Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 76, Issue 2–4, pp 329–339 | Cite as

Analysis of F ST outliers at allozyme loci in Pacific salmon: implications for natural selection



Natural selection has been invoked to explain the observed geographic distribution of allozyme allele frequencies for a number of teleost species. The effects of selection on allozyme loci in three species of Pacific salmon were tested. A simulation-based approach to estimate the null distribution of population differentiation (F ST) and test for F ST outliers was used. This approach showed that a majority of allozyme loci conform to neutral expectations predicted by the simulation model, with relatively few F ST outliers found. No consistent F ST outlier loci were found across species. Analysis of population sub-groups based on geography and genetic identity reduced the number of outlier loci for some species, indicating that large geographic groups may include genetically divergent populations and/or that there is geographic heterogeneity in selection pressure upon allozyme loci. Two outlier allozyme loci found in this analysis, lactate dehydrogenase-B and malic enzyme, have been shown to be influenced by selection in other teleost species. This approach is also useful in identifying allozyme loci (or other genetic markers) that meet assumptions for population genetic study.


Directional selection Neutrality Oncorhynchus Population structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



A.A. is funded by a UCOP postdoctoral fellowship. This manuscript has benefited from comments and discussion from J. C. Garza, K. P. Kamer, C. Lemaire, and two anonymous reviewers.


  1. Allendorf FW, Knudsen KL, Leary RF (1983) Adaptive significance of differences in the tissue-specific expression of a phosphoglucomutase gene in rainbow trout. Proc Natl Acad Sci (USA) 80:1397–1400CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. Avise JC (2004) Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartley D, Gall GAE, Bentley B, Brodziak J, Gomulkiewicz R, Mangel M (1992) Geographic-variation in population genetic-structure of Chinook salmon from California and Oregon. Fish Bull 90:77–100Google Scholar
  4. Beaumont MA (2005) Adaptation and speciation: what can FST tell us? Trends Ecol Evol 20:435–440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaumont MA, Nichols RA (1996) Evaluating loci for use in the genetic analysis of population structure. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 263:1619–1626ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. Burridge CP, Hurt AC, Farrington LW, Coutin PC, Austin CM (2004) Stepping stone gene flow in an estuarine-dwelling sparid from south-east Australia. J Fish Biol 64:805–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carfagna M, Fucci L, Gaudio L, Pontecorvo G, Rubino R (1980) Adaptive value of PGM polymorphisms in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res 36:265–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geertjes GJ, Postema J, Kamping A, van Delden W, Videler JJ, van de Zande L (2004) Allozymes and RAPDs detect little genetic population substructuring in the Caribbean stoplight parrotfish Sparisoma viride. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 279:225–235Google Scholar
  9. Luikart G, England PR, Tallmon D, Jordan S, Taberlet P (2003) The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nat Genet Rev 4:981–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McDonald JH (1994) Detecting natural selection by comparing geographic variation in protein and DNA polymorphisms. In: Golding B (ed) Non-neutral evolution. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York, USA, pp 88–100Google Scholar
  11. Oakshott JG, Wilson SR, Parnell P (1985) Selective effects of temperature on some enzyme polymorphisms in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 55:69–82Google Scholar
  12. Phelps SR, Leclair LL, Young S, Blankenship HL (1994) Genetic diversity patterns of chum salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:65–83Google Scholar
  13. Powers DA, Schulte PM (1998) Evolutionary adaptations of gene structure and expression in natural populations in relation to a changing environment: a multidisciplinary approach to address the million-year saga of a small fish. J Exp Zool 282:71–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Raeymaekers JAM, Maes GE, Audenaert E, Volckaert FAM (2005) Detecting Holocene divergence in the anadromous-freshwater three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) system. Mol Ecol 14:1001–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ropson IJ, Brown DC, Powers DA (1990) Biochemical genetics of Fundulus heteroclitus (L.) VI. Geographical variation in the gene frequencies at 15 loci. Evolution 44:16–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sassaman C, Yoshiyama RM, Darling JDS (1983) Temporal stability of lactate dehydrogenase-A clines of the high cockscomb, Anoplarchus purpurescens. Evolution 37:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shaklee JB, Allendorf FW, Morizot DC, Whitt GS (1990) Gene nomencalture for the protein-coding loci in fish. Trans Am Fish Soc 119:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shaklee JB, Bentzen P (1998) Genetic identification of stocks of marine fish and shellfish. Bull Mar Sci 62:589–621Google Scholar
  19. Storz JF (2005) Using genome scans of DNA polymorphism to infer adaptive population divergence. Mol Ecol 14:671–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Storz JF, Nachman MW (2003) Natural selection on protein polymorphism in the rodent genus Peromyscus: evidence from interlocus contrasts. Evolution 57:2628–2635PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Varnavskaya NV, Wood CC, Everett RJ (1994) Genetic variation in sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) populations of Asia and North America. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:142–146Google Scholar
  22. Vespoor E, Jordan WC (1989) Genetic variation at the Me-2 locus in the Atlantic salmon within and between rivers: evidence for its selective maintenance. J Fish Biol 35:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Verrelli BC, Eanes WF (2000) Extensive amino acid polymorphism at the Pgm locus is consistent with adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 156:1737–1752Google Scholar
  24. Vitalis R, Dawson K, Boursot P (2001) Interpretation of variation across marker loci as evidence of selection. Genetics 158:1811–1823PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Waples RS, Teel DJ, Myers JM, Marshall AR (2004) Life-history divergence in Chinook salmon: historic contingency and parallel evolution. Evolution 58:386–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williams GC, Koehn RC, Mitton JB (1973) Genetic differentiation without isolation in the American eel, Anguilla rostrata. Evolution 27:192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilmot RL, Burger CV (1985) Genetic differences among populations of Alaskan sockeye salmon. Trans Am Fish Soc 114:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilmot RL, Everett RJ, Spearman WJ, Baccus R, Varnavskaya NV, Putivkin SV (1994) Genetic stock structure of Western Alaska chum salmon and a comparison with Russian far-East stocks. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:84–94Google Scholar
  29. Winans GA, Paquin MM, Van Doornik DM, Baker BM, Thornton P, Rawding D, Marshall A, Moran P, Kalinowski S (2004) Genetic stock identification of steelhead in the Columbia River Basin: an evaluation of different molecular markers. N Am J Fish Manage 24:672–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wood CC, Riddell BE, Rutherford DT, Withler RE (1994) Biochemical genetic survey of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Canada. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 51:114–131Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center Santa CruzUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ocean SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations