Low Nucleotide Diversity in Chimpanzees and Bonobos

Corresponding author: Wen-Hsiung Li, University of Chicago, 1101 E. 57th St., Chicago, IL 60637., whli{at}uchicago.edu (E-mail)

Communicating editor: N. TAKAHATA

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION LITERATURE CITED

Comparison of the levels of nucleotide diversity in humans and apes may provide much insight into the mechanisms of maintenance of DNA polymorphism and the demographic history of these organisms. In the past, abundant mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphism data indicated that nucleotide diversity () is more than threefold higher in chimpanzees than in humans. Furthermore, it has recently been claimed, on the basis of limited data, that this is also true for nuclear DNA. In this study we sequenced 50 noncoding, nonrepetitive DNA segments randomly chosen from the nuclear genome in 9 bonobos and 17 chimpanzees. Surprisingly, the value for bonobos is only 0.078%, even somewhat lower than that (0.088%) for humans for the same 50 segments. The values are 0.092, 0.130, and 0.082% for East, Central, and West African chimpanzees, respectively, and 0.132% for all chimpanzees. These values are similar to or at most only 1.5 times higher than that for humans. The much larger difference in mtDNA diversity than in nuclear DNA diversity between humans and chimpanzees is puzzling. We speculate that it is due mainly to a reduction in effective population size (N_e) in the human lineage after the human-chimpanzee divergence, because a reduction in N_e has a stronger effect on mtDNA diversity than on nuclear DNA diversity.

SINCE the discovery of extensive mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphism in apes by restriction enzyme mapping (FERRIS et al. 1981 ), it has been known that the nucleotide diversity () in mtDNA is at least threefold higher in chimpanzees than in humans. This view has been confirmed by recent sequence data from the control region (WISE et al. 1997 ) and from synonymous sites in the ND2 gene (STONE et al. 2002 ). On the other hand, since the late 1970s it has been known that the level of heterozygosity at protein coding loci is higher in humans than in chimpanzees (KING and WILSON 1975 ; LUCOTTE 1983 ). Supporting this view that humans may have as much or greater diversity in the nuclear genome was the observation that humans had higher levels of heterozygosity at microsatellite loci than chimpanzees (WISE et al. 1997 ), although such a difference seen in similar studies was potentially attributable to ascertainment bias (ELLEGREN et al. 1995 ; CROUAU-ROY et al. 1996 ). Therefore, it was commonly thought that mtDNA and nuclear DNA gave different pictures of polymorphism in humans and chimpanzees. However, recent DNA polymorphism data from a 10-kb X-linked noncoding region, two intergenic (HOXB6, DRD4, 1 kb each), two intronic (ADH1, 600 bp; DRD2, 300 bp) regions, and 5.8-kb silent sites in genes at six nuclear loci revealed a three- to fourfold higher nucleotide diversity in chimpanzees than in humans (DEINARD and KIDD 1999 , DEINARD and KIDD 2000 ; KAESSMANN et al. 1999 ; JENSEN-SEAMAN et al. 2001 ; SATTA 2001 ), leading to the view that, like mtDNA, nuclear DNA sequence diversity is also much higher in chimpanzees than in humans.

However, as the data are limited, this issue deserves further investigation. In a recent study YU et al. 2002 sequenced 50 DNA segments randomly chosen from the noncoding, nonrepetitive parts of the human genome in 30 humans from various localities around the world. In the present study we have sequenced the same 50 segments in 9 bonobos and 17 chimpanzees from East, Central, and West Africa. Unexpectedly, the new data reveal a small difference between the levels of nucleotide diversity in chimpanzees and humans. Therefore, nuclear DNA and mtDNA actually give different pictures of the levels of nucleotide diversity in humans and chimpanzees. How this difference arose is a puzzling question and we will attempt to find an answer.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION LITERATURE CITED

Sample sources:
DNA from nine bonobos (Pan paniscus) and 17 common chimpanzees (six P. troglodytes verus, five P. t. troglodytes, two P. t. schweinfurthii, and four individuals of unknown subspecies) was used in this study. The five P. t. troglodytes individuals (named Cheetah, Dodo, Bakoumba, Julie, and Noemie) were from J. Wickings, CIRMF, Gabon. Three of the six P. t. verus individuals (Rinus, Anita, and Hannibal) were from A. Prince, Vialab, Liberia, one (Herman) was from the Lowery Zoo, and two (Bert and Tate) were from the New Iberia Research Center; four individuals (Carl, Kasey, Harv, and Tank) were of unknown geographic origin. The two P. t. schweinfurthii individuals (Harriet and Kobi) were from J. Fritz, Arizona Primate Foundation. Although no geographical information was available for the individuals housed at the New Iberia Research Center, they were regarded as P. t. verus on the basis of their mitochondrial D-loop sequences (MORIN et al. 1994 ), and the nuclear sequences generated from these samples did not contradict this classification (DEINARD and KIDD 2000 ). Of the nine P. paniscus individuals, two (Bosondjo and Matata) were from the Atlanta Zoo/Yerkes Regional Primate Center; two (Lody and Maringa) from the Milwaukee Zoo, and five (Kakowet, Lokalema, Charlie, Vernon, and Linda) from the San Diego Zoo. However, all nine individuals were originally caught in Zaire and all of them were chosen to be independent.

PCR amplification and sequencing of DNA segments:
The 50 noncoding, nonrepetitive genomic segments (each 1 kb) were originally selected randomly from the human genome (CHEN and LI 2001 ; YU et al. 2002 ). All were chosen to avoid coding regions or close linkage to any coding regions. In each segment and its nearby regions there was no registered gene in GenBank and no potential coding region was detected by either GenScan or GRAIL-EXP.

Touchdown PCR (DON et al. 1991 ) was used and the reactions were carried out following the conditions described in ZHAO et al. 2000 . The PCR products were purified by Wizard PCR Preps DNA purification resin kit (Promega, Madison, WI). Sequencing reactions were performed according to the protocol of the ABI Prism BigDye Terminator sequencing kits (Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT) modified by one-quarter reaction. The extension products were purified with Sephadex G-50 (DNA grade, Pharmacia, Piscataway, NJ) and run on an ABI 377XL DNA sequencer using 4.25% gels (Sooner Scientific). About 500 bp of each segment was sequenced in both directions.

ABI DNA Sequence Analysis 3.0 was used for lane tracking and base calling. The data were then proofread manually and heterozygous sites were detected as double peaks. The forward and reverse sequences were assembled automatically in each individual using SeqMan (DNAStar, Madison, WI). The assembled files were carefully checked by eye. Fluorescent traces for each variant site were rechecked again in all individuals. All singletons, which are variants that appear only once in the entire sample, were verified by PCR reamplification and resequencing of the PCR products in both directions.

Data analysis:
The sequences were aligned by SeqMan. Nucleotide diversity values were calculated using DNASP version 3.14 (ROZAS and ROZAS 1999 ) and the average percentage distances between species were calculated using DAMBE (XIA and XIE 2001 ).

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION LITERATURE CITED

Distribution of SNPs:
We sequenced 50 noncoding segments in nine bonobos and 17 chimpanzees from East, Central, and West Africa. The total number of nucleotide sites sequenced, after exclusion of deletions and insertions (mostly single nucleotide indels), is 23,500.

A total of 186 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were found in the 17 chimpanzee samples (34 sequences); 51 of them were observed only once (i.e., singletons) and 15 only twice (doubletons). The number of variant sites found was 54 in the 12 West African chimpanzee (P. t. verus) sequences, 101 in the 10 Central African chimpanzee (P. t. troglodytes) sequences, and 39 in the 4 East African chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii) sequences. Thus, many more variants were found in the Central African subspecies than in the West and East African subspecies, indicating a much higher DNA diversity in the Central African subspecies. The numbers of singletons were 14, 58, and 27 in the West, Central, and East African chimpanzee sequences, respectively. Thus, in the Central and East African subspecies, more than half of the variants were singletons, whereas in the West African subspecies less than one-third of the variants were singletons with an equal number of doubletons. A total of 63 SNPs were found in the 18 bonobo sequences; there were 21 singletons and 11 doubletons. Clearly, bonobos are less polymorphic than each of the three chimpanzee subspecies.

Adequacy of the sample sizes:
As our sample sizes are relatively small, we need to consider the problem of sampling bias. For this purpose, we consider the effect of sampling on nucleotide diversity () because is the quantity of our primary interest in this study; is defined as the number of nucleotide differences per site between two randomly chosen sequences in a population. As noted in YU et al. 2002 , an estimation bias may be detected by comparing within-individual values (_w) with between-individual values (_b). Ideally, each sequence in a sample should be taken randomly from the population, but we have included the two sequences within each of the individuals sampled. The two sequences in an individual are not completely independent if the individual is "inbred" to some extent. Anyway, the within-individual values (_w) should tend to be smaller than the between-individual values (_b) and their inclusion should tend to give an underestimate of . However, if the average _b and _w values are similar, then the sampling scheme would seem largely adequate and the inclusion of _w values in the estimation of should produce no substantial bias. To simplify the analysis, we concatenate the segments in an individual in a random manner into two continuous sequences and these sequences are then used to compute the _b and _w values.

For the Central African chimpanzee sequences, the distribution of _b values, which ranges from 0.098 to 0.174%, is only somewhat wider than that of the five _w values, which ranges from 0.102 to 0.153%. Since the average _b (0.131%) is <10% higher than the average _w (0.121%), the sampling bias should not be strong. A similar comment applies to the West African chimpanzee sample. There is one very low _w value (0.051%) and the average _w value (0.072%) is 10% lower than the average _b value (0.082%). The average _w without the outlier becomes 0.077%, which is not far from the average _b (0.082%). This comparison suggests that the estimated value (0.082%) in this subspecies is probably somewhat biased downward. For the East African chimpanzee sample, the average _w value (0.088%) is close to the average _b value (0.092%). This may suggest no substantial bias. However, because only two individuals were sampled, the estimate may not be reliable and should be taken with caution.

For the bonobo sample, the distributions of _w and _b values are given in Fig 1A. Several _w and _b values are <0.04%, whereas most of the others are considerably >0.04%. This observation suggests that some of the individuals are fairly closely related to each other or inbred, although they were originally chosen to be independent. Indeed, the four _b values between Bosondjo and Maringa (studbook numbers 64 and 60, respectively) were only 0.034, 0.034, 0.038, and 0.047%. We therefore excluded Bosondjo from comparison. Moreover, the _w value is only 0.030% for Kakowet (studbook no. 34) and 0.038% for Lody and Linda (studbook nos. 68 and 23). We therefore excluded one sequence (randomly chosen) from each of these three individuals. After the exclusion of these sequences, only 13 sequences remain and the new distributions of _w and _b values are given in Fig 1B. The exclusion of the above sequences increases the average value from 0.075 to 0.078%. The latter value will be used as our estimate.

View larger version (19K): In this window In a new window Download PPT slide   Figure 1. Distributions of the within-individual (w; ) and between-individual (b; ) nucleotide diversity values in bonobos. (a) All of the 18 sequences are included. (b) One individual (Bosondjo) and one sequence (randomly chosen) from each of three individuals (Kakowet, Lody, and Linda) are excluded.

Nucleotide diversity:
For the 50 DNA segments we obtained, the range of is from 0 (14 segments) to 0.39% in the West African chimpanzee sample, from 0 (7 segments) to 0.46% in the Central African chimpanzee sample, from 0 (23 segments) to 0.45% in the East African chimpanzee sample, and from 0 (3 segments) to 0.46% in the entire chimpanzee sample (Table 1). The range of is from 0 to 0.36% in the bonobo sample and from 0 to 0.30% in the human sample (Table 1). Such large fluctuations are not surprising because the nucleotide diversity in a short DNA region is subject to strong stochastic effects. In addition, variation in may also arise from variation in mutation rate among genomic regions.

Table 2 shows that Central African chimpanzees have the highest average value (0.130%), followed by East African chimpanzees (0.092%), and then West African chimpanzees (0.082%). As mentioned above, the value estimated from the East African chimpanzee sample may not be reliable because of a small sample size and that from the West African chimpanzee sample might be biased downward. We note further that in previous studies the East African chimpanzee had a greater at APOB and PABX but a smaller at the HOXB6 intergenic region and at the mtDNA ND2 and the mtDNA control region than did the West African chimpanzee (Table 2; WISE et al. 1997 ; DEINARD and KIDD 2000 ; STONE et al. 2002 ). Therefore, further data are needed to see whether the value for the East African chimpanzee is actually higher than that for the West African chimpanzee.

View this table: In this window In a new window   Table 2. Average nucleotide diversity in chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans and effective population sizes estimated from

Surprisingly, the average value in bonobos (0.078%) is somewhat lower than that in humans (0.088%; Table 2). The observation that bonobos have lower nucleotide diversity than humans is in agreement with the Xq13.3 data, but contrary to the HOXB6, DRD4, DRD2, and NRY regions. Furthermore, the average values in the East and West African chimpanzee subspecies (0.092 and 0.082%) are similar to that in humans. The Central African chimpanzee is the only subspecies that has a value (0.130%) higher than that in humans and the difference is only 50%. We note further that even the highest _b value for the concatenated sequences in the Central African chimpanzee sample is only 0.174% (see above), which is only two times the average value in humans. When all chimpanzee sequences are considered together, the average value (0.132%) is again only 50% higher than that in humans. Actually, if we consider African humans only, the value for the 50 DNA segments becomes 0.115% (YU et al. 2002 ), which is only 13% lower than that for chimpanzees.

Previous reports have suggested that chimpanzees have two to four times greater amounts of than humans at several autosomal nuclear loci, including the noncoding intergenic regions near HOXB6 and DRD4 (DEINARD and KIDD 1999 ; JENSEN-SEAMAN et al. 2001 ), the intronic regions of DRD2 and AHD1 (DEINARD and KIDD 1998 ; JENSEN-SEAMAN et al. 2001 ), and synonymous sites at six protein coding loci (SATTA 2001 ). Similar results were also observed at the X chromosomal locus Xq13.3 (KAESSMANN et al. 1999 ) and the Y chromosomal NRY locus (STONE et al. 2002 ). However, since our data set has a much wider genomic representation, it should be more reliable. The stochastic effects of examining only a small number of loci can be seen, for example, in that in one-third (17 of 50) of the segments that we examined chimpanzees had more than three times higher than humans (Table 1), which is approximately the value that was found by others when looking at a single locus (Table 2; DEINARD and KIDD 1999 ; KAESSMANN et al. 1999 ). Thus, the difference in nucleotide diversity between humans and chimpanzees is considerably smaller for nuclear DNA than for mtDNA data (Table 2). The disparity in using mtDNA vs. nuclear DNA in comparisons between humans and chimpanzees was originally pointed out by WISE et al. 1997 , who in further comparisons to other nonhuman primates suggested that humans, not chimpanzees, were unusual in possessing such low levels of mtDNA diversity relative to that of the nuclear genome.

Another measure of genetic variability is the number of segregating alleles in the sample. However, because the sample sizes are different for different populations, we consider = 4N_eu, where N_e is the effective population size and u is the mutation rate per site per generation. The values estimated from the numbers of segregating sites by Watterson's estimator (WATTERSON 1975 ) are given in Table 2. We note that, compared to the difference in (0.088 vs. 0.078%) between humans and bonobos, the difference in (0.123 vs. 0.082%) is even larger (Table 2), probably reflecting an increase in low-frequency alleles due to a recent population expansion in humans. The highest value for the three chimpanzee subspecies (0.152%) is that for Central African chimpanzees, but it is only 24% higher than that for humans. When all chimpanzee sequences are considered together, becomes 0.194%, which is only 50% higher than that in humans.

Effective population sizes:
To estimate effective population size (N_e) we estimate the mutation rate per nucleotide site per generation (u) by using the sequence divergence (d) between species (Table 3) and assuming that the divergence time between the human and chimpanzee-bonobo lineages is 6 MY (BRUNET et al. 2002 ; VIGNAUD et al. 2002 ). Since we are interested in the long-term effective population size, we use Tajima's estimator, = 4N_eu (TAJIMA 1983 ), and we assume that the generation time is 15 years for chimpanzees and bonobos and 20 years for humans. The N_e for humans is estimated to be 10,500 (Table 2), which is similar to the commonly used value (10,000) in the literature (NEI and GRAUR 1984 ; TAKAHATA et al. 1995 ; ZHAO et al. 2000 ), while that for bonobos (12,400) is only slightly larger and that for the Central African chimpanzees (20,900), or for the entire species of chimpanzees, is about twice as large.

Causes for different patterns of nuclear DNA and mtDNA diversity:
As noted above, for nuclear DNA the nucleotide diversity in humans is only 50% lower than that in chimpanzees, whereas previous studies have found the mtDNA nucleotide diversity in humans to be at most only one-third of that found in chimpanzees (WISE et al. 1997 ; STONE et al. 2002 ). What are the causes for this sharp contrast? A highly plausible cause is a reduction in the effective population size in the human lineage since the human-chimp divergence. There is strong evidence for this putative reduction (RUVOLO 1997 ; HARPENDING et al. 1998 ; CHEN and LI 2001 ). As noted by FAY and WU 1999 , a reduction in N_e causes a larger decrease in nucleotide diversity for mtDNA than for nuclear DNA. This follows from the theory that the effect of a bottleneck on is proportional to T/N₁, where T is the time since the bottleneck and N₁ is the new effective population size, and from the fact that the effective population size for mtDNA is usually smaller than that for nuclear DNA (TAKAHATA 1993 ). An additional factor is that there has been an increase in generation time in the human lineage, which leads to a higher mutation rate per generation and also to a higher expected value in the case of nuclear DNA but to little increase in the case of mtDNA because of maternal inheritance and limited germ cell divisions per generation in the female germline.

Another possibility is that population subdivision might have been stronger in humans than in chimpanzees or the female migration rate might have been lower in humans than in chimpanzees, so that the effective population size for mtDNA is considerably smaller in humans than in chimpanzees (BIRKY et al. 1989 ). Evidence to support this argument may come from the observation that chimpanzee females uniformly disperse from their natal troop, in contrast to the typical mammalian (and primate) pattern of female philopatry with male dispersal (GREENWOOD 1980 ). The potential for high rates of female migration in chimpanzees is seen in the long-distance (>900 km) sharing of mtDNA haplotypes (MORIN et al. 1994 ; GOLDBERG and RUVOLO 1997 ).

Divergences between subspecies and species:
The average sequence divergence (d; average nucleotide differences per site) between chimpanzee subspecies is the smallest between the West and East African chimpanzees (Table 3), although in terms of geographic distance it should be the largest. The smaller divergence occurs because the levels of nucleotide diversity in the East and West African chimpanzees are smaller than that in the Central African chimpanzees. For the same reason, the d value is the largest between the Central and East African subspecies. The between-subspecies d values are only slightly higher than the within-subspecies values, indicating a small separation between subspecies.

The sequence divergence between the bonobo and the chimpanzee (0.373%) is about three times higher than the nucleotide diversity within the chimpanzee species (0.132%), indicating a much longer separation time between the two species than between the chimpanzee subspecies. The sequence divergence between the human and the chimpanzee is 1.22% (Table 3), which is similar to the values (1.2%) obtained on the basis of >2 million bp (CHEN et al. 2001 ; EBERSBERGER et al. 2002 ; FUJIYAMA et al. 2002 ). The sequence divergence between the human and the bonobo (1.30%) is somewhat higher than that between the human and the chimpanzee, probably because the bonobo has a smaller effective population size than the chimpanzee and so has been subject to a stronger effect of random drift.

These data also provide the largest and most comprehensive estimate of divergence time between chimpanzees and bonobos, estimated here to be 1.8 MYA, assuming a 6-MYA Homo-Pan split (BRUNET et al. 2002 ; VIGNAUD et al. 2002 ). This estimate is the same as that by STONE et al. 2002 , based on their data from the nonrecombing region of Y, and is intermediate between published data using mtDNA (2.5 MYA; GAGNEUX et al. 1999 ) and X chromosomal DNA (0.9 MYA; KAESSMANN et al. 1999 ). Also, the date of the formation of the Congo River, which currently prevents contact between these species, has been estimated from geological and limnological evidence to have formed 1.5 MYA (BEADLE 1981 ). Perhaps the formation of the Congo River initiated the separation between chimpanzees and bonobos. This was also a time of potentially large climatic changes in the African climate and changes in vegetation patterns, proposed by some to have catalyzed the origins of several hominid species and human innovations (VRBA 1995 ).

	FOOTNOTES

Sequence data from this article have been deposited with the GenBank Data Libraries under accession nos. AY275957, AY277244.
¹ Present address: Human and Molecular Genetics Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Rd., Milwaukee, WI 53213.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the zoos, research organizations, and individuals listed in MATERIALS AND METHODS for the generous donation of DNA or blood samples used in this study. This study was supported by National Institutes of Health grants GM-55759 and GM-30998.

Manuscript received February 4, 2003; Accepted for publication April 16, 2003.

	LITERATURE CITED

TOP ABSTRACT MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION LITERATURE CITED

BEADLE, L. C., 1981 The Inland Waters of Tropical Africa. Longman, London.

BIRKY, C. W., JR., P. FUERST, and T. MARUYAMA, 1989  Organelle gene diversity under migration, mutation, and drift: equilibrium expectations, approach to equilibrium, effects of heteroplasmic cells, and comparison to nuclear genes. Genetics 121:613-627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

BRUNET, M., F. GUY, D. PILBEAM, H. T. MACKAYE, and A. LIKIUS et al., 2002  A new hominid from the Upper Miocene of Chad, Central Africa. Nature 418:145-151.

CHEN, F. C. and W.-H. LI, 2001  Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68:444-456.[Medline]

CHEN, F. C., E. J. VALLENDER, H. WANG, C. S. TZENG, and W.-H. LI, 2001  Genomic divergence between human and chimpanzee estimated from large-scale alignments of genomic sequences. J. Hered. 92:481-489.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CROUAU-ROY, B., S. SERVICE, M. SLATKIN, and N. FREIMER, 1996  A fine-scale comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes: linkage, linkage disequilibrium and sequence analysis. Hum. Mol. Genet. 5:1131-1137.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

DEINARD, A. S. and K. K. KIDD, 1998  Evolution of a D2 dopamine receptor intron within the great apes and humans. DNA Seq. 8:289-301.[Medline]

DEINARD, A. S. and K. K. KIDD, 1999  Evolution of a HOXB6 intergenic region within the great apes and humans. J. Hum. Evol. 36:687-703.[Medline]

DEINARD, A. S. and K. K. KIDD, 2000  Identifying conservation units within captive chimpanzee populations. Am. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 111:25-44.[Medline]

DON, R. H., P. T. COX, B. J. WAINWRIGHT, K. BAKER, and J. S. MATTICK, 1991  "Touchdown" PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. Nucleic Acids Res. 19:4008.[Free Full Text]

EBERSBERGER, I., D. METZLER, C. SCHWARZ, and S. PAABO, 2002  Genomewide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70:1490-1497.[Medline]

ELLEGREN, H., C. R. PRIMMER, and B. C. SHELDON, 1995  Microsatellite ‘evolution’: Directionality or bias? Nat. Genet. 11:360-362.[Medline]

FAY, J. C. and C.-I WU, 1999  A human population bottleneck can account for the discordance between patterns of mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA variation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1003-1005.[Medline]

FERRIS, S. D., W. M. BROWN, W. S. DAVIDSON, and A. C. WILSON, 1981  Extensive polymorphism in the mitochondrial DNA of apes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:6319-6323.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

FUJIYAMA, A., H. WATANABE, A. TOYODA, T. D. TAYLOR, and T. ITOH et al., 2002  Construction and analysis of a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map. Science 295:131-134.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

GAGNEUX, P., C. WILLS, U. GERLOFF, D. TAUTZ, and P. A. MORIN et al., 1999  Mitochondrial sequences show diverse evolutionary histories of African hominoids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:5077-5082.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

GOLDBERG, T. L. and M. RUVOLO, 1997  The geographic apportionment of mitochondrial genetic diversity in East African chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii.. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:976-984.[Abstract]

GREENWOOD, P. J., 1980  Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim. Behav. 28:1140-1162.

HARPENDING, H. C., M. A. BATZER, M. GURVEN, L. B. JORDE, and A. R. ROGERS et al., 1998  Genetic traces of ancient demography. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:1961-1967.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

HORAI, S., Y. SATTA, K. HAYASAKA, R. KONDO, and T. INOUE et al., 1992  Man's place in Hominoidea revealed by mitochondrial DNA genealogy. J. Mol. Evol. 35:32-43.[Medline]

JENSEN-SEAMAN, M. I., A. S. DEINARD, and K. K. KIDD, 2001  Modern African ape populations as genetic and demographic models of the last common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. J. Hered. 92:475-480.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

KAESSMANN, H., V. WIEBE, and S. PÄÄBO, 1999  Extensive nuclear DNA sequence diversity among chimpanzees. Science 286:1159-1162.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

KAESSMANN, H., V. WIEBE, G. WEISS, and S. PAABO, 2001  Great ape DNA sequences reveal a reduced diversity and an expansion in humans. Nat. Genet. 27(2):155-156.[Medline]

INGMAN, M., H. KAESSMANN, S. PÄÄBO, and U. GYLLENSTEN, 2000  Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature 408:708-713.[Medline]

KING, M. C. and A. C. WILSON, 1975  Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188:107-116.[Free Full Text]

LUCOTTE, G., 1983  Chimpanzees show less variation than man: electrophoretic evidence. J. Hum. Evol. 12:419-424.

MORIN, P. A., J. J. MOORE, R. CHAKRABORTY, L. JIN, and J. GOODALL et al., 1994  Kin selection, social structure, gene flow, and the evolution of chimpanzees. Science 265:1193-1201.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

NEI, M. and D. GRAUR, 1984  Extent of protein polymorphism and the neutral mutation theory. Evol. Biol. 17:73-118.

ROZAS, J. and R. ROZAS, 1999  DnaSP version 3: an integrated program for molecular population genetics and molecular evolution analysis. Bioinformatics 15:174-175.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

RUVOLO, M., 1997  Molecular phylogeny of the hominoids: inferences from multiple independent DNA sequence data sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:248-265.[Abstract]

SATTA, Y., 2001  Comparison of DNA and protein polymorphisms between humans and chimpanzees. Genes Genet. Syst. 76:159-168.[Medline]

STONE, A. C., R. C. GRIFFITHS, S. L. ZEGURA, and M. F. HAMMER, 2002  High levels of Y-chromosome nucleotide diversity in the genus Pan.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:43-48.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

TAJIMA, F., 1983  Evolution relationship of DNA sequences in finite populations. Genetics 105:437-460.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

TAKAHATA, N., 1993  Allelic genealogy and human evolution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:2-22.[Abstract]

TAKAHATA, N., Y. SATTA, and J. KLEIN, 1995  Divergence time and population size in the lineage leading to modern humans. Theor. Popul. Biol. 48:198-221.[Medline]

VIGNAUD, P., P. DURINGER, H. T. MACKAYE, A. LIKIUS, and C. BLONDEL et al., 2002  Geology and palaeontology of the upper Miocene Toros-Menalla hominid locality, Chad. Nature 418:152-155.[Medline]

VRBA, E. S., 1995 On the connection between paleoclimate and evolution, pp. 24–48 in Paleoclimate and Evolution, With Emphasis on Human Origins, edited by E. S. VRBA, G. H. DENTON, T. C. PARTRIDGE and L. H. BURCKLE. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

WATTERSON, G. A., 1975  On the number of segregation sites. Theor. Popul. Biol. 7:256-276.[Medline]

WISE, C. A., M. SRAML, D. C. RUBINSZTEIN, and S. EASTEAL, 1997  Comparative nuclear and mitochondrial genome diversity in humans and chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:707-716.[Abstract]

XIA, X. and Z. XIE, 2001  DAMBE: Data analysis in molecular biology and evolution. J. Hered. 92:371-373.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

YU, N., F. C. CHEN, S. OTA, L. JORDE, and P. PAMILO et al., 2002  Larger genetic differences within Africans than between Africans and Eurasians. Genetics 161:269-274.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

ZHAO, Z., L. JIN, Y.-X. FU, M. RAMSAY, and T. JENKINS et al., 2000  Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10 kilobase noncoding region on chromosome 22. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:11354-11358.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. I. Nikolaev, J. I. Montoya-Burgos, K. Popadin, L. Parand, E. H. Margulies, National Institutes of Health Intramural Sequencin, and S. E. Antonarakis Life-history traits drive the evolutionary rates of mammalian coding and noncoding genomic elements PNAS, December 18, 2007; 104(51): 20443 - 20448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. J. R. Fagundes, N. Ray, M. Beaumont, S. Neuenschwander, F. M. Salzano, S. L. Bonatto, and L. Excoffier Statistical evaluation of alternative models of human evolution PNAS, November 6, 2007; 104(45): 17614 - 17619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Becquet and M. Przeworski A new approach to estimate parameters of speciation models with application to apes Genome Res., October 1, 2007; 17(10): 1505 - 1519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Perry, R. D. Martin, and B. C. Verrelli Signatures of Functional Constraint at Aye-aye Opsin Genes: The Potential of Adaptive Color Vision in a Nocturnal Primate Mol. Biol. Evol., September 1, 2007; 24(9): 1963 - 1970. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Abi-Rached, K. Dorighi, P. J. Norman, M. Yawata, and P. Parham Episodes of Natural Selection Shaped the Interactions of IgA-Fc with Fc{alpha}RI and Bacterial Decoy Proteins J. Immunol., June 15, 2007; 178(12): 7943 - 7954. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. J. Clark, S. E. Ptak, I. Tiemann, Y. Qian, G. Coop, A. C. Stone, M. Przeworski, N. Arnheim, and A. D. Rienzo Combining Sperm Typing and Linkage Disequilibrium Analyses Reveals Differences in Selective Pressures or Recombination Rates Across Human Populations Genetics, February 1, 2007; 175(2): 795 - 804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O Thalmann, A Fischer, F Lankester, S Paabo, and L Vigilant The Complex Evolutionary History of Gorillas: Insights from Genomic Data Mol. Biol. Evol., January 1, 2007; 24(1): 146 - 158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Mulligan, A. Kitchen, and M. M. Miyamoto Comment on "Population Size Does Not Influence Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity in Animals" Science, December 1, 2006; 314(5804): 1390a - 1390a. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. C. Verrelli, S. A. Tishkoff, A. C. Stone, and J. W. Touchman Contrasting Histories of G6PD Molecular Evolution and Malarial Resistance in Humans and Chimpanzees Mol. Biol. Evol., August 1, 2006; 23(8): 1592 - 1601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Perry, J. Tchinda, S. D. McGrath, J. Zhang, S. R. Picker, A. M. Caceres, A. J. Iafrate, C. Tyler-Smith, S. W. Scherer, E. E. Eichler, et al. Hotspots for copy number variation in chimpanzees and humans PNAS, May 23, 2006; 103(21): 8006 - 8011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Taylor, S. Tyekucheva, M. Zody, F. Chiaromonte, and K. D. Makova Strong and Weak Male Mutation Bias at Different Sites in the Primate Genomes: Insights from the Human-Chimpanzee Comparison Mol. Biol. Evol., March 1, 2006; 23(3): 565 - 573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Elango, J. W. Thomas, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, and S. V. Yi Variable molecular clocks in hominoids PNAS, January 31, 2006; 103(5): 1370 - 1375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Varki and T. K. Altheide Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes: Searching for needles in a haystack Genome Res., December 1, 2005; 15(12): 1746 - 1758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Y. Yampolsky, F. A. Kondrashov, and A. S. Kondrashov Distribution of the strength of selection against amino acid replacements in human proteins Hum. Mol. Genet., November 1, 2005; 14(21): 3191 - 3201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. G. de Groot, C. A. Garcia, E. J. Verschoor, G. G. M. Doxiadis, S. G. E. Marsh, N. Otting, and R. E. Bontrop Reduced MIC Gene Repertoire Variation in West African Chimpanzees as Compared to Humans Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2005; 22(6): 1375 - 1385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Sharp, G. M. Shaw, and B. H. Hahn Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Chimpanzees J. Virol., April 1, 2005; 79(7): 3891 - 3902. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y.-J. Won and J. Hey Divergence Population Genetics of Chimpanzees Mol. Biol. Evol., February 1, 2005; 22(2): 297 - 307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. G. Hwang and P. Green Inaugural Article: Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo sequence analysis reveals varying neutral substitution patterns in mammalian evolution PNAS, September 28, 2004; 101(39): 13994 - 14001. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Hedges, P. A. Callinan, R. Cordaux, J. Xing, E. Barnes, and M. A. Batzer Differential Alu Mobilization and Polymorphism Among the Human and Chimpanzee Lineages Genome Res., June 1, 2004; 14(6): 1068 - 1075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Fischer, V. Wiebe, S. Paabo, and M. Przeworski Evidence for a Complex Demographic History of Chimpanzees Mol. Biol. Evol., May 1, 2004; 21(5): 799 - 808. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Yu, M. I. Jensen-Seaman, L. Chemnick, O. Ryder, and W.-H. Li Nucleotide Diversity in Gorillas Genetics, March 1, 2004; 166(3): 1375 - 1383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]