DNA profile match probabilities in a subdivided population: when can subdivision be ignored?

Li and Chakravarti [Li, C.C. & Chakravarti, A. (1994) Hum. Hered. 44, 100-109] compared the probability (MO) of a random match between the two DNA profiles of a pair of individuals drawn from a random-mating population to the probability (MF) of the match between a pair of random individuals drawn from a subdivided population. The level of heterogeneity in this subdivided population is measured by the parameter F, where there is no subdivision when F = 0 and increasing values of F indicate increasing subdivisions. Li and Chakravarti concluded that it is conservative to use the match probability MO, which is derived under the assumption that the two individuals are drawn from a homogeneous random-mating population without subdivision. However, MO may not be always greater than MF, even for biologically reasonable values of F. We explore here those mathematical conditions under which MO is less than MF, and we find that MO is not conservative mainly when there is an allele with a much higher frequency than all the other alleles. When empirical data for both variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) and short tandem repeat (STR) systems are evaluated, we find that in the majority of cases MO represents a conservative probability of a match, and so the subdivision of human populations may usually be ignored for a random match, although not, of course, for relatives. Loci for which MO is not conservative should be avoided for forensic inference.

Declines of biomes and biotas and the future of evolution

Although panel discussants disagreed whether the biodiversity crisis constitutes a mass extinction event, all agreed that current extinction rates are 50–500 times background and are increasing and that the consequences for the future evolution of life are serious. In response to the on-going rapid decline of biomes and homogenization of biotas, the panelists predicted changes in species geographic ranges, genetic risks of extinction, genetic assimilation, natural selection, mutation rates, the shortening of food chains, the increase in nutrient-enriched niches permitting the ascendancy of microbes, and the differential survival of ecological generalists. Rates of evolutionary processes will change in different groups, and speciation in the larger vertebrates is essentially over. Action taken over the next few decades will determine how impoverished the biosphere will be in 1,000 years when many species will suffer reduced evolvability and require interventionist genetic and ecological management. Whether the biota will continue to provide the dependable ecological services humans take for granted is less clear. The discussants offered recommendations, including two of paramount importance (concerning human populations and education), seven identifying specific scientific activities to better equip us for stewardship of the processes of evolution, and one suggesting that such stewardship is now our responsibility. The ultimate test of evolutionary biology as a science is not whether it solves the riddles of the past but rather whether it enables us to manage the future of the biosphere. Our inability to make clearer predictions about the future of evolution has serious consequences for both biodiversity and humanity.