- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Glémin, S.
- Articles by Bataillon, T.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Glémin, S.
- Articles by Bataillon, T.
Patterns of Inbreeding Depression and Architecture of the Load in Subdivided Populations
Sylvain Glémina,b, Joëlle Ronforta, and Thomas Bataillonaa Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-SGAP Montpellier, F-34130 Mauguio, France
b Génétique et Environnement CC065, Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, Université Montpellier II, F-34095 Montpellier, France
Corresponding author: Sylvain Glémin, GPIA. CC63, Université Montpellier II, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France., glemin{at}univ-montp2.fr (E-mail)
Communicating editor: M. UYENOYAMA
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
Inbreeding depression is a general phenomenon that is due mainly to recessive deleterious mutations, the so-called mutation load. It has been much studied theoretically. However, until very recently, population structure has not been taken into account, even though it can be an important factor in the evolution of populations. Population subdivision modifies the dynamics of deleterious mutations because the outcome of selection depends on processes both within populations (selection and drift) and between populations (migration). Here, we present a general model that permits us to gain insight into patterns of inbreeding depression, heterosis, and the load in subdivided populations. We show that they can be interpreted with reference to single-population theory, using an appropriate local effective population size that integrates the effects of drift, selection, and migration. We term this the "effective population size of selection" (NSe). For the infinite island model, for example, it is equal to
where N is the local population size, m the migration rate, and h and s the dominance and selection coefficients of deleterious mutation. Our results have implications for the estimation and interpretation of inbreeding depression in subdivided populations, especially regarding conservation issues. We also discuss the possible effects of migration and subdivision on the evolution of mating systems.
INBREEDING depression, the decline of fitness of inbred individuals relative to outbred ones, is a general phenomenon observed in many species (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In methods using measures of inbreeding depression, the underlying models neglect two potentially important factors: population size and population structure. Nevertheless, population size and genetic drift may have a huge impact on the expected inbreeding depression due to deleterious mutations. Moreover, drift has opposite effects on the load and inbreeding depression: the load is higher in small populations than in large ones (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Some experimental studies have attempted to estimate inbreeding depression and/or heterosis in subdivided populations. Heterosis can be defined as the excess in mean fitness of individuals produced by crosses between demes relative to mean fitness of individuals produced by outcrosses within deme. Some studies have addressed population levels and hierachical measures of inbreeding depression (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Here, we present a general method to study the pattern of inbreeding depression, heterosis, and mutation load expected for a broad range of population structure. We have adapted a two-locus diffusion method, developed by ![]()
![]()
| MODELS AND RESULTS |
|---|
General presentation
We consider a single locus with two alleles in a metapopulation of K demes, each composed of N diploid individuals, connected by migration. Individuals successively experience mutation and reproduction in each local deme. After zygotic migration, selection occurs within each local deme, followed by density regulation. The contribution of each deme to the next generation is constant and independent of the mean fitness of the deme. The wild-type allele, A, mutates at rate µ to a partially recessive, deleterious allele, a. The reverse mutation occurs at rate
with
<< µ. The relative fitnesses of the AA, Aa, and aa genotypes are 1, 1 - hs, and 1 - s, respectively, where s is the selection coefficient and h the dominance coefficient. For simplicity, we analyze only the case where h and s are identical across all demes. We first consider random mating in each deme. For a deleterious mutation segregating at frequency xi in the ith deme, we can define the mean fitness of individuals produced by the different types of crosses. The mean fitness among individuals produced by outcrossing, in the ith deme, WOi, is equivalent to the mean fitness of the deme assuming random mating, Wwithini:
![]() |
(1a) |
The mean fitness among individuals produced by selfing in this deme is
![]() |
(1b) |
Finally, we can define the mean fitness of individuals produced by crosses between parents coming from different demes, i and j:
![]() |
(1c) |
In deme i, we define inbreeding depression,
i, as the decline in mean fitness of selfed individuals relative to outcrossed individuals within the deme (![]()
![]()
![]() |
(2a) |
![]() |
(2b) |
We define the heterosis, Hij, between two demes i and j as the excess in mean fitness of individuals produced by outcrosses between demes relative to mean fitness of individuals produced by outcrosses within the demes. We also define between-deme inbreeding depression,
ij, as the decline in mean fitness of selfed individuals relative to outcrossed individuals between demes.
![]() |
(2c) |
![]() |
(2d) |
To obtain expected values for our load and inbreeding depression parameters (L,
, H,
), we have to compute the expectation of the four quantities previously defined over
(x1, ... , xK), the probability distribution of the deleterious allele frequency over the K demes of the metapopulation. One can use Wright's distribution (see ![]()
![]()
![]()
, L, H, and
by polynomial functions of degree p, their expectations over
will depend only on the p first moments of
. Practically, the two first moments are sufficient: the load is a quadratic function of xi and good approximations of
i, Hij, and
ij are obtained, assuming that Wwithini and Wbetweenij in the denominators of Equation 2a, Equation 2c, and Equation 2d, respectively, are nearly equal to 1, which is the case if xi << 1 (strong selection) but also if s << 1 (weak selection). So the mean inbreeding depression, heterosis, and load can be approximated by
![]() |
(3a) |
![]() |
(3b) |
![]() |
(3c) |
![]() |
(3d) |
where E
denotes expectation with respect to the
distribution.
Analytical results for the case of strong selection (Nhs >> 1)
Ohta-Kimura equation for subdivided populations:
To compute the first two moments of
, we adapted the method developed by ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
According to diffusion theory, for each deme, we need to write the following infinitesimal terms: the mean change of allele frequency, M
xi, the variance of the change of allele frequency, V
xi, and the covariance of the change of allele frequency in a pair of demes, W
xi,
xj. M
xi reflects mutation, migration, and selection:
![]() |
(4a) |
Here, we assume that changes in allele frequency between generations are small enough to neglect interaction terms between these elementary processes. Further,
![]() |
(4b) |
and
![]() |
(4c) |
According to ![]()
![]()
![]() |
(5) |
Equation 5 corrects some typographical errors in ![]()
. However, using tedious algebra manipulations, temporal dynamics of the moments can be computed. When M
xi is linear in xi, we can compute E
[xi], E
[x2i], and E
[xixj] by choosing appropriate f functions, one for each moment. Thus we have to solve a system of 2K + K(K - 1)/2 equations, which give the K moments E
[xi], the K moments E
[x2i], and the K(K - 1)/2 moments E
[xixj]. Because of the linearity of M
xi, all moments of interest can be computed for arbitrary population structure, because the system to be solved is linear with respect to all moments. However, we consider only simple population structures where all demes have the same properties (i.e., equal N, m, h, and s), which greatly reduces the number of moments to compute. Note that, if M
xi is not linear in xi, the moment equations form an infinite linear system and heuristic arguments must be used to close and solve it.
Assumptions for solving the system:
mut(xi) and
mig(xi) are linear terms but not
sel(xi). To satisfy the linearity condition on M
xi, we linearized the selection term in 0 (xi << 1) following ![]()
![]()
sel(xi) = -hsxi. This is equivalent to assuming that selection acts only against heterozygotes. This assumes that deleterious alleles are not too recessive (h > 0) and maintained in low frequencies; so it is also assumed that µ << hs. This approximation is thus valuable only if local drift is not too strong. In a single population these conditions correspond about to Nhs > 5 (![]()
The K-island model:
Computation of the moments:
We consider K panmictic demes of size N, connected by migration at a rate m. The infinitesimal diffusion terms are given by Equation 4aEquation 4bEquation 4c with (4a) becoming
![]() |
(6) |
The reverse mutation,
, is neglected.
For the function f(x1, ... , xK) = xi, Equation 5 implies, for the stationary distribution,
![]() |
(7) |
Considering the symmetry of the model, all the E
[xi] are found to be equal and we drop the subscript i and refer to them as E
[x]. Equation 7 can be simplified:
![]() |
(8) |
Note that such linear approximation neglects the effect of drift and subdivision on the mean frequency of x.
For the function
Equation 5 implies
![]() |
(9a) |
For the function f(x1, ... , xK) = xixj, Equation 5 implies
![]() |
(9b) |
Considering the symmetry of the model, all the E
[x2i] are found to be equal and denoted E
[x2]. All the E
[xixj] are also found to be equal and denoted E
[xx']. Equation 9a and Equation 9b can then be reduced to the following system:
![]() |
(9c) |
Solving the system gives the second-order moments:
![]() |
(10a) |
![]() |
(10b) |
Taking the limit of (10a) and (10b) for K going to infinity gives the value for the infinite island model:
![]() |
(11a) |
![]() |
(11b) |
We can also compute the moments of the distribution of deleterious allele frequencies over the whole metapopulation,
. The frequency, y, of the deleterious allele in the whole metapopulation is
implying
![]() |
(12a) |
and
![]() |
(12b) |
Using Equation 8, Equation 10a, and Equation 10b, we obtain
![]() |
(13a) |
and
![]() |
(13b) |
Taking the limit for K going to infinity gives the value for the infinite island model and leads to E
[y2] = O(µ2). In the infinite island model, the distribution over the whole metapopulation is, as expected, a Dirac's
distribution at the point µ/hs.
"Effective population size of selection":
Using the same approximation [linearization of
sel(xi)] ![]()
= µ/hs + O(µ2) and variance
2 = µ/hs(1 + 4Nhs) + O(µ2). Comparing this result to Equation 8 and Equation 11a, we note that each local deme under the infinite island model is equivalent to a single population under this model, with a new local effective population size. We chose to call this parameter "effective population size of selection." Extracting N from the expression for
2, we can generally define this parameter:
![]() |
(14) |
NSe is defined as the population size of a single population where the two first moments of the distribution of the deleterious allele frequency would be the same as in a local deme of the whole population. However, using such effective size also provides good approximations for higher moments (see Table 2 for skewness and kurtosis with Nhs = 30 and Nhs = 3).
|
|
For the K-island model,
![]() |
(15a) |
and for K tending to infinity,
![]() |
(15b) |
Equation 15a and Equation 15b show that migration increases the local effective population size (see Fig 1) and this increase is more important for recessive and weakly deleterious mutations, which are the mutations that are the most difficult to purge in a single population.
|
FSST at the selected locus:
An index of population structure, denoted here FSST to distinguish it from the neutral FST, can be defined for the selected locus as the ratio of the among-deme variance over the total variance of allele frequency,
![]() |
(16a) |
(![]()
![]() |
(16b) |
for the infinite island model (see Appendix A).
Using (8), (10a), and (10b), we find for the K-island model
![]() |
(17a) |
and for the infinite island model
![]() |
(17b) |
This means that, for strong selection, FSST at a selected locus is much smaller than FST at a neutral locus. As expected, strong and uniform selection limits population differentiation. Selection prevents the local fixation of deleterious alleles and increases the effective migration rate of wild-type alleles such that differentiation between demes declines. For weak selection, the results obtained are quite robust and Equation 17a and Equation 17b are still valid. Indeed, as s tends toward 0, we recover the expected value for a neutral FST (see Fig 2 and ![]()
|
Average inbreeding depression, genetic load, and heterosis: Using Equation 3aEquation 3bEquation 3cEquation 3d, the expressions for the first- and second-order moments and the expressions for the FSST, we can now compute the average local inbreeding depression and genetic load and the average heterosis and inbreeding depression between two demes.
Inbreeding depression is given by
![]() |
(18) |
where

TOT is the average inbreeding depression over the whole metapopulation considered as a single unit, i.e., the inbreeding depression averaged over the
distribution. It reduces to
TOT = µ(1 - 2h)/2h + O(µ2) in the infinite island model, which corresponds to the deterministic inbreeding depression (![]()
In the same way, we can compute the average load,
![]() |
(19) |
where

LTOT is the average load over the whole metapopulation computed over the
distribution. It reduces to LTOT = 2µ + O(µ2) in the infinite island model, which corresponds to the deterministic load (![]()
Heterosis is given by
![]() |
(20) |
and inbreeding depression between demes by
![]() |
(21) |
These derivations show that population subdivision has opposite effects on inbreeding depression within and between demes. It decreases local inbreeding depression, compared to an infinite population, whereas it increases between-deme inbreeding depression. As expected, heterosis also increases with subdivision. According to the expression of FSST, within-deme inbreeding depression is smaller and between-deme inbreeding depression and heterosis are correspondingly higher, as migration, population size, and selection coefficient are smaller (see Fig 3 for the infinite island model and Fig 4 for K = 10).
|
|
Results for the load are slightly inaccurate because we have neglected the mild purging effect that occurs in finite but not too small populations under weak subdivision when h < 1/3 (see S. GLÉMIN, unpublished results; and ![]()
![]()
![]()
|
The infinite island model with nonrandom mating:
With nonrandom mating, we need more general expressions for inbreeding depression, the genetic load, and heterosis as a function of the moments of the probability distribution of deleterious allele frequency. The various mean fitnesses of interest can be expressed as functions of the deleterious allele frequency and fixation index FIS (![]()
![]() |
(22a) |
![]() |
(22b) |
![]() |
(22c) |
With nonrandom mating, the mean fitness of the population is different from the mean fitness of outcrossed individuals. The mean fitness of individuals produced by crossing between parents of two different demes, i and j, is the same as in the previous case. The four quantities previously defined are now given by the following expressions:
![]() |
(23a) |
![]() |
(23b) |
![]() |
(23c) |
![]() |
(23d) |
Computation of the moments:
Following ![]()
![]()
Using Equation 5 for the same appropriate f functions and considering the symmetrical properties of the island model, we can compute the first- and second-order moments of
in the case of nonrandom mating. All moments are found to be the same as in the panmictic case (see Equation 8, Equation 10a, and Equation 10b), after replacement of h by hF and N by Ne = N/(1 + FIS).
Effective population size of selection and selected FSST: As previously defined, we can compute the effective population size of selection and FSST for the selected locus. The results are the same as in the case of random mating, replacing N by Ne and h by hF. Contrary to a neutral locus, inbreeding decreases FSST. Inbreeding enhances genetic drift (the effective size is divided by two for complete inbreeding) but also increases the apparent dominance coefficient hF. As a result, inbreeding leads to more efficient selection, which in turn limits population differentiation. Similarly, inbreeding decreases the effective size of selection but unmasks deleterious alleles in homozygotes. The second process overwhelms the first one. As a result, selection is more efficient with inbreeding in subdivided populations, just as in infinite ones.
Average inbreeding depression, genetic load, and heterosis:
Using Equation 23aEquation 23bEquation 23cEquation 23d and the expressions for the first- and second-order moments, we can now compute the average local inbreeding depression and genetic load and the average heterosis and inbreeding depression between two demes. For inbreeding depression, Equation 13aEquation 13b is still valid using the appropriate FSST and
TOT = µ(1 - 2h)(1 + FIS)/2(h + FIS - hFIS).
The expression for the load is different from (18),
![]() |
(24) |
where

Inbreeding depression between demes and heterosis are now given by
![]() |
(25) |
![]() |
(26) |
Inbreeding due to nonrandom mating (FIS) decreases both inbreeding depression and the load (as in an infinite population). It also decreases heterosis and inbreeding depression between demes (see Fig 6). With high levels of inbreeding, the effect of migration on the load and inbreeding depression (within and between demes) is very weak (see Fig 6A for inbreeding depression). The effect of migration on heterosis is more important, even with inbreeding (see Fig 6B). For weak selection, equivalent results have been obtained independently with numerical methods by ![]()
|
The unidimensional stepping-stone model:
We now consider a circular stepping-stone model with K panmictic demes of size N, with K = 2p or K = 2p + 1. We assume only local and equal migration between two adjacent demes. We now need to compute p + 2 moments: E
[x], E
[x2], as in the previous cases and the second-order interdeme moments, E
[xixi+k] for a pair of demes separated by k steps, which depend on the distance between demes. All the moments between two demes at distance k are equal and we denote them E
[xxk]. We then use p + 2 different f functions to solve the system (see Appendix B). Here, we give the results for the infinite unidimensional stepping-stone model (K
):
![]() |
(27a) |
![]() |
(27b) |
![]() |
(27c) |
with
representing the correlation coefficient of deleterious allele frequencies between two adjacent demes. This result is numerically consistent with the one found by ![]()
![]()
We can also compute
![]() |
(28) |
and
![]() |
(29) |
For inbreeding depression and mutation load, Equation 18 and Equation 19 still hold, and we can compute the heterosis and inbreeding depression between two demes at distance k:
![]() |
(30) |
![]() |
(31) |
These equations clearly show that heterosis and between-deme inbreeding depression increase with distance as expected (see Fig 7 for heterosis). If m is small,
m/2hs, so maximum heterosis (2
TOTFSST) and inbreeding depression between demes (
TOT(1 + FSST)) are reached for nearby demes.
|
Robustness and generalization of the analytical results:
The results above are not valid for weak selection. Indeed, because of genetic drift, the frequency of a deleterious allele can be high (near 1), so we cannot linearize
sel(xi) around xi = 0; i.e., selection against homozygotes aa cannot be neglected. However, we can extend qualitatively our theory to more general sets of parameters. The weakness of our approximations is that drift and subdivision do not affect the mean frequency of the deleterious allele, which is always µ/hFs. However, the variance of the frequency of the deleterious allele, which leads to the definition of the effective size of selection, is much better predicted by the theory (see Table 1). Consequently, as we have already said, the expression for FSST is quite robust (see Fig 2) and remains a useful qualitative index of the level of population differentiation at the selected locus. Because heterosis depends on the variance of allele frequency but not on the mean (see Equation 3c), our approximations for heterosis are also quite robust under weak selection. Approximations are less robust for inbreeding depression and the load because they depend on both the mean and variance of allele frequency (see Equation 3a and Equation 3b). In a single population, inbreeding depression and the load show clear patterns as a function of the population size (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Qualitative patterns of the load due to segregating mutations are well predicted by NSe (see Table 2). In particular, using NSe instead of N in Wright's equation accounts for the weak purging effect that affects the mean frequency of deleterious alleles, which we previously neglected. Higher moments of the distribution are also quite well predicted (see skewness and kurtosis in Table 2). However, for low migration rates and weak selection, migration increases the local effective size more than predicted by NSe. Because of this limitation, the effective size of selection must be used with caution for weak selection and further invetigations are needed.
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
Heuristic value of the theory and limitations of the model:
In this study, we adapted a diffusion method to provide general and analytical results to understand the effects of population subdivision on patterns of inbreeding depression, heterosis, and the load due to partially recessive deleterious mutations. Because this method leads to linear equations with respect to the moments of the distribution of allele frequency, any kind of subdivision can be studied. The more general and heuristic result we obtained is that one can use an index of effective size of selection to interpret the effect of subdivision by reference to single-population theory. Accurate analytical results are obtained for strong selection. Our effective size of selection is still a useful index for a wider range of situations in which our analytical results may be less accurate. In a single population, deleterious alleles for which Ns >> 1 segregate in low frequency while those for which Ns < 1 can be nearly fixed. In a local deme of a subdivided population, qualitative predictions can be easily made using the same dichotomy but replacing N by NSe. Compared to a single isolated population, the main effect of migration is thus to increase the local effective size and consequently to increase the proportion of mutations that can be efficiently eliminated (1/NSe < 1/N, see Fig 8). Furthermore, this condition is conservative because migration helps purge the drift load more efficiently than predicted by NSe. The use of our effective size of selection also offers a synthetic way of comparing the effect of different population structures (see Fig 1). In the island model, for a large number of demes, the effective size of selection increases linearly with migration. A few migrants can boost the effective size. However, if the number of demes is small, the effect of migration on the effective size of selection is limited (NSe < NeK). If there is isolation by distance, the effect of migration is less important. Local migration does not greatly increase the effective size because the distributions of deleterious allelic frequencies in neighboring demes are correlated. This aggrees with ![]()
![]()
|
As in other models (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The genetic basis of inbreeding depression and heterosis in subdivided populations:
Inbreeding depression and heterosis are often seen as two aspects of the same genetic process. However, we show here that their genetic basis can be quite different. Inbreeding depression is primarily due to mutations with strong effect (for which FSST is low, see Equation 18) whereas heterosis is due to mutations of weak effect (for which FSST is high, see Equation 20). The level of gene flow and the local population size determine which kind of mutations will be the primary contributors to inbreeding depression and heterosis (see Fig 8). The limit between the two classes of mutations should depend on the local effective population size. This analysis stresses important differences in the expected behavior of inbreeding depression and heterosis that can no longer be considered as two exact opposite sides of the same process.
Contrary to this interpretation, one can argue that it depends on the definition of heterosis, which differs from that generally given by plant breeders: "When inbred lines are crossed, the progeny show an increase of those characters that previously suffered a reduction from inbreeding... The amount of heterosis is the difference between the crossbred and the inbred means" (![]()
Consequences for the evolution of mating systems in subdivided populations:
Inbreeding depression is a key parameter in the evolution of mating system because it balances the "cost of outcrossing" (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
However, as already noted, our model and others (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Implications for conservation biology:
The accumulation of deleterious mutations in small populations should increase the risk of extinction due to the process called "mutational meltdown" (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Other implications of our analysis include methodological considerations. The load would be an appropriate measure for estimating the impact of population size and subdivision on the fitness of small populations. However, this quantity cannot be directly estimated. Experimental designs for the estimation of inbreeding depression have been proposed to address this question (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Few data that compare inbreeding depression and heterosis among populations of different sizes or degrees of isolation exist. Often, mean performances of whole populations of different sizes are compared (![]()
![]()
![]()
0.2 vs. 0.5). On the contrary, heterosis was high in isolated populations (
0.6) but weak and nonsignificant in central populations (
0.06). Finally, germination rates for outcrosses within populations were higher in central than in isolated populations, which indicates a higher load in isolated populations. Estimation of the load through inbreeding depression would lead to the reverse conclusion, that central populations suffer higher load than isolated ones. The comparison of inbreeding depression and heterosis shows that the architecture of the load differs between central and isolated populations. The load is weak a
































































