1 INRA, UMR 0985 ESE, INRA/Agrocampus Ouest, Ecotoxicologie et Qualité des Milieux Aquatiques, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, 35042 Rennes, France INRA, UE 1036.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ANALYSIS OF SELECTIVE DNA POOLING DATA IN FOX Joanna Szyda, Magdalena Zatoń-Dobrowolska, Heliodor Wierzbicki, Anna Rząsa.
Advertisements

LSU-HSC School of Public Health Biostatistics 1 Statistical Core Didactic Introduction to Biostatistics Donald E. Mercante, PhD.
Sensitivity Analysis for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE  Gerry Quinn & Mick Keough, 1998 Do not copy or distribute without permission of authors. One factor.
Sandy Raimondo Mace G. Barron Office of Research and Development/NHEERL Gulf Ecology Division 2 November 2005 Development and Improvement of ICE/ACE for.
10-1 Introduction 10-2 Inference for a Difference in Means of Two Normal Distributions, Variances Known Figure 10-1 Two independent populations.
SADC Course in Statistics Comparing Means from Independent Samples (Session 12)
Tjalling Jager molecular genetics evolutionary ecology dynamic energy budgets Mechanisms behind life- history trade-offs.
Chapter 3 Analysis of Variance
Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft® Excel 5th Edition
Inbreeding. inbreeding coefficient F – probability that given alleles are identical by descent - note: homozygotes may arise in population from unrelated.
Analysis of variance (3). Normality Check Frequency histogram (Skewness & Kurtosis) Probability plot, K-S test Normality Check Frequency histogram (Skewness.
13-1 Designing Engineering Experiments Every experiment involves a sequence of activities: Conjecture – the original hypothesis that motivates the.
Lecture 10 Comparison and Evaluation of Alternative System Designs.
Chapter 2 Simple Comparative Experiments
Today Concepts underlying inferential statistics
5-3 Inference on the Means of Two Populations, Variances Unknown
Quantitative Genetics
Lorelei Howard and Nick Wright MfD 2008
Linear Regression/Correlation
13 Design and Analysis of Single-Factor Experiments:
1/2555 สมศักดิ์ ศิวดำรงพงศ์
5-1 Introduction 5-2 Inference on the Means of Two Populations, Variances Known Assumptions.
Biodiversity IV: genetics and conservation
1 Design of Engineering Experiments Part 2 – Basic Statistical Concepts Simple comparative experiments –The hypothesis testing framework –The two-sample.
Banbury october 2007 Michel Veuille Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes - Paris1 Can we extend intraspecific population genetics to community population.
Health and Disease in Populations 2001 Sources of variation (2) Jane Hutton (Paul Burton)
10-1 Introduction 10-2 Inference for a Difference in Means of Two Normal Distributions, Variances Known Figure 10-1 Two independent populations.
1 ICEBOH Split-mouth studies and systematic reviews Ian Needleman 1 & Helen Worthington 2 1 Unit of Periodontology UCL Eastman Dental Institute International.
Charge Question 5-1 Comment Summary for HHCB Peer Review Panel Meeting January 9, 2014.
POTH 612A Quantitative Analysis Dr. Nancy Mayo. © Nancy E. Mayo A Framework for Asking Questions Population Exposure (Level 1) Comparison Level 2 OutcomeTimePECOT.
University of Ottawa - Bio 4118 – Applied Biostatistics © Antoine Morin and Scott Findlay 08/10/ :23 PM 1 Some basic statistical concepts, statistics.
Beak of the Finch Natural Selection Statistical Analysis.
Ecology 8310 Population (and Community) Ecology. Context.
Incorporating heterogeneity in meta-analyses: A case study Liz Stojanovski University of Newcastle Presentation at IBS Taupo, New Zealand, 2009.
Chapter 6: Random Errors in Chemical Analysis CHE 321: Quantitative Chemical Analysis Dr. Jerome Williams, Ph.D. Saint Leo University.
Assume we have two experimental conditions (j=1,2) We measure expression of all genes n times under both experimental conditions (n two- channel.
Chapter 4 analysis of variance (ANOVA). Section 1 the basic idea and condition of application.
Background o Pesticides are broadly used by humans to control and eliminate unwanted species of insects and plants. o More than one billion pounds of pesticides.
Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft Excel, 4e © 2004 Prentice-Hall, Inc. Chap 10-1 Chapter 10 Analysis of Variance Statistics for Managers Using Microsoft.
MALE REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS IN SOUTHERN ELEPHANT SEALS BEHAVIOURAL ESTIMATES AND GENETIC PATERNITY INTRODUCTION The southern elephant is the species with.
Experimental Design and Data Structure Supplement to Lecture 8 Fall
1 Inferences About The Pearson Correlation Coefficient.
Lecture 9-1 Analysis of Variance
CHEMISTRY ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Fall Lecture 6.
Impact of Air Pollution on Public Health: Transportability of Risk Estimates Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS NERAM V October 16, 2006 Vancouver, B.C. Department.
Single-Factor Studies KNNL – Chapter 16. Single-Factor Models Independent Variable can be qualitative or quantitative If Quantitative, we typically assume.
Retain H o Refute hypothesis and model MODELS Explanations or Theories OBSERVATIONS Pattern in Space or Time HYPOTHESIS Predictions based on model NULL.
Aquatic mesocosms for data validation : interest, limitations and recommandations Laurent Lagadic & Thierry Caquet Équipe Écotoxicologie et Qualité des.
Anthony Greene1 Two Sample t-test: Hypothesis of Differences Between Two Groups 1.Is Group “A” Different Than Group “B”? 2.Does an Experimental Manipulation.
- We have samples for each of two conditions. We provide an answer for “Are the two sample means significantly different from each other, or could both.
T Test for Two Independent Samples. t test for two independent samples Basic Assumptions Independent samples are not paired with other observations Null.
Chapter 10 Statistical Inference for Two Samples More than one but less than three! Chapter 10B < X
IE241: Introduction to Design of Experiments. Last term we talked about testing the difference between two independent means. For means from a normal.
A Global Review of Methodologies for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment.
Business Statistics: Contemporary Decision Making, 3e, by Black. © 2001 South-Western/Thomson Learning 8-1 Business Statistics, 3e by Ken Black Chapter.
Biology-Based Modelling Tjalling Jager Bas Kooijman Dept. Theoretical Biology.
SUMMARY EQT 271 MADAM SITI AISYAH ZAKARIA SEMESTER /2015.
Model Comparison. Assessing alternative models We don’t ask “Is the model right or wrong?” We ask “Do the data support a model more than a competing model?”
Linear model. a type of regression analyses statistical method – both the response variable (Y) and the explanatory variable (X) are continuous variables.
Measurement, Quantification and Analysis
Natural Variation and the Genetic Basis of
Modify—use bio. IB book  IB Biology Topic 1: Statistical Analysis
Using extrapolation to support a pediatric investigational plan: an application in liver transplantation development Thomas Dumortier, Martin Fink, Ovidiu.
12 Inferential Analysis.
Chapter 11 Analysis of Variance
12 Inferential Analysis.
Psych 231: Research Methods in Psychology
Chapter 29 Genetics and Diabetes
Psych 231: Research Methods in Psychology
Presentation transcript:

1 INRA, UMR 0985 ESE, INRA/Agrocampus Ouest, Ecotoxicologie et Qualité des Milieux Aquatiques, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, Rennes, France INRA, UE 1036 U3E, Unité Expérimentale d’Ecologie et Ecotoxicologie Aquatique, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, Rennes, France 3 ISAE, Institut en Santé Agro-Environnement, France References – [1] Besnard et al Molecular Ecology Resources, Permanent Genetic Resource Note 13: [2] Leinonen et al Nature Reviews Genetics 14, 179–190. [3]Bonnin et al Genetics 143, 1795–1805. [4] Bouétard et al PLoS ONE, 9: e [5] Whitlock. M.C., Guillaume, F Genetics 183, 1055–1063. Objectives  Investigate the evolutionary potential of pesticide tolerance in populations of a non-target species  Estimate the relative influence of neutral versus selective forces on genetic variation in tolerance Context = ecological risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides Biological relevance of standard toxicity testing: importance of intraspecific variation Long-term impact: incorporation of genetic and evolutionary criteria to future risk assessment procedures Questions and global approach Genetics of copper tolerance? description of within- and between-population variation Population genetic divergence? comparison of tolerance patterns to neutral genetic divergence Species vs population level relevance of a standard test? proposal of an assessment method Objectives  Investigate the evolutionary potential of pesticide tolerance in populations of a non-target species  Estimate the relative influence of neutral versus selective forces on genetic variation in tolerance Context = ecological risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides Biological relevance of standard toxicity testing: importance of intraspecific variation Long-term impact: incorporation of genetic and evolutionary criteria to future risk assessment procedures Questions and global approach Genetics of copper tolerance? description of within- and between-population variation Population genetic divergence? comparison of tolerance patterns to neutral genetic divergence Species vs population level relevance of a standard test? proposal of an assessment method Common-garden experiment (8 Lymnaea stagnalis populations, North-Western Europe)  Population neutral divergence, 14 microsatellite loci [1]: Global F ST = 0.388; 95% CI = [0.354;0.430]  Estimation of copper tolerance (CuSO 4, 5H 2 O): global LC 50 estimation from a range finding test based on a balanced pool of each population and family representatives (8 concentrations, mg/L). exposure of 8 families (F1s) per population to global 48h-LC50 ( 3 replicate groups of 10 individuals per familiy) CONCLUSIONS  Strong population genetic divergence in copper tolerance, consistent with neutral differentiation  Divergence pattern inconsistent with homogenizing selection, i.e., with the condition required to safely extrapolate population-level results to the species level  Need to account for intra-specific variation in standard toxicity testing: Q ST -F ST approach applicable to this context. CONCLUSIONS  Strong population genetic divergence in copper tolerance, consistent with neutral differentiation  Divergence pattern inconsistent with homogenizing selection, i.e., with the condition required to safely extrapolate population-level results to the species level  Need to account for intra-specific variation in standard toxicity testing: Q ST -F ST approach applicable to this context. Acknowledgements - Work funded by INRA-ONEMA Action « Phylogeny and Polluosensitivity ». Rearing and experimentations performed at INRA U3E, Rennes. Acknowledgements - Work funded by INRA-ONEMA Action « Phylogeny and Polluosensitivity ». Rearing and experimentations performed at INRA U3E, Rennes. Lymnaea stagnalis Cliché M. Collinet (INRA) Control Marie-Agnès Coutellec 1, Jessica Côte 1, Anthony Bouétard 1, Yannick Pronost 2, Maïra Coke 2, Anne-Laure Besnard 1, Fabien Piquet 3, Thierry Caquet 1 Genetic variation of Lymnaea stagnalis tolerance to copper: a test of selection hypotheses and its relevance for ecological risk assessment with: genetic variance between (Vb) and within populations (Vw) inbreeding coefficient (f)  Genetic variance decomposition: Q ST approach [2-4] Observed patternTheoretical Evolutionary Expectation Consistency with toxicity assessment at the species level Q ST = F ST Neutral divergence (no selection involved)If F ST significant: NO Q ST > F ST Divergent selection (local adaptation)NO Q ST < F ST Homogenizing selection or trait canalizationYES population: ModelAIC logLikelihood ratio test “model j vs model i ”: P-value (df) Copper sensitivity M1 = Y ~ treatment + size+ (1|population/family)784.7 M2 = Y ~ treatment + size (1|population) (M2 vs M1) M3 = Y ~ treatment + size (1|family)801.3<0.001 (M3 vs M1) M4 = Y ~treatment + (1|population/family) (M4 vs M1) M5 = Y ~size + (1|population/family)1047.9<0.001 (M5 vs M1) Shell size M1 = size ~ treatment + (1|population/family)474.1 M2 = Y ~ treatment + (1|population)549.9<0.001 (M2 vs M1) M3 = Y ~ treatment + (1|family)486.9<0.001 (M3 vs M1) M4 = Y ~1 + (1|population/family) (M4 vs M1) Table 2. Summary of statistical tests performed on shell size and observed 96-h mortality. Generalized linear mixed effects models compared with a LogLikelihood ratio test (P-value). AIC = Akaike information criterion (in bold: best model). Trait and statistical model Observed Q ST - F ST Neutral Q ST - F ST 95%CI Left p-value Right p-value Copper sensitivity M 96h ~ treatment+size+(1|pop/fam)0.024[-0.247;0.214] Shell size Size ~ treatment + (1|pop/fam)-0.195[-0.251;0.228] Figure 1. L. stagnalis population reaction norm to copper. Mean percent survival (SE) calculated over 8 families per population. Table 3. Summary of the Q ST -F ST analyses performed on L. stagnalis sensitivity to copper (M 96h = number of dead snails after 96-h exposure) and shell size. Left and right p-values give the probability for the observed difference between Q ST and F ST to fall within the 95% CI of the expected neutral distribution. P F ST ) [5]. Table 1. Summary of theoretical hypotheses testable under the Q ST -F ST approach. Homogenizing selection is a prerequisite for toxicity result extrapolation from population (or single strain) to the species level.