Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations frommultidimensional SNP frequency data

Ryan N. Gutenkunst,1 Ryan D. Hernandez,2 Scott H. Williamson,3 and Carlos D. Bustamante3

1Theoretical Biology and Biophysics & Center for Nonlinear Studies,Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA2Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

3Biological Statistics and Computational Biology,Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

Demographic models built from genetic data play important roles in illuminating prehistoricalevents and serving as null models in genome scans for selection. We introduce an inference methodbased on the joint frequency spectrum of genetic variants within and between populations. Forcandidate models we numerically compute the expected spectrum using a diffusion approximationto the one-locus two-allele Wright-Fisher process, involving up to three simultaneous populations.Our approach is a composite likelihood scheme, since linkage between neutral loci alters the variancebut not the expectation of the frequency spectrum. We thus use bootstraps incorporating linkageto estimate uncertainties for parameters and significance values for hypothesis tests. Our methodcan also incorporate selection on single sites, predicting the joint distribution of selected allelesamong populations experiencing a bevy of evolutionary forces, including expansions, contractions,migrations, and admixture.

We model human expansion out of Africa and the settlement of the New World, using 5 Mb ofnoncoding DNA resequenced in 68 individuals from 4 populations (YRI, CHB, CEU, and MXL)by the Environmental Genome Project. We infer divergence between West African and Eurasianpopulations 140 thousand years ago (95% confidence interval: 40 – 270 kya). This is earlier thanother genetic studies, in part because we incorporate migration. We estimate the European (CEU)and East Asian (CHB) divergence time to be 23 kya (95% c.i.: 17 – 43 kya), long after archeologicalevidence places modern humans in Europe. Finally, we estimate divergence between East Asians(CHB) and Mexican-Americans (MXL) of 22 kya (95% c.i.: 16.3 – 26.9 kya), and our analysisyields no evidence for subsequent migration. Furthermore, combining our demographic model witha previously estimated distribution of selective effects among newly arising amino acid mutationsaccurately predicts the frequency spectrum of nonsynonymous variants across three continentalpopulations (YRI, CHB, CEU).

Abbreviations: AFS, allele frequency spectrum; CEU, Utah residents of Northern and WesternEuropean ancestry; CHB, Han Chinese from Beijing, China; EGP, Environmental Genome Project;kya, thousands of years ago; LD, linkage disequilibrium; MXL, Los Angeles residents of Mexicanancestry; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; YRI, Yoruba from Ibadan, Nigeria

I. INTRODUCTION

Demographic models inferred from genetic dataplay several important roles in population genet-ics. First, they complement archeological evidencein understanding prehistorical events (such as thenumber and timing of major continental migra-tions) which have left no written record [1, 2]. Sec-ond, they facilitate the search for genetic regionsthat have been targets of non-neutral forces, suchas recent natural selection, by guiding our expecta-tions as to how much sequence and haplotype vari-ation one expects to see in a given genomic region(and, more importantly, the variance around these

expectations) [3]. Finally, existing demographicmodels can guide sampling design for subsequentpopulation or medical genetic studies.

Given their many uses, it is not surprising thatmany studies have inferred demographic models forpopulations of humans and other species [4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

The process of inferring a demographic modelconsistent with a particular data set typicallyinvolves exploring a large parameter space bysimulating the model many times, often usingcoalescent-theory based Monte Carlo approaches.For computational reasons, many of the demo-graphic inference procedures developed thus far

arX

iv:0

909.

0925

v1 [

q-bi

o.PE

] 4

Sep

200

9

2

have focused on single population models or mod-els with multiple populations but no subsequentmigration after subpopulations split (i.e., [4, 5,6, 16, 17], but also see [10, 18]). Methodsthat do consider multiple populations with migra-tion often assume independent non-recombiningregions [7, 19] and do not often scale to genomicsize data sets. Approaches for jointly consideringrecombination and migration often use a restrictedset of summary statistics [9] of the data, whichlimits their statistical power. Finally, complex de-mographic inferences that make use of many sum-mary statistics are often very computationally in-tensive [8, 10, 18], which precludes thorough inves-tigation of their statistical properties.

Here, we develop and apply a computation-ally efficient diffusion-based approach to the prob-lem of demographic inference, based on the multi-population allele frequency spectrum (AFS) (i.e.,the joint distribution of allele frequencies acrossSNPs) [10, 17, 18, 20, 21]. Given a genetic regionsequenced in multiple individuals from each of Ppopulations, the resulting AFS is a P -dimensionalmatrix. Each entry of this matrix records the num-ber of diallelic genetic polymorphisms in whichthe derived allele was found in the correspondingnumber of samples from each population. For ex-ample, if diploid individuals from two populationswere sequenced, with 10 individuals from popula-tion 1 and 5 from population 2, the AFS wouldbe a 21-by-11 matrix (indexed from 0). The [2,0]entry would record the number of polymorphismsfor which the derived allele was seen twice in pop-ulation 1 but never seen in population 2, whilethe [20,5] entry would record polymorphisms forwhich the derived allele was homozygous in all in-dividuals from population 1 and seen 5 times inpopulation 2. If all polymorphic sites possess onlytwo alleles and can be considered independent, theAFS is a complete summary of the data. Manyof the statistics commonly used for population ge-netic inference, such as FST and Tajima’s D, aresummaries of the AFS (see [18, 22]).

Efficient techniques exist for simulating the AFSof a single population [4, 5, 23]. The joint AFS be-tween two populations has been used by severalrecent studies [10, 11, 18, 24], but these have allrelied upon very computationally intensive coales-cent simulations. Here we approximate the jointmulti-population AFS by numerical solution of adiffusion equation, and our implementation sup-ports up to three simultaneous populations. Be-

cause the diffusion approach neglects linkage, ourcomparison with the data is through a compositelikelihood function. Such likelihoods are consistentestimators under a wide range of population ge-netic scenarios for selectively-neutral data, but donot correctly capture variances [25]. (Lower recom-bination induces higher linkage and higher vari-ance among the expected entries of the AFS.) Aswe demonstrate below, the efficiency of our diffu-sion approach enables both conventional and para-metric bootstrap resampling of the data, allowingus to accurately estimate confidence intervals forparameter values and critical values for hypothe-sis tests [26], accounting for any degree of linkagefound in the data. This bootstrap procedure over-comes the traditional concerns with composite like-lihood as a philosophy for inference in populationgenetics

To demonstrate the utility of our approach, weapply our method to two epochs in human his-tory, using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)data from the Environmental Genome Project(EGP) [27], the largest public database of humanresequencing data. We first study the expansion ofhumans out of Africa, jointly modeling the historyof African, European, and East Asian populations.We then study the settlement of the New World,jointly modeling European, East Asian, and ad-mixed Mexican populations. In both cases, wequantify the uncertainty of our parameter infer-ences and test hypotheses about migration (boot-strapping to account for linkage). In particular,we infer an earlier divergence between African andEurasian populations than previous studies, be-cause our inferences account for the substantialmigration between these populations. Our meth-ods also find no evidence for multiple migrationsbetween East Asia and the New World. While sim-ilarly complex models for human continental pop-ulations have been studied [8], to our knowledge,our analysis is the first in which the full joint AFSis used for inference and in which uncertainty andgoodness-of-fit have been quantified.

An important advantage of the diffusion ap-proach is the ease with which selection can beincorporated. As an illustrative application, wealso predict the distribution of protein-coding vari-ation between populations. In agreement with thedata, we find that less nonsynonymous variationis shared between populations than might be ex-pected based only on patterns of shared noncodingvariation.

3

DB

C

x1

x20 1

1

2 Drift

1 Drift

2←1 Migration

1←2 Migration

1 Mutation

2 MutationLoss

FixationA

E

FIG. 1. Frequency spectrum gallery. A) Qualitative effects of modeled neutral genetic forces onφ(x1, x2, t), the density of alleles at relative frequencies x1 and x2 in populations 1 and 2. B) For thespectra shown, an equilibrium population of effective size NA diverges into two populations 2NAτgenerations ago. Populations 1 and 2 have effective sizes ν1NA and ν2NA, respectively. Migration issymmetric at m = M/(2NA) per generation, and θ = 1000. C) The AFS at τ = 0. Each entry is coloredby the logarithm of the number of sites in it, according to the scale shown. D) The AFS at varioustimes for various demographic parameters, on the same scale as B. E) Comparison between coalescent-and diffusion-based estimates of the likelihood L of data generated under the model A.Coalescent-based estimates of the likelihood, each of which took approximately 7.0 seconds, arerepresented in the histogram. The result from our diffusion approach, which took 2.0 seconds, isrepresented by the red line. For accuracy comparison, the yellow line indicates the likelihood inferredfrom 106 coalescent simulations.

While no model can capture the full complex-ity of any species’ genetic history, the models pre-sented refine our understanding of the expansion ofhumanity across the globe. None of the method-

ology is specific to humans, and we expect ourmethod will find wide application to demographicinference of other species.

II. METHODS

A. Diffusion approximation

To efficiently simulate the AFS, we adopt a diffusion approach. Such approaches have a long and distin-guished history in population genetics, dating back to R. A. Fischer [28, 29, 30]. The diffusion approachis a continuous approximation to the population genetics of a discrete number of individuals evolvingin discrete generations. An important underlying assumption is that per-generation changes in allelefrequency are small. Consequently, the diffusion approximation applies when the effective populationsize N is large and migration rates and selection coefficients are of order 1/N .

If we have samples from P populations, the numbers of sampled sequences from each population aren1, n2, . . . , nP . (For diploids, n1 is twice the number of individuals sampled from population 1.) Entryd1, d2, . . . , dP of the AFS records the number of diallelic polymorphic sites at which the derived allele wasfound in d1 samples from population 1, d2 from population 2, and so forth. (If ancestral alleles cannotbe determined, then the “folded” AFS can be considered, in which entries correspond to the frequencyof the minor allele.)

We model the evolution of φ(x1, x2, . . . , xP , t), the density of derived mutations at relative frequencies

4

x1, x2, . . . , xP in populations 1, 2, . . . , P at time t. (All x run from 0 to 1.) Given an infinitely-many-sites mutational model [31] and Wright-Fisher reproduction in each generation, the dynamics of φ for anarbitrary finite number of populations P are governed by a linear diffusion equation:

∂

∂τφ =

12

∑i=1,2,...,P

∂2

∂2xi

xi(1− xi)νi

φ−∑

i=1,2,...,P

∂

∂xi

(γixi(1− xi) +

∑j=1,2,...,P

Mi←j(xj − xi))φ. (1)

The first term models genetic drift, and the second term models selection and migration. Fig 1A illustratesthe effects of different evolutionary forces on components of φ. Time is in units of τ = t/(2Nref ), wheret is the time in generations and Nref is a reference effective population size. The relative effective sizeof population 1 is ν1 = N1/Nref . The scaled migration rate is M1←2 = 2Nrefm1←2, where m1←2 isthe proportion of chromosomes per generation in population 1 that are new migrants from population2. (Thus migration is assumed to be conservative [32]). Finally, the scaled selection coefficient is γ1 =2Nrefs1, where s1 is the relative selective advantage or disadvantage of variants in population 1. Boundaryconditions are no-flux except at two corners of the domain, where all population frequencies are 0 or 1;these are absorbing points corresponding to allele loss or fixation. Because the diffusion equation is linear,we can solve simultaneously for the evolution of all polymorphism by continually injecting φ density atlow frequency in each population (at a rate proportional to the total mutation flux θ), corresponding tonovel mutations.

Changes in population size and migration alter the parameters in Eqn 1, while population splits andmergers alter the dimensionality of φ. For example, if new population 3 is admixed with a proportion ffrom population 1 and 1− f from population 2 then

φ(x1, x2, x3, t) = φ(x1, x2, t) δ(x3 − [fx1 + (1− f)x2]

), (2)

where δ denotes the Dirac delta function. To remove population 2, φ is integrated over x2: φ(x1, x3, t) =∫ 1

0φ(x1, x2, x3, t) dx2.

Given φ, the expected value of each entry of the AFS, M [di, dj , . . . , dP ], is found via a P -dimensionalintegral over all possible population allele frequencies of the probability of sampling di, dj . . . , dP derivedalleles times the density φ of sites with those population allele frequencies. For SNP data obtained byresequencing, these probabilities are binomial, so

M [di, dj , . . . , dP ] =∫ 1

0

· · ·∫ 1

0

∏i=1,2,...,P

(ni

di

)xdi

i (1− xi)ni−di φ(x1, x2, . . . , xP ) dxi. (3)

In some cases of ascertained data [33], the resulting bias can be corrected by modifying the aboveequation [11, 34].

B. Likelihood-based inference

Let Θ correspond to the parameters of a demographic model we wish to estimate from the observedmulti-population allele frequency spectrum, which we denote S[di, dj , . . . ]. Assuming no linkage betweenpolymorphisms, each entry in the AFS is an independent Poisson variable [20], with mean M [di, dj , . . . ](which depends on Θ). We can, therefore, construct a likelihood function L(Θ | S) using standardstatistical theory:

L(Θ | S) =∏

i=0...P

∏di=0...ni

e−M [di,dj ,...,dP ]M [di, dj , . . . , dP ]S[di,dj ,...,dP ]

S[di, dj , . . . , dP ]!. (4)

In words, our approach consists of calculating the expected allele frequency spectrum M using a par-ticular demographic model (and set of parameter values for that demographic model) using our diffusion

5

approach. We then maximize the similarity between M and the observed AFS, S, over the parametervalues that Θ can take on. Competing demographic models can be chosen from using standard statisticaltheory such as the nested likelihood ratio test or Information Criteria such as the Akaike or BayesianInformation Criteria.

For linked polymorphisms, L is a composite likelihood. Such likelihoods are consistent estimatorsunder a wide range of neutral population genetic scenarios [25], but simulations incorporating linkage arenecessary to estimate variances and define critical values for hypothesis testing and model selection. Inour applications, we estimate variances using simulations from the coalescent simulator ms [35].

C. Numerics

Solving the multi-population diffusion equation is substantially more demanding than the single-population case [23]. This is primarily because the boundary conditions are more complex, and thenumerical grid of population frequencies x must be much coarser to be computationally tractable, be-cause it is of P dimensions. For example, a previous single-population study [23] used a uniform x gridof order 104 values between 0 and 1. Extending this grid to a three-population simulation would requirean infeasible array of size 1012. Instead, we use a nonuniform grid and extrapolation to enable accuratecomputation using of order 100 values along each dimension, for a final array size of order 106.

We solve the diffusion equation on a regular nonuniform grid, using a finite difference scheme [36]inspired by the method of Chang and Cooper [37] (supporting information). Mutations in population1 arise at frequency 1/(2N1) = 1/(2Nrefν1). The diffusion approximation applies when Nref → ∞,but the minimum frequency in our numerical simulation is that of the first grid point, denoted ∆. Toovercome this, we extrapolate our results to an infinitely fine grid. We use a quadratic extrapolation onthe logarithm of the AFS entry, modeling the bias introduced by the finite initial grid point ∆ as

logMcalc(∆) = logM∞ + a∆ + b∆2. (5)

Here Mcalc(∆) is an AFS element calculated at grid size ∆ and M∞ is the extrapolated value. Given threeevaluations at different grid sizes ∆, we solve for M∞ and use this value when calculating likelihoods. Thisvastly increases both the speed and accuracy of our calculation (supporting information). While higher-order extrapolations may improve accuracy in some cases, they may also be more sensitive to numericalnoise. Our empirical experience is that a quadratic approximation provides a good compromise betweenaccuracy, efficiency, and robustness.

The computational cost for a single likelihood evaluation scales as GP+1 where G is the number ofgrid points used. In our experience, for stability and accuracy G should somewhat larger than the largestpopulation sample size. Although our theoretical framework extends to an arbitrary number of popula-tions, the exponential scaling of computation with P limits our current applications to three simultaneouspopulations. Importantly, our likelihood calculation is deterministic and numerically smooth, so numer-ical derivatives can be used in optimization. We use the the quasi-Newton BFGS method [36], whichconverges in order N2

p steps, where Np is the number of free parameters.Our implementation of these methods, ∂a∂i, is written in cross-platform Python and C, making use of

the NumPy [38], Scipy [39], and Matplotlib libraries [40]. It is distributed under the open-source BSDlicense. All calculations herein were performed with ∂a∂i version 1.1.0.

We estimated parameter uncertainties by both conventional bootstrap (fitting data sets resampledover loci) and parametric bootstrap (fitting simulated data sets). To generate simulated data we usedthe coalescent program ms [35], a region-specific recombination rate, and the detailed EGP sequencingstrategy (supporting information).

The confidence intervals reported in Tables I and II derive from a normal approximation to the boot-strap results. For the conventional bootstrap, confidence intervals were calculated as: θ∗ ± 1.96σ(θ∗).For the parametric bootstrap, biased-corrected intervals were calculated as: θ− (θ∗− θ)±1.96σ(θ∗). Themaximum-likelihood value is denoted θ, while θ∗ and σ(θ∗) denote the mean and standard deviation of

6

the bootstrap results. Aside from the growth rates r, all our model parameters are positive by definition,so in those cases we used their logarithms when calculating confidence intervals.

Pearson’s χ2 goodness-of-fit test was performed using all 213 − 2 = 9259 bins in the AFS. Results aresimilar if we restrict our analysis to entries in which the expected value is > 1 or > 5.

D. Data

We used the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s Environmental Genome ProjectSNPs database [41], which results from direct Sanger resequencing of environmental response genes inseveral populations. We considered all diallelic SNPs in 5.01 Mb of sequence from noncoding regions of219 autosomal genes (supporting information). These data have been the subject of many publications,including [17, 23, 27, 42]. As an assessment of quality, additional high-coverage short-read sequencinghas recently been performed across 8 samples in this data set. Over 26,000 sites, the SNP concordancebetween this next-generation sequencing and the original Sanger sequencing averages 99.5% (D. Nickerson,personal communication). Given the high quality of this data set, we do not incorporate sequencing errorinto our modeling. We believe such correction will be essential in future applications to less accurateshort-read sequencing data, as inference based on the frequency spectrum is sensitive to rare alleles.

To estimate the ancestral allele, we aligned to the panTro2 build of the chimp genome [43]. Likeother methods based on the unfolded AFS, our analysis is sensitive to errors in identifying the ancestralallele. We statistically corrected the AFS for ancestral misidentification [17], using a context-dependentsubstitution model [44]. This procedure has been shown to perform better than aligning to multiplespecies [17]. To account for missing data and ease qualitative comparisons between populations, weprojected all spectra down to 20 samples per population [5] (supporting information).

The human-chimp divergence in the data is 1.13%. We assumed a divergence time of 6 My [45] anda generation time of 25 years. This yielded an estimated neutral mutation rate of µ = 2.35 × 10−8 persite per generation, which is comparable to direct estimates [46]. There is some controversy as to theappropriate generation time to assume in human population genetic studies [47, 48]. In particular, thehuman generation time may differ between cultures and may have changed during our biological andcultural evolution. The bootstrap uncertainties reported in Tables I and II do not include systematicuncertainties in the human-chimp divergence or generation times. The generation time, however, formallycancels when converting between genetic and chronological times.

E. Nonsynonymous polymorphism

In our prediction of the distribution of nonsynonymous polymorphism, the distribution of selective ef-fects assumed was a negative-gamma distribution with shape parameter α = 0.184 and scale β = 8200 [49].The AFS was calculated by trapezoid-rule integration over this distribution, using 201 evaluations loga-rithmically spaced over γ = [−300,−10−6]. All demographic parameters, including the scaled mutationrate θ, were set to the maximum-likelihood values from our Out of Africa analysis.

III. RESULTS

First, we explored how various demographicforces affect the AFS, building intuition for oursubsequent applications to real data. We thencompared the performance of diffusion versus co-

alescent methods for evaluating the AFS, findingthat the diffusion approach is substantially faster.We then applied our diffusion approach to inferparameters for plausible demographic models forthe history of continental human populations. Wefirst considered the expansion of humans out of

7

Africa and then the settlement of the New World.In these applications, we inferred the maximumcomposite-likelihood parameters of our models us-ing diffusion fits to the real data. To account forlinkage in estimating variances and critical valuesfor hypothesis tests, we then repeatedly fit bothconventional and parametric bootstrap data sets.Finally, in an application incorporating selection,we predicted the distribution of nonsynonymousvariation between populations in our Out of Africamodel, finding good agreement with the availabledata.

A. Demographic effects on the AFS

In Fig 1, we provide examples of the AFS underdifferent demographic scenarios. Fig 1B illustratesthe isolation-with-migration model for which thespectra are calculated. The expected spectrum atzero divergence time is shown in Fig 1C. Fig 1Dshows the expected spectrum at various divergencetimes under various demographic scenarios. Qual-itatively, correlation between population allele fre-quencies declines with increasing divergence time,depopulating the diagonal of the AFS. On theother hand, migration prolongs and sustains cor-relation. Less obviously, AFS entries correspond-ing to shared low-frequency alleles distinguish be-tween increased migration and reduced divergencetime (supporting information). Additionally, dif-ferences in genetic drift between populations withdifferent effective sizes result in asymmetries in theAFS. These qualitative features of the AFS are alsoevident in human data; detailed modeling allows usto quantify our inference regarding the type, tim-ing, and strength of demographic events that areconsistent with the data.

B. Computational performance

The computer program implementing ourmethod is named ∂a∂i (Diffusion Approximationsfor Demographic Inference). It is open-source andfreely available at http://dadi.googlecode.com.

Fig 1E compares ∂a∂i with a coalescent ap-proach to evaluating the likelihood of frequencyspectrum data. The coalescent simulator ms [35]was used to generate a simulated data set fromthe model in Fig 1B, with parameters ν1 = 0.9,

ν2 = 0.1, M = 2, τ = 2, θ = 1000, scaled totalrecombination rate ρ = 1000, and 20 samples perpopulation. Coalescent-based estimates of the ex-pected AFS were generated by averaging 105 mssimulations, each run with θ = 1 and ρ = 0. Theseestimates were scaled to θ = 1000 for comparisonwith the simulated data set. (This procedure issubstantially faster than simulating with larger θand ρ.) Each estimate took approximately 7.2 sec-onds of computation. The histogram in Fig 1Eshows the resulting distribution of estimated like-lihoods of the data. Shown by the red line inFig 1E is the result from our diffusion approach(with grid sizes G = {40, 50, 60}), which took ap-proximately 2.0 seconds of computation. The yel-low line is the likelihood from 108 coalescent simu-lations, illustrating the high accuracy of our diffu-sion approach. (Note that the coalescent approachwe consider here is not necessarily optimal. Weare, however, unaware of any such approach thatis competitive in computational speed with the dif-fusion method.)

The computational advantage of the diffusionmethod is even larger when placed in the con-text of parameter optimization. Unlike the coa-lescent approach, there is no simulation variance,so efficient derivative-based optimization methodscan be used. As examples, consider our applica-tions to human data, which involve 20 samplesper population. On a modern workstation, fittinga single-population three-parameter model tookroughly a minute, while fitting a two-populationsix-parameter model took roughly 10 minutes. Thefits of three-population models with roughly adozen parameters typically took a few hours toconverge from a reasonable initial parameter set.This speed allows us to use extensive bootstrap-ping to estimate variances, overcoming the limita-tions of composite likelihood.

C. Expansion out of Africa

Our analysis of human expansion out of Africaused data from three HapMap populations: 12Yoruba individuals from Ibadan, Nigeria (YRI); 22CEPH Utah residents with ancestry from northernand western Europe (CEU); and 12 Han Chineseindividuals sampled in Beijing, China (CHB). Be-cause approaches based on the frequency spectrumare sensitive to miscalling of the ancestral state, westatistically corrected for ancestral misidentifica-

8

CEU

CH

BY

RI

NA NAF

NB

NEU0

NAS0

rEU

rAS

mAF-B

mEU-AS

(also mAF-AS)

TAFTB

TEU-AS

mAF-EU

20

YRI

CEU CHB

A B

Cdata

model

residuals

D

E F

0

FIG. 2. Out of Africa analysis. A) AFS for the YRI, CEU and CHB populations. The color scaleis as in subfigure C. B) Illustration of the model we fit, with the 14 free parameters labeled. C)Marginal spectra for each pair of populations. The top row is the data, and the second is themaximum-likelihood model. The third row shows the Anscombe residuals [50] between model and data.Red or blue residuals indicate that the model predicts too many or too few alleles in a given cell,respectively. D) The observed decay of linkage disequilibrium (black lines) is qualitatively well-matchedby our simulated data sets (colored lines). E) Goodness-of-fit tests based on the likelihood L andPearson’s X2 statistic both indicate that our model is a reasonable, though incomplete description ofthe data. In both plots, the red line results from fitting the real data and the histogram from fits tosimulated data. Poorer fits lie to the right (lower L and higher X2). F) The improvement in likelihoodfrom including contemporary migration in the real data fit (red line) is much greater than expectedfrom fits to simulated data generated without contemporary migration (histogram). This indicates thatthe data contain a strong signal of contemporary migration.

9

tion using an approach that accounts for a myriadof mutation and context-dependent biases (such asCpG effects) [17]. To ease qualitative comparisonamong populations and account for missing data,we projected the data down to 20 sampled chro-mosomes per population [5]. Because this dataset is of very high quality (>99% concordance ofsequenced SNPs with next-generation sequencingof the same individuals to high coverage; see Ma-terials and Methods), we do not explicitly cor-rect for sequencing errors here. We were left with17,446 segregating diallelic single nucleotide poly-morphisms (SNPs) from effectively 4.04 Mb of se-quence. Fig 2A shows the resulting AFS. For easeof visualization, the top row of Fig 2C shows thetwo-population marginal spectra.

There are many possible three-population demo-graphic models one could consider for these pop-ulations. To develop a parsimonious yet realis-tic model, we first considered the marginal AFSfor each population and each pair of populations.Previous analyses found that the YRI spectrum iswell-fit by a two-epoch model with ancient pop-ulation growth [5, 17], and we found this as well(supporting information). Previous analyses of theCEU and CHB populations found that both popu-lations went through bottlenecks [5, 11] concurrentwith divergence [11]. Such models qualitatively fitthe marginal CEU-CHB spectrum (supporting in-formation).

Combining these demographic features yieldsthe model illustrated in Fig 2B. The maximumlikelihood values for the 14 free parameters arereported in Table I. Qualitatively, the resultingmodel reproduces the observed spectra well, asseen in the second and third rows of Fig 2C. (Thecorrelation between adjacent residuals is due inpart to our projection of the data down from alarger sample size (supporting information).) Al-lowing for asymmetric gene flow yielded very littleimprovement in fit, as did allowing for growth inthe Eurasian ancestral population or allowing theCEU and CHB bottleneck and divergence times todiffer (data not shown).

Our composite likelihood function assumes thatpolymorphic sites are independent. Because itthus overestimates the number of effective indepen-dent data points, confidence intervals calculateddirectly from the composite likelihood function willbe too liberal. To control for linkage, we performedboth conventional and parametric bootstraps. Be-cause our sequenced genes are typically well sepa-

rated, they can be treated as independent, and ourconventional bootstrap resampled from the 219 se-quenced loci. For the parametric bootstrap, simu-lated data sets that incorporate linkage and theEGP’s sequencing strategy were generated withms [35].

Table I reports parameter 95% confidence inter-vals from both the conventional and bias-correctedparametric bootstraps. The parametric bootstrapsyield slightly smaller confidence intervals than theconventional bootstrap, suggesting that some vari-ability in the data has not been accounted for byour simulations. This variability may involve smallvaried selective forces on the sequenced regions,or slight relatedness between sampled individu-als. The parametric bootstrap results additionallyshow that our method possesses very little bias inparameter inference (supporting information).

As seen in Table I, the times for growth inthe African ancestral population and divergence ofthe Eurasian ancestral population (TAF and TB)have particularly wide confidence intervals, likelya consequence of the high inferred migration ratemAF−B between the African and Eurasian ances-tral populations. TAF shows high correlation withthe ancestral population size NA, while TB showsno strong linear correlation with any other sin-gle parameter (supporting information). We foundthat 92 out of our 100 conventional bootstrap fitsyield NAS0 < NEU0, supporting the contentionthat the CHB population suffered a more severebottleneck than the CEU population [11].

We used several metrics to assess our model’sgoodness-of-fit, in additional to visual inspectionof the residuals seen in Fig 2C. Fig 2D comparesthe decay of linkage disequilibrium (LD) in thedata and in the parametric bootstrap simulations.The agreement seen is notable because our demo-graphic inference used no LD information in build-ing and fitting the model. This LD comparisonthus serves as independent validation of both ourmodel and bootstrap simulations We also askedwhether the likelihood L found in the real data fitis atypical of fits to simulated data. Out of fits to100 simulated data sets, 2 produced a smaller like-lihood (worse fit) than the real data fit (Fig 2E),yielding a p-value of ≈0.02. One can craft exam-ples in which a likelihood-based goodness-of-fit testfails to exclude very poor models [51]. Thus we alsoapplied Pearson’s χ2 goodness-of-fit test, a morerobust and standard method for data that is inPoisson-distributed bins, such as the AFS [36]. In

10

TABLE I. Out of Africa inferred parametersconventional parametric bootstrap

maximum bootstrap 95% bias-corrected 95%parametera likelihood confidence interval confidence interval

NA 7,300 4,400 – 10,100 6,300 – 9,200

NAF 12,300 11,500 – 13,900 11,100 – 13,100

NB 2,100 1,400 – 2,900 1,700 – 2,600

NEU0 1,000 500 – 1,900 500 – 1,500

rEU (%) 0.40 0.15 – 0.66 0.26 – 0.57

NAS0 510 310 – 910 320 – 750

rAS (%) 0.55 0.23 – 0.88 0.32 – 0.79

mAF−B (×10−5) 25 15 – 34 19 – 36

mAF−EU (×10−5) 3.0 2.0 – 6.0 1.6 – 7.6

mAF−AS (×10−5) 1.9 0.3 – 10.4 0.7 – 6.9b

mEU−AS (×10−5) 9.6 2.3 – 17.4b 5.7 – 20.2

TAF (kya) 220 100 – 510 90 – 410

TB (kya) 140 40 – 270 60 – 310

TEU−AS (kya) 21.2 17.2 – 26.5 17.6 – 23.9aSee Fig 2B for model schematic. Growth rates r and migration rates m are per generation.bOne low-migration outlier was removed for each of these estimations.

our case, we must use our parametric bootstrapsto assess the significance of the sum-of-squared-residuals test statistic X2, because many entriesin the AFS are small and because they are notstrictly independent. Fig 2E shows the bootstrap-derived empirical distribution of X2. Two of thebootstraps yielded a larger X2 (worse fit) than thereal data fit, giving a p-value of ≈0.02, identicalto that from the likelihood-based test. (The twosimulations that yield a higher X2 than the real fitare not the same two that yield a lower L, suggest-ing that these tests are somewhat independent.)In some cases specific frequency classes of SNPs,such as rare alleles, may be of particular interest.In the supporting information, we provide compar-isons of the joint distribution of rare alleles seen inthe data with that from our simulations. Thesecomparisons indicate that our model also repro-duces well this interesting region of the frequencyspectrum. Finally, in Fig 4 we compare the modeland data using larger bins of SNPs specific to spe-cific populations or segregating at high or low fre-quency. In all cases the model agrees within theuncertainty of the bootstrapped data. Taken to-gether, these tests suggest that our model providesa reasonable, though not complete, explanation ofthe data, lending credence to our demographic es-

timates.The inferred contemporary migration parame-

ters (mAF−EU , mAF−AS and mEU−AS) are small,raising the question as to whether they are statis-tically distinguishable from zero. Figure 2F showsthat the improvement in fit to the real data uponadding contemporary migration to the model ismuch larger than would be expected if there wereno such migration, implying that the contempo-rary migration we infer is highly statistically sig-nificant. Omitting ancient migration (mAF−B) re-duced fit quality even more, indicating that thedata also demand substantial ancient migration.

D. Settling the New World

To study the settlement of the Americas, weused the previously considered 22 CEU and 12CHB individuals plus an additional 22 individualsof Mexican descent sampled in Los Angeles (MXL).Data were processed as in our Out of Africa analy-sis, yielding 13,290 segregating SNPs from effec-tively 4.22 Mb of sequence. Fig 3A shows theresulting AFS, while Fig 3C shows the marginalspectra.

A model in which the CEU and CHB diverge

11

CEU

CHB

MXL

NEU0

NAS0

rEU

rASNMX0

rMX

TEU-AS

TMX

fMX

mEU-AS

CEU

CHB MXL

A

C

B

data

model

residuals

D

E F

20

0

FIG. 3. Settlement of the New Worldanalysis. As in Fig 2, A) is the data, B) is aschematic of the model we fit, C) compares thedata and model AFS, and D) compares LD. E)The fit of our model to the real data is notatypical of fits to simulated data. F) Theimprovement in real data fit upon includingCHB-MXL migration (red line) is very typical ofthe improvement in fits to simulated data withoutCHB-MXL migration. Thus we have no evidencefor CHB-MXL migration after divergence.

from an equilibrium population did not reproducethe AFS well (supporting information). Interest-ingly, a model allowing a prior size change in theancestral population better fit the AFS but very

poorly fit the observed LD decay (supporting in-formation). Thus, reproducing the AFS does notguarantee reproduction of LD, at least given a his-torically unrealistic model. To develop a morerealistic model, we endeavored to include the ef-fects of Eurasian divergence from and migrationwith the African population. Computational lim-its precluded us from considering all 4 populationssimultaneously, so we dropped the African popu-lation from the simulation upon MXL divergence(Fig 3B).

Table II records the maximum-likelihood param-eter values inferred for this model. Because this fitdid not include African data, we could not reli-ably infer demographic parameters involving theAfrican population. Thus, for this point estimatewe fixed the Africa-related parameters NA, NAF ,NB , mAF−B , mAF−EU , mAF−AS , TAF and TB

to their maximum-likelihood values from Table I.Fig 3C compares the model and data spectra. Theresiduals show little correlation, with the possibleexception that the model may underestimate thenumber of high-frequency segregating alleles.

Parameter confidence intervals are reported inTable II. To account for our uncertainty in thoseparameters derived from the Out of Africa fit, foreach conventional bootstrap fit we used a set ofAfrica-related parameters randomly chosen fromthe sets yielded by our Out of Africa conven-tional bootstrap. For the parametric bootstrap,we used the maximum-likelihood point estimates.Again, we see that the conventional bootstrapconfidence intervals are comparable to, althoughslightly wider than, the parametric bootstrap in-tervals. Several parameters in this analysis havedirect correspondence with our Out of Africa anal-ysis. Of particular note, the confidence intervalsfor the CEU-CHB divergence time TEU−AS over-lap.

In assessing goodness of fit, Fig 3D shows thatthis model does indeed reproduce the observed pat-tern of LD decay. Unlike in our Out of Africaanalysis, however, here the LD decay was used tochoose the form of the model (although not its pa-rameter values), so this is not a completely inde-pendent assessment of fit. Of our 100 parametricbootstrap fits, 13 yielded a worse likelihood thanthe real fit (Fig 3E), for a p-value of ≈ 0.13. Ap-plying Pearson’s χ2 test, we find that 23 of 100bootstrap fits yield a higher (worse) X2 than thefit to the real data, for a p-value of ≈ 0.23, simi-lar to that of the likelihood analysis. Comparing

12

TABLE II. Settlement of New World inferred parameters

conventional parametric bootstrap

maximum bootstrap 95% bias-corrected 95%

parametera likelihood confidence interval confidence interval

NEU0 1,500 700 – 2,100 900 – 2,200

rEU (%) 0.23 0.08 – 0.45 0.16 – 0.34

NAS0 590 320 – 800 410 – 790

rAS (%) 0.37 0.16 – 0.60 0.24 – 0.51

NMX0 800 160 – 1,800 140 – 1,600

rMX (%) 0.50 0.14 – 1.17 0.41 – 0.98

mEU−AS (×10−5) 13.5 7.5 – 32.2 9.9 – 20.8

TEU−AS (kya) 26.4 18.1 – 43.1 21.7 – 30.7

TMx (kya) 21.6 16.3 – 26.9 18.6 – 24.7

fMX (%) 48 42 – 60 41 – 55aSee Fig 3B for model schematic. Growth rates r and migration rates m are per generation. fMX is the average European

admixture proportion of the Mexican-Americans sampled.

distributions of rare alleles, our model typically re-produces the observed distribution well, althoughit may be somewhat overestimating the propor-tion of alleles that are rare or absent in the CHBpopulation (supporting information). In sum, ourmodel appears to be a reasonable explanation ofthis data, somewhat better than in our Out ofAfrica analysis.

An essential feature of the Mexican-Americanindividuals considered here is that they are typ-ically admixed from Native American and Euro-pean ancestors. The ≈50% average European ad-mixture proportion we inferred for the MXL pop-ulation is consistent with previous estimates forLos Angeles Latinos [52]. We have no direct datafrom the Native American populations ancestral toMXL, but our model does account for their diver-gence from East Asia. A model neglecting this di-vergence (by setting TMX to zero) fit the data sub-stantially worse and yields an unrealistically highaverage European admixture proportion into MXLof 0.68.

Not only are Mexican-American individuals ad-mixed, their admixture proportions also vary, andthis subtlety is not directly accounted for in ouranalysis. To assess its effect on our results, we firstroughly estimated the ancestry proportion of eachindividual, using essentially a maximum-likelihoodversion [18] of the algorithm used in structure [53](supporting information). (Methods based on “ad-mixture LD”, which identify breakpoints between

regions of Native American and European ances-try, may be more powerful [54]. However, the strat-egy used by the EGP of sequencing widely spacedgenes will resolve few of these breakpoints, limitingthe applicability of these methods.) We then per-formed additional parametric bootstrap analyses,using simulations with a distribution of individualancestry chosen to mimic that seen in the data and,to further test the method, with an extremely widedistribution. These simulations showed that vari-ation in individual ancestry does not bias our pa-rameter inferences (supporting information). Re-markably, it does not even change our statisticalpower. This is evidenced by the fact that thesebootstrap simulations yielded confidence intervalsidentical to our original simulations without vari-ation in ancestry proportion (supporting informa-tion). Nevertheless, future studies may profit byincorporating individual ancestry information [18],perhaps inferred from admixture LD.

Finally, our model allowed us to assess the rolerecurrent migration from Asia played in the settle-ment of the New World [2]. When we added CHB-MXL migration to our model, we found that themaximum likelihood migration rate was 1.7×10−5

per generation. As shown in Fig 3F, the result-ing improvement in likelihood is typical (p-value≈0.45) of fits including CHB-MXL migration todata simulated without it. Our data and analysisthus yielded no evidence of recurrent migration inthe settlement of the New World. Note, however,

13

that this simple test does not necessarily rule outmore complex scenarios, in which migration mayvary over time.

E. Nonsynomymous polymorphism

Polymorphisms that change protein amino acidsequence are of medical interest because they areparticularly likely to affect gene function [55].Correspondingly, they are often subject to nat-ural selection. Diffusion approaches are partic-ularly useful for studying such nonsynonymouspolymorphism, because they easily incorporate se-lection. Although the diffusion approximation as-sumes that sites are unlinked, nonsynonymous seg-regating sites are rare enough that this is often areasonable approximation [49].

As an illustration, we used our Out of Africademographic model to predict the distribution ofsuch variation between continental populations.To do so, we must specify a distribution for theselective effects of nonsynonymous mutations thatenter the population. For this we adopted a neg-ative gamma distribution whose parameters wererecently inferred [49]. The resulting distributionof segregating variation is shown in Figure 4A. (Toease comparison, we have assumed the same scaledmutation rate as in the neutral case of Fig 2C.) Asexpected, selection sharply reduces the amount ofsegregating polymorphism. Figure 4B shows theproportion of variants within various classes. Alsoas expected, selection shifts nonsynonymous vari-ation toward lower frequencies, raising the propor-tion of singletons and lowering the proportion atfrequency greater than 10%. Less obviously, it alsoreduces the proportion of variation that is sharedbetween populations. In the neutral case, 43% ofpolymorphism is predicted to be present in morethan one population, while in the selected case only35% is. Thus genetic inferences from coding poly-morphism may be less transferable between popu-lations than might be expected from neutral pat-terns of allele sharing.

In the data considered here, there are about 400nonsynomymous polymorphisms segregating in thethree populations considered. This is too few for adetailed goodness-of-fit test of our predicted distri-bution. (Although see supporting information fora direct AFS comparison.) Nevertheless, we ob-serve that our predictions shown in Figure 4B alllie within the bootstrap 95% confidence intervals

A

B

FIG. 4. Distribution of nonsynonymouspolymorphism. We simulated ourmaximum-likelihood Out of Africa demographicmodel with a distribution of selective effectspreviously inferred for nonsynonymouspolymorphism [49]. A) To enable directcomparison with the neutral AFS (Fig 2C), thescaled mutation rate θ was set identically, as isthe color scale. As expected, selectiondramatically reduces the amount of segregatingpolymorphism. B) Shown are the proportions ofvariation found in various frequency classes. Asexpected, nonsynonymous variants typically havelower frequency. They also less likely to be sharedbetween populations. Data error bars indicate95% bootstrap confidence intervals.

from the data.

IV. DISCUSSION

Our diffusion approximation to the joint allelefrequency spectrum is a powerful tool for popu-lation genetic inference. Although the diffusionapproximation neglects linkage between sites, ourmethod’s computational efficiency allows us to useextensive bootstrap simulations to account for theeffects of linkage. (Let us reiterate that linkagedoes not affect the expected site-frequency spec-trum of neutral sites, so our diffusion-based ap-proach is estimating the same AFS that coalescentsimulations are estimating, but in a small fractionof the time). We applied our method to human

14

expansion out of Africa and settlement of the NewWorld, using public resequencing data from theEnvironment Genome Project. The flexibility ofthe diffusion approach also allowed us to considerthe distribution of non-neutral variation, which isdifficult to address with other approaches. Al-though no model can capture in detail the com-plete history of any population, the models pre-sented here help refine our understanding of humanexpansion across the globe.

Our demographic results are broadly consistentwith previous analyses of human populations. Inparticular, single-population analyses have also in-ferred African population growth and Europeanand Asian bottlenecks [4, 5, 6]. Also, the mi-gration rates we infer are similar to those inferredby Schaffner et al. [8] but somewhat smaller thanthose of Cox et al. [15]. On the other hand, Keinanet al. [11] inferred no significant migration be-tween CEU and CHB. Finally, our estimate of aNew World founding effective population size inthe hundreds is compatible other inferences [14].

Perhaps our most interesting demographic re-sults are the inferred divergence times. Other stud-ies [11, 12] have estimated divergence times be-tween Europeans and East Asians similar to the≈23 kya we infer. Interestingly, archeological evi-dence places humans in Europe much earlier (≈40kya) [1]. Our inferred divergence time of ≈22 kyabetween East Asians and Mexican-Americans issomewhat older than the oldest well-accepted NewWorld archeological evidence [2]. The divergencewe infer may reflect the settlement of Beringia,rather than the expansion into the New Worldproper [14]. Finally, the divergence time of ≈140kya we infer between African and Eurasian popu-lations is consistent with archeological evidence formodern humans in the Middle East ≈100 kya [1],but it is much older than other inferences of ≈50kya divergence from mitochondrial DNA [1]. Thisdiscrepancy may be explained by our inclusion ofmigration in the model. Migration preserves cor-relation between population allele frequencies, soan observed correlation across the genome can beexplained by either recent divergence without mi-gration or ancient divergence with migration. Infact, the African-Eurasian migration rate we inferof ≈25× 10−5 per generation is comparable to the≈100× 10−5 inferred from census records betweenmodern continental Europe and Britain [56].

One difficulty in interpreting our divergencetimes is that the sampled populations may not best

represent those in which historically importantdivergences occurred. For example, the Yorubaare a West African population, so the divergencetime we infer between Yoruba and Eurasian an-cestral populations may correspond to divergencewithin Africa itself. Future studies of more popu-lations [57, 58, 59] will help alleviate this difficulty.

Another difficulty is that the genic loci we studyhere may not be ideal for demographic inference.Although we consider only noncoding sequence infitting our historical model, selection on regula-tory or linked coding sites may skew the AFS [60].In fact, the EGP data have been shown to differin some ways (e.g. Tajima’s D) from intergenicregions [59]. Nevertheless, we use the EGP databecause it is currently the largest public resourceof noncoding human genetic variation, and we fita neutral model because disentangling the smallexpected effects of selection on these sites from de-mographic effects will require additional data. Therapidly declining cost of sequencing will give futurestudies access to many more loci that are likely tobe less influenced by selection. Importantly, thecomputational burden of our method is indepen-dent of the amount of sequence used to constructthe AFS. Additional loci will also increase power todiscriminate between models and incorporate moredetail.

The AFS encodes substantial demographic infor-mation. It is has been shown, however, that an iso-lated population’s AFS does not uniquely and un-ambiguously identify its demographic history [61];we expect a similar result to hold for multiple inter-acting populations. Moreover, the AFS does notcapture all the information in the data. As illus-trated by the alternative New World models weconsidered, patterns of linkage disequilibrium en-code additional information. Future studies mayprofit from coupling our efficient AFS simulationwith methods that address other aspects of thedata.

We have developed a powerful diffusion-basedmethod for demographic inference from the jointallele frequency spectrum. We applied our methodto human expansion out of African and the settle-ment of the New World, developing models of hu-man history that refine our knowledge and raise in-triguing questions. We also applied our method topredict the distribution of nonsynonymous varia-tion across populations, and this prediction is con-sistent with the available data. Our methods andthe models inferred from it offer a foundation for

15

studying the history and evolution of both our ownspecies and others.

Acknowledgments

We thank Amit Indap for bioinformatics as-sistance and Jim Booth for statistical assistance.We also thank the NIEHS Program (ES-15478)

for making their dataset so easily accessible. Wehad fruitful discussions with Adam Auton, Deb-bie Nickerson, Michael Hammer, Rasmus Nielsen,Nick Patterson, Molly Przeworski, Jeff Wall, andCarsten Wiuf. This research was supportedby National Science Foundation grant PHY05-51164 and National Institutes of Health grants1R01GM83606 and 2R01HG003229.

1. Mellars P (2006) Going east: New genetic andarchaeological perspectives on the modern hu-man colonization of Eurasia. Science 313: 796–800.

2. Goebel T, Waters MR, O’Rourke DH (2008) Thelate Pleistocene dispersal of modern humans inthe Americas. Science 319: 1497–1502.

3. Nielsen R, Hellmann I, Hubisz M, BustamanteC, Clark AG (2007) Recent and ongoing selec-tion in the human genome. Nat Rev Genet 8:857–868.

4. Adams AM, Hudson RR (2004) Maximum-likelihood estimation of demographic parametersusing the frequency spectrum of unlinked single-nucleotide polymorphisms. Genetics 168: 1699–1712.

5. Marth GT, Czabarka E, Murvai J, Sherry ST(2004) The allele frequency spectrum in genome-wide human variation data reveals signals ofdifferential demographic history in three largeworld populations. Genetics 166: 351–372.

6. Voight BF, Adams AM, Frisse LA, Qian Y, Hud-son RR, et al. (2005) Interrogating multiple as-pects of variation in a full resequencing data setto infer human population size changes. ProcNatl Acad Sci U S A 102: 18508–18513.

7. Hey J (2005) On the number of New Worldfounders: a population genetic portrait of thepeopling of the Americas. PLoS Biol 3: e193.

8. Schaffner SF, Foo C, Gabriel S, Reich D, DalyMJ, et al. (2005) Calibrating a coalescent sim-ulation of human genome sequence variation.Genome Res 15: 1576–1583.

9. Becquet C, Przeworski M (2007) A new ap-proach to estimate parameters of speciationmodels with application to apes. Genome Res17: 1505–1519.

10. Caicedo AL, Williamson SH, Hernandez RD,Boyko A, Fledel-Alon A, et al. (2007) Genome-wide patterns of nucleotide polymorphism in do-mesticated rice. PLoS Genet 3: 1745–1756.

11. Keinan A, Mullikin JC, Patterson N, Reich D

(2007) Measurement of the human allele fre-quency spectrum demonstrates greater geneticdrift in East Asians than in Europeans. NatGenet 39: 1251–1255.

12. Garrigan D, Kingan SB, Pilkington MM, WilderJA, Cox MP, et al. (2007) Inferring human pop-ulation sizes, divergence times and rates of geneflow from mitochondrial, X and Y chromosomeresequencing data. Genetics 177: 2195–2207.

13. Mulligan CJ, Kitchen A, Miyamoto MM (2008)Updated three-stage model for the peopling ofthe Americas. PLoS ONE 3: e3199.

14. Kitchen A, Miyamoto MM, Mulligan CJ (2008)A three-stage colonization model for the peo-pling of the Americas. PLoS ONE 3: e1596.

15. Cox M, Woerner A, Wall J, Hammer M (2008)Intergenic DNA sequences from the human Xchromosome reveal high rates of global gene flow.BMC Genetics 9: 76.

16. Drummond AJ, Rambaut A, Shapiro B, PybusOG (2005) Bayesian coalescent inference of pastpopulation dynamics from molecular sequences.Mol Biol Evol 22: 1185–1192.

17. Hernandez RD, Williamson SH, Bustamante CD(2007) Context dependence, ancestral misidenti-fication, and spurious signatures of natural se-lection. Mol Biol Evol 24: 1792–1800.

18. Nielsen R, Hubisz M, Hellmann I, Torgerson D,Andres A, et al. Darwinian and demographicforces affecting human protein coding genes. Inpress.

19. Hey J, Nielsen R (2004) Multilocus methods forestimating population sizes, migration rates anddivergence time, with applications to the diver-gence of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. per-similis. Genetics 167: 747–760.

20. Sawyer SA, Hartl DL (1992) Population geneticsof polymorphism and divergence. Genetics 132:1161–1176.

21. Bustamante CD, Wakeley J, Sawyer S, HartlDL (2001) Directional selection and the site-frequency spectrum. Genetics 159: 1779–1788.

16

22. Wakeley J (2008) Coalescent Theory: an Intro-duction. Roberts & Company.

23. Williamson SH, Hernandez R, Fledel-Alon A,Zhu L, Nielsen R, et al. (2005) Simultaneous in-ference of selection and population growth frompatterns of variation in the human genome. ProcNatl Acad Sci U S A 102: 7882–7887.

24. Hernandez RD, Hubisz MJ, Wheeler DA, SmithDG, Ferguson B, et al. (2007) Demographic his-tories and patterns of linkage disequilibrium inChinese and Indian rhesus macaques. Science316: 240–243.

25. Wiuf C (2006) Consistency of estimators of pop-ulation scaled parameters using composite like-lihood. J Math Biol 53: 821–841.

26. Zhu L, Bustamante CD (2005) A composite-likelihood approach for detecting directional se-lection from DNA sequence data. Genetics 170:1411–1421.

27. Livingston RJ, von Niederhausern A, Jegga AG,Crawford DC, Carlson CS, et al. (2004) Patternof sequence variation across 213 environmentalresponse genes. Genome Res 14: 1821–1831.

28. Fischer RA (1922) On the dominance ratio. ProcRoy Soc Edin 55: 399–433.

29. Kimura M (1964) Diffusion models in populationgenetics. J Appl Probab 1: 177–232.

30. Ewens WJ (2000) Mathematical Population Ge-netics: I. Theoretical Introduction. Springer,2nd edition.

31. Watterson GA (1975) On the number of segre-gating sites in genetical models without recom-bination. Theor Popul Biol 7: 256–276.

32. Nagylaki T (1980) The strong-migration limit ingeographically structured populations. J MathBiol 9: 101–114.

33. Clark AG, Hubisz MJ, Bustamante CD,Williamson SH, Nielsen R (2005) Ascertainmentbias in studies of human genome-wide polymor-phism. Genome Res 15: 1496–1502.

34. Nielsen R, Hubisz MJ, Clark AG (2004) Recon-stituting the frequency spectrum of ascertainedsingle-nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics168: 2373–2382.

35. Hudson RR (2002) Generating samples undera Wright-Fisher neutral model of genetic vari-ation. Bioinformatics 18: 337–338.

36. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flan-nery BP (2007) Numerical Recipes: The Artof Scientific Computing. Cambridge UniversityPress, 3rd edition.

37. Chang JS, Cooper G (1970) A practical dif-ference scheme for Fokker-Planck equations. JComput Phys 6: 1–16.

38. Oliphant TE (2006) Guide to NumPy. TrelgolPublishing.

39. Oliphant TE (2007) Python for scientific com-puting. Comput Sci Eng 9: 10-20.

40. Hunter JD (2007) Matplotlib: a 2D graphics en-vironment. Comput Sci Eng 9: 90–95.

41. NIEHS Environmental Genome Project. URLhttp://egp.gs.washington.edu. AccessedNovember 6, 2007.

42. Akey JM, Eberle MA, Rieder MJ, Carlson CS,Shriver MD, et al. (2004) Population history andnatural selection shape patterns of genetic vari-ation in 132 genes. PLoS Biol 2: e286.

43. Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Con-sortium (2005) Initial sequence of the chim-panzee genome and comparison with the humangenome. Nature 437: 69–87.

44. Hwang DG, Green P (2004) Bayesian Markovchain Monte Carlo sequence analysis revealsvarying neutral substitution patterns in mam-malian evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A101: 13994–14001.

45. Kumar S, Filipski A, Swarna V, Walker A,Hedges SB (2005) Placing confidence limits onthe molecular age of the human-chimpanzee di-vergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102: 18842–18847.

46. Kondrashov AS (2002) Direct estimates of hu-man per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 locicausing Mendelian diseases. Hum Mutat 21: 12–27.

47. Fenner JN (2005) Cross-cultural estimationof the human generation interval for use ingenetics-based population divergence studies.Am J Phys Anthropol 128: 415–423.

48. Tremblay M, Vezina H (2000) New estimates ofintergenerational time intervals for the calcula-tion of age and origin of mutations. Am J HumGenet 66: 651–658.

49. Boyko AR, Williamson SH, Indap AR, Degen-hardt JD, Hernandez RD, et al. (2008) Assessingthe evolutionary impact of amino acid mutationsin the human genome. PLoS Genet 4: e1000083.

50. Pierce DA, Schafer DW (1986) Residuals in gen-eralized linear models. J Am Stat Assoc 81: 977–986.

51. Heinrich JG (2001) Can the likelihood-functionvalue be used to measure goodness of fit? Tech-nical Report 5639, Collider Detector at Fermi-lab.

52. Price AL, Patterson N, Yu F, Cox DR, Wal-iszewska A, et al. (2007) A genomewide admix-ture map for latino populations. Am J HumGenet 80: 1024–1036.

53. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000)Inference of population structure using multilo-cus genotype data. Genetics 155: 945–959.

54. Patterson N, Hattangadi N, Lane B, Lohmueller

17

KE, Hafler DA, et al. (2004) Methods for high-density admixture mapping of disease genes. AmJ Hum Genet 74: 979–1000.

55. Kryukov GV, Shpunt A, StamatoyannopoulosJA, Sunyaev SR (2009) Power of deep, all-exonresequencing for discovery of human trait genes.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106: 3871–3876.

56. Weale ME, Weiss DA, Jager RF, Bradman N,Thomas MG (2002) Y chromosome evidence forAnglo-Saxon mass migration. Mol Biol Evol 19:1008–1021.

57. Li JZ, Absher DM, Tang H, Southwick AM,Casto AM, et al. (2008) Worldwide human re-lationships inferred from genome-wide patternsof variation. Science 319: 1100–1104.

58. Jakobsson M, Scholz SW, Scheet P, Gibbs JR,

VanLiere JM, et al. (2008) Genotype, haplotypeand copy-number variation in worldwide humanpopulations. Nature 451: 998–1003.

59. Wall JD, Cox MP, Mendez FL, Woerner A, Sev-erson T, et al. (2008) A novel DNA sequencedatabase for analyzing human demographic his-tory. Genome Res 18: 1354–1361.

60. Braverman JM, Hudson RR, Kaplan NL, Lang-ley CH, Stephan W (1995) The hitchhiking effecton the site frequency spectrum of DNA polymor-phisms. Genetics 140: 783–796.

61. Myers S, Fefferman C, Patterson N (2008) Canone learn history from the allelic spectrum?Theor Popul Biol 73: 342–348.