A new individual-based spatial approach for identifying genetic discontinuities in natural populations.

The population concept is central in evolutionary and conservation biology, but identifying the boundaries of natural populations is often challenging. Here, we present a new approach for assessing spatial genetic structure without the a priori assumptions on the locations of populations made by adopting an individual-centred approach. Our method is based on assignment tests applied in a moving window over an extensively sampled study area. For each individual, a spatially explicit probability surface is constructed, showing the estimated probability of finding its multilocus genotype across the landscape, and identifying putative migrants. Population boundaries are localized by estimating the mean slope of these probability surfaces over all individuals to identify areas with genetic discontinuities. The significance of the genetic discontinuities is assessed by permutation tests. This new approach has the potential to reveal cryptic population structure and to improve our ability to understand gene flow dynamics across landscapes. We illustrate our approach by simulations and by analysing two empirical datasets: microsatellite data of Ursus arctos in Scandinavia, and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) data of Rhododendron ferrugineum in the Alps.

How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies.

Genotyping errors occur when the genotype determined after molecular analysis does not correspond to the real genotype of the individual under consideration. Virtually every genetic data set includes some erroneous genotypes, but genotyping errors remain a taboo subject in population genetics, even though they might greatly bias the final conclusions, especially for studies based on individual identification. Here, we consider four case studies representing a large variety of population genetics investigations differing in their sampling strategies (noninvasive or traditional), in the type of organism studied (plant or animal) and the molecular markers used [microsatellites or amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs)]. In these data sets, the estimated genotyping error rate ranges from 0.8% for microsatellite loci from bear tissues to 2.6% for AFLP loci from dwarf birch leaves. Main sources of errors were allelic dropouts for microsatellites and differences in peak intensities for AFLPs, but in both cases human factors were non-negligible error generators. Therefore, tracking genotyping errors and identifying their causes are necessary to clean up the data sets and validate the final results according to the precision required. In addition, we propose the outline of a protocol designed to limit and quantify genotyping errors at each step of the genotyping process. In particular, we recommend (i) several efficient precautions to prevent contaminations and technical artefacts; (ii) systematic use of blind samples and automation; (iii) experience and rigor for laboratory work and scoring; and (iv) systematic reporting of the error rate in population genetics studies.

Assumed and inferred spatial structure of populations: the Scandinavian brown bears revisited.

We reanalysed the spatial structure of the Scandinavian brown bear (Ursus arctos) population based on multilocus genotypes. We used data from a former study that had presumed a priori a specific population subdivision based on four subpopulations. Using two independent methods (neighbour-joining trees and Bayesian assignment tests), we analysed the data without any prior presumption about the spatial structure. A subdivision of the population into three subpopulations emerged from our study. The genetic pattern of these subpopulations matched the three geographical clusters of individuals present in the population. We recommend considering the Scandinavian brown bear population as consisting of three (instead of four) subpopulations. Our results underline the importance of determining genetic structure from the data, without presupposing a structure, even when there seems to be good reason to do so.