. The theory and estimation of genetic distance. In Morton, N.E. (ed.): The Genetics of Population Structure. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Nei, M. 19736. Dynamics of gene differentiation among a finite number of populations. (Unpublished).Google Scholar
Nei, M. 1973 c. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. US Nat. Acad. Sci, 70: 3321–3323.Google Scholar
Rogers, J.S. 1972. Measures of genetic similarity and genetic distance. In: Studies in Genetics, VII. Austin: University of Texas Publ.Google Scholar
Sanghvi, L.D. 1952. Biological studies on some endogamous groups in Bombay, India. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
Sanghvi, L.D. 1953. Comparison of genetical and morphological methods for a study of biological differences. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 11: 385–404.Google Scholar
Steinberg, A.G., Bleibtrue, H.K., Kurczynski, T.W., Martin, A.O., Kurczynski, E.M. 1966. Genetic studies on an inbred human isolate. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Hum. Genet., Chicago, pp. 267–289.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16: 97–159.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics, 23: 114–38.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1946. Isolation by distance under diverse systems of mating. Genetics, 31: 39–59.Google Scholar