Changes in Life History and Population Size Can Explain the Relative Neutral Diversity Levels on X and Autosomes in Extant Human Populations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Changes in life history and population size can explain the relative neutral diversity levels on X and autosomes in extant human populations Guy Amstera,1, David A. Murphya, William R. Milligana, and Guy Sellaa,b,c,1 aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027; bDepartment of Systems Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032; and cProgram for Mathematical Genomics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032 Edited by Brian Charlesworth, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, and approved July 7, 2020 (received for review October 22, 2019) In human populations, the relative levels of neutral diversity on generally—the effects of selection at linked sites should be stronger the X and autosomes differ markedly from each other and from on the X (ref. 18, but see ref. 3). To evaluate these effects empiri- the naïve theoretical expectation of 3/4. Here we propose an ex- cally, several studies have examined how diversity levels on the X and planation for these differences based on new theory about the autosomes vary with genetic distance from putatively selected re- effects of sex-specific life history and given pedigree-based esti- gions, for example from coding and conserved noncoding regions mates of the dependence of human mutation rates on sex and (11, 13–15, 19, 20). In most hominids, including humans, such age. We demonstrate that life history effects, particularly longer comparisons confirm the theoretical expectation that selection at generation times in males than in females, are expected to have linked loci reduces X:A diversity ratios (11, 15, 20). They further had multiple effects on human X-to-autosome (X:A) diversity ra- suggest that the effects are minimal sufficiently far from genes (11, tios, as a result of male-biased mutation rates, the equilibrium X:A 19), thereby providing an opportunity to examine the effects of ratio of effective population sizes, and the differential responses other factors shaping X:A diversity ratios in isolation by considering to changes in population size. We also show that the standard regions that are minimally affected. approach of using divergence between species to correct for male Even far from genes, however, the X:A diversity ratios in mutation bias results in biased estimates of X:A effective popula- humans and other hominids differ from the naïve expectation of tion size ratios. We obtain alternative estimates using pedigree- 3/4 (11, 13, 14). Diversity levels on the X and autosomes are EVOLUTION based estimates of the male mutation bias, which reveal that X:A typically divided by divergence from an outgroup (e.g., diver- ratios of effective population sizes are considerably greater than gence from orangutan or rhesus macaque is used to normalize previously appreciated. Finally, we find that the joint effects of diversity levels in humans) in order to control for the effects of historical changes in life history and population size can explain higher mutation rates in males and variation in mutation rates the observed X:A diversity ratios in extant human populations. along the genome (9). The normalized estimates of X:A diversity Our results suggest that ancestral human populations were highly ratios in regions far from genes range between 3/4 and 1 among polygynous, that non-African populations experienced a substan- human populations, generally decreasing with the distance from tial reduction in polygyny and/or increase in the male-to-female Africa (11, 13, 15). Ratios exceeding 3/4 have also been observed ratio of generation times around the Out-of-Africa bottleneck, and in most other hominids (ref. 14, but see ref. 21). that current diversity levels were affected by fairly recent changes These departures from 3/4 and differences among populations in sex-specific life history. and species have been attributed in part to the effects of demographic history, in particular to historical changes in population size. If we sex chromosomes | autosomes | polymorphism | life history | human Significance eutral polymorphism patterns on the X and autosomes re- Nflect a combination of evolutionary forces. Theory predicts All else being equal, the ratio of diversity levels on X and au- that, all else being equal, the ratio of diversity levels on X and tosomes at selectively neutral sites should mirror the ratio of autosomes at selectively neutral sites should mirror the ratio of their numbers in the population and thus equal 3/4. In reality, their numbers in the population and thus equal 3/4 (1). A the ratios observed across human populations differ markedly complication, however, is that autosomes spend an equal number from 3/4 and from each other. Because, from a population per- of generations in diploid form in both sexes, whereas the X spective, autosomes spend an equal number of generations in spends twice as many generations in diploid form in females as in both sexes, while the X spends twice as many generations in haploid form in males. As a result, the X-to-autosome (X:A) females, these departures from the naïve expectations plausibly diversity ratio can also be shaped by differences in male and reflect differences between male and female life histories and female life history and mutation processes, as well as by differ- their effects on mutation processes. Indeed, we show that the ences in the effects of demographic history and selection at ratios observed across human populations can be explained by linked sites on the X and autosomes. The effects of these factors demographic history, assuming realistic sex-specific mutation have been studied theoretically (2) and in relation to observa- rates, generation times, and reproductive variances. tions in many species (3–8). Notably, their effects on diversity ratios in human populations have attracted considerable interest Author contributions: G.A. and G.S. designed research; G.A. and G.S. performed research; over the past decade (9–15). G.A., D.A.M., and W.R.M. analyzed data; and G.A. and G.S. wrote the paper. The impact of selection at linked sites on neutral diversity The authors declare no competing interest. levels could differ for X and autosomes because of differences in This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. recombination rates, in the density of selected regions, and in the Published under the PNAS license. efficacy and modes of selection. Notably, the hemizygosity of the 1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: [email protected] or gs2747@ X in males leads to a more rapid fixation of partially or fully columbia.edu. recessive beneficial alleles and to a more rapid purging of recessive This article contains supporting information online at https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/ deleterious ones (16, 17). Considering these effects and accounting doi:10.1073/pnas.1915664117/-/DCSupplemental. for recombination rates suggests that in humans—in mammals more First published August 3, 2020. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1915664117 PNAS | August 18, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 33 | 20063–20069 Downloaded by guest on September 27, 2021 assume that the effective population size of the X is generally smaller incorporates sex-specific reproductive variances and correlations than that of autosomes, then changes in population size will have a between the numbers of offspring at different ages. Generation different impact on diversity levels on X and autosomes (5, 22–24). times in females, GF, and in males, GM, are defined as the ex- Notably, population bottlenecks that occurred sufficiently recently, pectations of maternal and paternal ages at birth. Mutation rates such as the Out-of-Africa (OoA) bottleneck in human evolution, will can vary with sex and age, with their per-generation rates in fe- have decreased the X:A diversity ratio, because a greater proportion males, μF, and in males, μM, defined as expectations over parental of X-linked lineages will have coalesced during the bottleneck (24). ages. The expected number of offspring of each sex necessarily Indeed, simulation studies suggest that historical changes in pop- equals 1, but female and male reproductive variances, VF and VM, ulation size have contributed substantially to decreased X:A diversity respectively, may differ due to sex- and age-dependent mortality ratios with the distance from Africa (15). Historical differences be- and fecundity. tween males and females may have also played a role; for example, We show that the X:A ratio of effective population sizes (Ne), male-biased migration or longer male generation times during the defined as half the inverse of the coalescence rates, is OoA bottleneck may have also contributed to the lower X:A ratios in non-Africans (12). f(G =G ) NX NA = 3 · M F [1] Sex differences in life history traits are also likely to have had e / e , 4 f(γM VM +γF =γM ) substantial effects on X:A diversity ratios. The most straight- γF VF +γM =γF forward of these effects arises from sex differences in the vari- ance of offspring numbers, which, for brevity, we refer to as where f(x)=2x+4. We also show that the X:A ratio of expected “ ” 3x+3 reproductive variance. Higher reproductive variance in males diversity levels (i.e., heterozygosities) is than in females causes higher coalescence rates on autosomes and thus increases X:A diversity ratios (2, 9). This increase is E(πX ) 3 f(μM =μF) · f(GM =GF) theoretically bounded by a factor of 3=2 (2). Although probably = . [2] E(π ) γ V +γ =γ much lower in reality, a greater male reproductive variance is A 4 f( M M F M ) γF VF +γM =γF observed in extant hunter-gatherers and hominid species (25), indicating that it plausibly contributed to differences in X:A di- When the mutation rates, generation times, numbers of new- versity ratios among populations, as well as to their departure borns, and reproductive variance are identical in both sexes, the from 3=4.