F statistics in Drosophila buzzatii: selection, population size and inbreeding.
Open accessAbstract
Drosophila buzzatii is confined to reproducing in a well defined patchy environment consisting of rotting cactus cladodes which are ephemeral, permitting at most three generations. Flies emerging from such rots were used to estimate the additive genetic variance within rots and the genetic variance between rots for body size and also were electrophoresed to determine their genotypes at six polymorphic loci. F statistics were estimated from body size and allozyme data. The FST derived from body size was significantly larger than the allozyme FST. It is proposed this is due to selective differentiation of body size. The allozyme FST is used to estimate effective population size: 10 < N < 50. It is suggested that the regularly observed positive FIS's could be due to partial sib mating, S. If so, the estimated lower bound is S = 0.258. Experiments are identified which could support or contradict these interpretations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By testing whether QST is significantly greater than FST, it is possible to determine whether there is more genetically explained trait variation among populations than expected under neutral evolution.
“Thus, by testing whether QST is significantly greater than FST, it is possible to determine whether there is more genetically explained trait variation among populations than expected under neutral evolution (28–31).”
From Heritability within groups is uninformative about differences among groups: Cases from behavioral, evolutionary, and statistical genetics (2024) · cites this paper as [28]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Testing for Spatially Divergent Selection: Comparing <i>Q</i>ST to <i>F</i>ST
Whitlock, M. C., & Guillaume, F. (2009) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.108.099812 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Schraiber, J. G., & Edge, M. D. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2319496121 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Prout, T., & Barker, J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- ORCID
- Barker, J S
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-05-01
- Volume
- 134
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 369-375
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2153796254
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Genetics (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- Drosophila buzzatii, F-statistic, FST, FIS, inbreeding, effective population size, selection, body size, additive genetic variance, allozyme variation, sib mating, patchy environment, ephemeral habitats
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Biometry, Body Constitution, Drosophila, Enzymes, Female, Gene Frequency, Genotype, Inbreeding, Male, Population Density, Selection, Genetic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
