k-mer-based diversity scales with population size proxies more than nucleotide diversity in a meta-analysis of 98 plant species.

IF 3.7 1区 生物学 Q2 EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Evolution Letters Pub Date : 2025-06-12 eCollection Date: 2025-08-01 DOI:10.1093/evlett/qraf011
Miles D Roberts, Emily B Josephs
{"title":"<i>k</i>-mer-based diversity scales with population size proxies more than nucleotide diversity in a meta-analysis of 98 plant species.","authors":"Miles D Roberts, Emily B Josephs","doi":"10.1093/evlett/qraf011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A key prediction of neutral theory is that the level of genetic diversity in a population should scale with population size. However, as was noted by Richard Lewontin in 1974 and reaffirmed by later studies, the slope of the population size-diversity relationship in nature is much weaker than expected under neutral theory. We hypothesize that one contributor to this paradox is that current methods relying on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) called from aligning short reads to a reference genome underestimate levels of genetic diversity in many species. As a first step to testing this idea, we calculated nucleotide diversity ( <math><mi>π</mi></math> ) and <math><mi>k</mi></math> -mer-based metrics of genetic diversity across 112 plant species, amounting to over 205 terabases of DNA sequencing data from 27,488 individuals. After excluding 14 species with low coverage or no variant sites called, we compared how different diversity metrics correlated with proxies of population size that account for both range size and population density variation across species. We found that our population size proxies scaled anywhere from about 3 to over 20 times faster with <math><mi>k</mi></math> -mer diversity than nucleotide diversity after adjusting for evolutionary history, mating system, life cycle habit, cultivation status, and invasiveness. The relationship between <math><mi>k</mi></math> -mer diversity and population size proxies also remains significant after correcting for genome size, whereas the analogous relationship for nucleotide diversity does not. These results are consistent with the possibility that variation not captured by common SNP-based analyses explains part of Lewontin's paradox in plants, but larger scale pangenomic studies are needed to definitively address this question.</p>","PeriodicalId":48629,"journal":{"name":"Evolution Letters","volume":"9 4","pages":"434-445"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12448231/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolution Letters","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/evlett/qraf011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A key prediction of neutral theory is that the level of genetic diversity in a population should scale with population size. However, as was noted by Richard Lewontin in 1974 and reaffirmed by later studies, the slope of the population size-diversity relationship in nature is much weaker than expected under neutral theory. We hypothesize that one contributor to this paradox is that current methods relying on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) called from aligning short reads to a reference genome underestimate levels of genetic diversity in many species. As a first step to testing this idea, we calculated nucleotide diversity ( π ) and k -mer-based metrics of genetic diversity across 112 plant species, amounting to over 205 terabases of DNA sequencing data from 27,488 individuals. After excluding 14 species with low coverage or no variant sites called, we compared how different diversity metrics correlated with proxies of population size that account for both range size and population density variation across species. We found that our population size proxies scaled anywhere from about 3 to over 20 times faster with k -mer diversity than nucleotide diversity after adjusting for evolutionary history, mating system, life cycle habit, cultivation status, and invasiveness. The relationship between k -mer diversity and population size proxies also remains significant after correcting for genome size, whereas the analogous relationship for nucleotide diversity does not. These results are consistent with the possibility that variation not captured by common SNP-based analyses explains part of Lewontin's paradox in plants, but larger scale pangenomic studies are needed to definitively address this question.

在98种植物物种的荟萃分析中,基于k-mer的多样性量表比核苷酸多样性更能代表种群大小。
中性理论的一个关键预测是种群的遗传多样性水平应与种群规模成比例。然而,正如Richard Lewontin在1974年所指出的,以及后来的研究所重申的那样,自然界中种群规模-多样性关系的斜率比中性理论所预期的要弱得多。我们假设,造成这一悖论的一个原因是,目前的方法依赖于单核苷酸多态性(SNPs),即通过将短读段与参考基因组进行比对,低估了许多物种的遗传多样性水平。作为验证这一想法的第一步,我们计算了112种植物物种的核苷酸多样性(π)和基于k -mer的遗传多样性指标,总计来自27,488个个体的DNA测序数据超过205太碱基。在排除了14个低覆盖度或无变异点的物种后,我们比较了不同多样性指标与种群大小的相关性,这些指标可以解释物种间的范围大小和种群密度变化。我们发现,在调整了进化史、交配系统、生活周期习惯、培养状态和入侵性之后,我们的种群规模代理在任何地方的扩张速度都比核苷酸多样性快3到20倍。在校正基因组大小后,k -mer多样性与种群大小之间的关系仍然显著,而核苷酸多样性的类似关系则不显著。这些结果与一种可能性是一致的,即普通的基于snp的分析无法捕捉到的变异可以部分解释植物中的列万廷悖论,但需要更大规模的全基因组研究来明确地解决这个问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evolution Letters
Evolution Letters EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY-
CiteScore
13.00
自引率
2.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Evolution Letters publishes cutting-edge new research in all areas of Evolutionary Biology. Available exclusively online, and entirely open access, Evolution Letters consists of Letters - original pieces of research which form the bulk of papers - and Comments and Opinion - a forum for highlighting timely new research ideas for the evolutionary community.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信