Understanding Inbreeding Depression, Purging, and Genetic Rescue

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 31, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 940-952

  Hedrick, Philip W ^a   Garcia Dorado, Aurora ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

genetic drift; genetic rescue; inbreeding; mutation; purging

Indexed keywords

EXTINCTION RISK; FITNESS; GENETIC DRIFT; GENETIC RESOURCE; GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENOMICS; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; MUTATION; SURVIVAL;

ANIMAL; CONSANGUINITY; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; MUTATION;

ANIMALS; CONSANGUINITY; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; MUTATION;

EID: 84997208489     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.005     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. 1 Charlesworth, D., Willis, J.H., The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10 (2009), 783–796.
2. 2 Crnokrak, P., Roff, D.A., Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity (Edinb) 83 (1999), 260–270.
3. 3 Darwin, C., The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom. J. Murray, 1876.
4. 4 Hedrick, P.W., Kalinowski, S.T., Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31 (2000), 139–162.
5. 5 Keller, L.F., Waller, D.M., Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 (2002), 230–241.
6. 6 O'Grady, J.J., et al. Realistic levels of inbreeding depression strongly affect extinction risk in wild populations. Biol. Cons. 133 (2006), 42–51.
7. 7 Ralls, K., et al. Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conserv. Biol. 2 (1988), 185–193.
8. 8 Armbruster, P., Reed, D., Inbreeding depression in benign and stressful environments. Heredity 95 (2005), 235–242.
9. 9 Fox, C.W., Reed, D.H., Inbreeding depression increases with environmental stress: an experimental study and meta-analysis. Evolution 65 (2011), 246–258.
10. 10 López-Cortegano, E., et al. Estimation of genetic purging under competitive conditions. Evolution 70 (2016), 1856–1870.
11. 11 Yun, L., Agrawal, A.F., Variation in the strength of inbreeding depression across environments: effects of stress and density dependence. Evolution 68 (2014), 3599–3606.
12. 12 Ebel, E.R., Phillips, P.C., Intrinsic differences between males and females determine sex-specific consequences of inbreeding. BMC Evol. Biol., 16, 2016, 10.
13. 13 García-Dorado, A., Understanding and predicting the fitness decline of shrunk populations: inbreeding, purging, mutation, and standard selection. Genetics 190 (2012), 1461–1476.
14. 14 Hedrick, P.W., Purging inbreeding depression and the probability of extinction: full-sib mating. Heredity 73 (1994), 363–372.
15. 15 Tallmon, D.A., et al. The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004), 489–496.
16. 16 Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D., The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genet. Res. 74 (1999), 329–340.
17. 17 Simmons, M.J., Crow, J.F., Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu. Rev. Genet. 11 (1977), 49–78.
18. 18 Crow, J.F., Mutation, mean fitness, and genetic load. Oxf. Surv. Evolut. Biol. 9 (1993), 3–42.
19. 19 Lee, Y.W., et al. A segregating inversion generates fitness variation in yellow monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus). Genetics 202 (2016), 1473–1484.
20. 20 Hedrick, P.W., et al. Examining the cause of high inbreeding depression: analysis of whole-genome sequence data in 28 selfed progeny of Eucalyptus grandis. New Phytol. 209 (2016), 600–611.
21. 21 Hedrick, P.W., What is the evidence for heterozygote advantage selection?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27 (2012), 698–704.
22. 22 Wright, S., Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16 (1931), 97–159.
23. 23 Pemberton, J., Measuring inbreeding depression in the wild: the old ways are the best. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004), 613–615.
24. 24 Pemberton, J., Wild pedigrees: the way forward. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 275 (2008), 613–621.
25. 25 Franklin, I., The distribution of the proportion of the genome which is homozygous by descent in inbred individuals. Theor. Popul. Biol. 11 (1977), 60–80.
26. 26 Hill, W., Weir, B., Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. Genet. Res. 93 (2011), 47–64.
27. 27 Kardos, M., et al. Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees. Heredity 115 (2015), 63–72.
28. 28 Stam, P., The distribution of the fraction of the genome identical by descent in finite random mating populations. Genet. Res. 35 (1980), 131–155.
29. 29 Wang, J., Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?. Theor. Popul. Biol. 107 (2016), 4–13.
30. 30 Forstmeier, W., et al. Heterozygosity–fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation. Mol. Ecol. 21 (2012), 3237–3249.
31. 31 Huisman, J., et al. Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (2016), 3585–3590.
32. 32 Kardos, M., et al. Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild. Evolut. Appl., 2016 Published online August 17, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/eva.12414.
33. 33 Pryce, J.E., et al. Identification of genomic regions associated with inbreeding depression in Holstein and Jersey dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol., 46, 2014, 71.
34. 34 Morton, N.E., et al. An estimate of the mutational damage in man from data on consanguineous marriages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 42 (1956), 855–863.
35. 35 Kalinowski, S.T., Hedrick, P.W., An improved method for estimating inbreeding depression in pedigrees. Zoo Biol. 17 (1998), 481–497.
36. 36 Armstrong, D., Cassey, P., Estimating the effect of inbreeding on survival. Anim. Conserv. 10 (2007), 487–492.
37. 37 García-Dorado, A., et al. Predictive model and software for inbreeding-purging analysis of pedigreed populations. G3 (Bethesda), 2016 Published online September, 7 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.032425.
38. 38 Álvarez, G., et al. Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 114 (2015), 474–483.
39. 39 Ralls, K., et al. Inbreeding and juvenile mortality in small populations of ungulates. Science 206 (1979), 1101–1103.
40. 40 Jiménez, J.A., et al. An experimental study of inbreeding depression in a natural habitat. Science 266 (1994), 271–273.
41. 41 Grueber, C.E., et al. Inbreeding Depression Accumulation across Life-History Stages of the Endangered Takahe. Conserv. Biol. 24 (2010), 1617–1625.
42. 42 Hoeck, P.E., et al. Effects of inbreeding and parental incubation on captive breeding success in Hawaiian crows. Biol. Cons. 184 (2015), 357–364.
43. 43 Szulkin, M., et al. Inbreeding depression along a life-history continuum in the great tit. J. Evol. Biol. 20 (2007), 1531–1543.
44. 44 Kruuk, L.E., et al. Severe inbreeding depression in collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 269 (2002), 1581–1589.
45. 45 Jensen, H., et al. Multilocus heterozygosity and inbreeding depression in an insular house sparrow metapopulation. Mol. Ecol. 16 (2007), 4066–4078.
46. 46 Walling, C.A., et al. Inbreeding depression in red deer calves. BMC Evol. Biol., 11, 2011, 318.
47. 47 García-Dorado, A., et al. The build up of mutation–selection–drift balance in laboratory Drosophila populations. Evolution 61 (2007), 653–665.
48. 48 de Cara, M.Á.R., et al. Purging deleterious mutations in conservation programmes: combining optimal contributions with inbred matings. Heredity 110 (2013), 530–537.
49. 49 Wang, J., Effects of population structures and selection strategies on the purging of inbreeding depression due to deleterious mutations. Genet. Res. 76 (2000), 75–86.
50. 50 García-Dorado, A., On the consequences of ignoring purging on genetic recommendations for minimum viable population rules. Heredity, 115, 2015, 3.
51. 51 Bersabé, D., et al. On the Consequences of Purging and Linkage on Fitness and Genetic Diversity. G3 (Bethesda) 6 (2016), 171–181.
52. 52 García-Dorado, A., On the consequences of ignoring purging on genetic recommendations for minimum viable population rules. Heredity 115 (2015), 185–187.
53. 53 Ávila, V., et al. The purge of genetic load through restricted panmixia in a Drosophila experiment. J. Evol. Biol. 23 (2010), 1937–1946.
54. 54 Bersabé, D., García-Dorado, A., On the genetic parameter determining the efficiency of purging: an estimate for Drosophila egg-to-pupae viability. J. Evol. Biol. 26 (2013), 375–385.
55. 55 Pekkala, N., et al. Inbreeding rate modifies the dynamics of genetic load in small populations. Ecol. Evol. 2 (2012), 1791–1804.
56. 56 Laws, R., Jamieson, I., Is lack of evidence of inbreeding depression in a threatened New Zealand robin indicative of reduced genetic load?. Anim. Conserv. 14 (2011), 47–55.
57. 57 Kennedy, E.S., et al. Severe inbreeding depression and no evidence of purging in an extremely inbred wild species – the Chatham Island black robin. Evolution 68 (2014), 987–995.
58. 58 García-Dorado, A., Tolerant versus sensitive genomes: the impact of deleterious mutation on fitness and conservation. Conserv. Genet. 4 (2003), 311–324.
59. 59 Lynch, M., et al. Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. Am. Nat., 1995, 489–518.
60. 60 Templeton, A.R., Read, B., The elimination of inbreeding depression in a captive herd of Speke's gazelle. Schoenwald-Cox, et al. (eds.) Genetics and Conservation, 1983, Benjamin/Cummings, 241–261.
61. 61 Kalinowski, S.T., et al. Inbreeding depression in the Speke's gazelle captive breeding program. Conserv. Biol. 14 (2000), 1375–1384.
62. 62 Weiser, E.L., et al. Unexpected positive and negative effects of continuing inbreeding in one of the world's most inbred wild animals. Evolution 70 (2016), 154–166.
63. 63 Whiteley, A.R., et al. Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30 (2015), 42–49.
64. 64 Johnson, W.E., et al. Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science 329 (2010), 1641–1645.
65. 65 Madsen, T., et al. Conservation biology: restoration of an inbred adder population. Nature 402 (1999), 34–35.
66. 66 Hogg, J.T., et al. Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 273 (2006), 1491–1499.
67. 67 Westemeier, R.L., et al. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science 282 (1998), 1695–1698.
68. 68 Adams, J.R., et al. Genomic sweep and potential genetic rescue during limiting environmental conditions in an isolated wolf population. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 278 (2011), 3336–3344.
69. 69 Fredrickson, R.J., et al. Genetic rescue and inbreeding depression in Mexican wolves. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 274 (2007), 2365–2371.
70. 70 Vilà, C., et al. Rescue of a severely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupus) population by a single immigrant. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 270 (2003), 91–97.
71. 71 Frankham, R., Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 24 (2015), 2610–2618.
72. 72 Hedrick, P.W., et al. Genetic rescue in Isle Royale wolves: genetic analysis and the collapse of the population. Conserv. Genet. 15 (2014), 1111–1121.
73. 73 Hedrick, P.W., Fredrickson, R., Genetic rescue guidelines with examples from Mexican wolves and Florida panthers. Conserv. Genet. 11 (2010), 615–626.
74. 74 Hedrick, P.W., Gene flow and genetic restoration: the Florida panther as a case study. Conserv. Biol. 9 (1995), 996–1007.
75. 75 Hoffman, J.I., et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals inbreeding depression in a natural population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111 (2014), 3775–3780.
76. 76 Dobrynin, P., et al. Genomic legacy of the African cheetah, Acinonyx jubatus. Genome Biol. 16 (2015), 1–20.
77. 77 Keller, M.C., et al. Quantification of inbreeding due to distant ancestors and its detection using dense single nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics 189 (2011), 237–249.
78. 78 Purcell, S., et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81 (2007), 559–575.
79. 79 Chapman, J., et al. A quantitative review of heterozygosity–fitness correlations in animal populations. Mol. Ecol. 18 (2009), 2746–2765.
80. 80 Henn, B.M., et al. Estimating the mutation load in human genomes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 16 (2015), 333–343.
81. 81 Boyko, A.R., et al. Assessing the evolutionary impact of amino acid mutations in the human genome. PLoS Genet., 4, 2008, e1000083.
82. 82 Henn, B.M., et al. Distance from sub-Sahara Africa predicts mutational load in diverse human genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 (2016), E440–E449.
83. 83 Lohmueller, K.E., The distribution of deleterious genetic variation in human populations. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 29 (2014), 139–146.
84. 84 Peischl, S., et al. On the accumulation of deleterious mutations during range expansions. Mol. Ecol. 22 (2013), 5972–5982.