Table 4 Nucleotide diversity for X and Z chromosome (compared with diversity for autosomal loci) as a proportion of that expected from neutral theory (corrected for differences in copy number and mutation rates)

From: How closely does genetic diversity in finite populations conform to predictions of neutral theory? Large deficits in regions of low recombination

Chromosomal comparison Species

Proportion of neutral expectation

References

X:autosomes

 Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes verus)

0.82

1, 2

 Humans

0.88

3

 Humans

0.94

1, 2

 Humans

0.81, 0.85, 1.01

4

 

1.45, 1.34, 1.20

 
 

1.29, 1.59, 1.56

 

 Humans

0.87, 0.95, 1.11, 1.37

5

 Humans

1.02, 0.85, 0.82

6

 Humans

0.83

2, 7

 Humans

1.37

2, 8

 Mus musculus

0.91

9

 M. musculus (two sub-species)

0.91, 0.76

10

 Drosophila melanogaster

0.83

9

 D. melanogaster

1.03

11

 D. melanogaster

1.16, 1.96

12

 D. melanogaster

1.36, 1.27

13

 D. melanogaster (with comparative recombination)

1.57

14, 15

 

0.97

15

 Drosophila simulans

0.64

9

 D. simulans

0.61

11

 D. simulans

1.02, 1.33

12

 Silene latifolia

1.10

16

Z:autosomes

 Chickens

0.35

17

 Collared flycatcher

0.45

18

 Pied flycatcher

0.56

18

 White-throated sparrow

0.09

17, 19

  1. References: 1, Stone et al. (2002); 2, Ellegren (2007); 3, Sachidanandam et al. (2001); 4, Bustamante and Ramachandran (2009); 5, Hammer et al. (2010); 6, Keinan et al. (2009); 7, Stephens et al. (2001); 8, Yu et al. (2002); 9, Hedrick and Parker (1997); 10, Baines and Harr (2007); 11, Zurovcova and Eanes (1999); 12, Andolfatto (2001); 13, Singh et al. (2007); 14, Vicoso and Charlesworth (2009); 15, Hutter and Stephan (2009); 16, Qiu et al. (2010); 17, Sundström et al. (2004); 18, Borge et al. (2005); 19, Huynh et al. (2010).
  2. The neutral expectation is 1.
Back to article page