arxiv: v2 [q-bio.pe] 26 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 Stationary distribution of a 2-island 2-allele Wright-Fisher diffusion model with slow mutation and migration rates arxiv:82.745v2 q-bio.pe 26 Sep 28 Conrad J. Burden a,b, Robert C. Griffiths c a Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia b Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia c Department of Statistics, University of Oford, UK Abstract The stationary distribution of the diffusion limit of the 2-island, 2-allele Wright-Fisher with small but otherwise arbitrary mutation and migration rates is investigated. Following a method developed by Burden and Tang 26, 27 for approimating the forward Kolmogorov equation, the stationary distribution is obtained to leading order as a set of line densities on the edges of the sample space, corresponding to states for which one island is bi-allelic and the other island is non-segregating, and a set of point masses at the corners of the sample space, corresponding to states for which both islands are simultaneously non-segregating. Analytic results for the corner probabilities and line densities are verified independently using the backward generator and for the corner probabilities using the coalescent. Keywords:. Introduction Migration, Diffusion process, Subdivided population Island models of migration between partially isolated subpopulations date to the pioneering work of Wright 943. Generalisations of Wright s original model have subsequently found applications in genetics, ecology and linguistics Blythe and McKane, 27. The current paper deals with the diffusion limit of a Wright-Fisher model of a finite number of subpopulations addresses: conrad.burden@anu.edu.au Conrad J. Burden, griff@stats.o.ac.uk Robert C. Griffiths Preprint submitted to Theoretical Population Biology September 27, 28

2 undergoing migration and neutral mutations between a finite number of allele types De Iorio and Griffiths, 24. The stationary distribution of this model for arbitrary migration and mutation rate matrices remains unknown, even for the simplest non-trivial case of two islands and two allele types. Here we investigate the stationary distribution in the limit of small scaled migration and mutation rates using a method developed by Burden and Tang 26, 27, which was in turn inspired by the boundary mutation models developed by Vogl and Bergman 25 and Schrempf and Hobolth 27 in the contet of Moran models. The method relies on the fact that for low migration and mutation rates the dynamics is strongly dominated by genetic drift over most of the sample space Ω of the distribution, ecept near the boundary of Ω. Thus the role of mutation and migration is, at lowest order, to provide boundary conditions for a forward Kolmogorov equation in which only drift is relevant. To place the argument on a more rigorous footing, we use a series epansion to obtain the leading order behaviour of the stationary distribution near the boundary of Ω. For the case of muti-allelic neutral diffusion in a single population, Ω is a simple. Burden and Tang show that in this case the stationary distribution can be conveniently epressed as a set of point masses at the corners of Ω corresponding to the relative probability of alleles at non-segregating sites and line densities on the edges of Ω corresponding to the site frequencies of biallelic polymorphisms. This purpose of this paper is primarily to demonstrate that the method can be carried over to subdivided population models by adapting the method to the 2-island, 2-allele Wright-Fisher model, for which the sample space is Ω =,,. More recently, Burden and Griffiths 28 have recreated results of Burden and Tang 26 for multi-allelic neutral Wright-Fisher diffusion using approaches based on the generator of the backward Kolmogorov equation and on the coalescent. A second aim of the current paper is to confirm our results for the 2-island, 2-allele Wright-Fisher model using analogous backward-generator and coalescent methods. The structure of the paper is as follows: The discrete Wright-Fisher island model is defined and the corresponding forward-kolmogorov equation for the 2-island, 2-allele case is given in Section 2. Section 3 is a brief review of eisting related work before embarking on our approach. Series epansions near the boundary are used to find the approimate stationary distribution terms of effective corner probabilities and effective line densities in Section 4. In 2

3 Sections 5 and 6 results are confirmed from independent derivations based on the backward generator and the coalescent respectively. Section 7 compares the theory with a numerical simulation of the discrete model. Conclusions are drawn in Section The Wright-Fisher island model The Wright-Fisher model with K alleles and g islands with haploid populations M,..., M g is defined by the Markov transition matri Prob Yτ + = yτ +, Yτ = yτ g M i! K K i= a= y ψ ia yτ y iaτ+ ia! a= = if K a= y ja = M j for each j =,..., g, otherwise. Here Y ia τ is the number of individuals of allele type A a on island i at discrete time step τ =,, 2,..., and ψ ia y is the probability that any given individual on island i in generation τ + is born as allele type A a given the configuration y at time step τ. More specifically, consider a neutral model with with mutation rates from allele A a to allele A b per generation of u ab and migration rates defined by a probability v ij that an individual on island i is the offspring of an individual from island j from the previous generation, where K g u ab, v ij, u ab = v ij =, 2 for a =,..., K; i =,..., g. Then b= j= ψ ia y = g j= v ij K b= y jb M j u ba. 3 From here on we consider the diffusion limit of the case of g = 2 islands and K = 2 alleles. A diffusion limit consistent with the usual coalescent time Herbots, 997 is obtained by defining a continuum time t and relative 3

4 type-a allele frequencies X t and X 2 t on islands and 2 respectively by t = τ M, X it = Y i τ = Y i2 τ, 4 M i M i where M = M + M 2. 5 We also define mutation and migration rates per unit continuum time by q 2 = Mu 2 = M u, q 2 = Mu 2 = M u 22, m 2 = Mv 2 = M v, m 2 = Mv 2 = M v 22, 6 and relative island population sizes by r = M M, r 2 = M 2 M. 7 The corresponding forward-kolmogorov equation for the density f, 2 ; t of the joint distribution of X t and X 2 t is see for eample Blythe and McKane, 27, Eq. 9 f, 2 ; t t = 2 2 i= r i 2 2 i { i i f, 2 ; t} {m 2 2 q 2 + q 2 } f, 2 ; t 2 {m q q 2 } f, 2 ; t, 8 for, 2 Ω =,,, and t. No analytic solution is known for this equation for arbitrary parameters q ab, m ij and r i, even for the stationary distribution. Numerical solutions to the stationary distribution of the discrete model with transition matri Eq. for a case with g = 2 islands, K = 2 alleles and low scaled mutation rates q 2 and q 2 are shown in Fig.. In subfigures a and b the scaled mutation and migration rates q 2 =.75 2, q 2 =.5 2 m 2 = 2 2, m 2 =.3 2, 9 4

5 a b ProbY = y, Y2 = y log ProbY = y, Y2 = y y y y y 8 c d ProbY = y, Y2 = y2.3.2 log ProbY = y, Y2 = y y y y y 8 Figure : Stationary distribution of a 2-island, 2-allele model with low mutation rates. The abundances of type-a alleles on island- and island-2 are y and y 2 respectively. Parameters for plots a and b are M =, M 2 = 5, u 2 =.5 4, u 2 = 4, v 2 = 8 4, v 2 =.2 4. Parameters for plots c and d are the same ecept v 2 = v 2 = 2. The vertical scales of plots a and c are linear and of plots b and d logarithmic to base. are all <<. In this case the stationary distribution is strongly concentrated at the corners and the boundary. More specifically, for this particular 5

6 simulation we observe that alleles are likely to be fied on both islands simultaneously, the most likely configurations being those for which both islands are fied for the same allele. Configurations for which both islands are simultaneously segregating are etremely unlikely. It is this situation which we consider in this paper. In subfigures c and d the scaled mutation and migration rates q 2 =.75 2, q 2 =.5 2, m 2 = m 2 =.5, are such that the scaled mutation rates are small, but the scaled migration rates are not. In this case the two islands populations are more closely coupled, and the probability that a site can be simultaneously segregating on both islands is first order in the mutation rates. In other words, the stationary distribution is not strongly confined to the boundary of Ω. This situation is not considered in this paper. 3. Alternative approaches The approach taken in this paper is to consider the diffusion limit, defined by Eq. 4, in a situation where the off-diagonal scaled mutation and migration rates, defined by Eq. 6, are all Oθ for some small parameter θ <<. There are two different time scales operating in this problem. In terms of the diffusion time t, subsamples of the same allele type will coalesce to single ancestors within an island in O time, whereas coalescence of the same allele type between islands or of different allele types within an island will take O/θ time. Many authors have observed this behaviour, with early research by Slatkin 98; Takahata 99; Wakeley 2 and Notohara 2. A limit theorem where there are two time scales from a discrete model is Theorem in Möhle 998b. This is a useful theorem for models in population genetics. Let Π α = A + B/α + oα as α be a transition probability matri such that P = lim m A m eists. Then, with G = P BP, Πt = lim α Π αt α = P e t G, are the transition functions of a continuous time process corresponding to a time t related to the discrete time τ by τ = αt. Usually α is proportional to the population size in a Wright-Fisher model. An interpretation of Πt is that in the limit, time scale transitions according to P occur instantaneously 6

7 compared to transitions with rates in G which are not instantaneous. We will not review this concept here and refer the reader to Möhle 998b,a. The theorem can be applied in the contet of the model considered in this paper not by choosing α to be the population size, but by choosing α = M/θ, that is, the scale of the inverse migration and mutation rates, with the population size M initially held fied and θ. Let Π /θ be the transition probability matri in a Wright-Fisher model for changes in sample ancestry of a sample of n genes taken from the g islands. This matri has elements indeed by n,..., n g, n + + n g n where n ia, i g, a K is the number of ancestral genes of allele type a on island i. Π /θ = A + θb + Oθ 2 where A is the transition probability matri in a Wright-Fisher model where there is coalescence, but no migration or mutation. A precise form for the elements of Π /θ is difficult to find because of the general mutation structure where the probability of transitions forward in time is known, but backwards transition probabilities are not known. There will be an epansion to Oθ with a simple form for A, but not B. Elements of A m converge to a matri P which has elements zero or one depending on the absorbing states where coalescence takes place between genes of the same type on the same island. That is P n,...,n g,l,...,l g = g K δ lia,i{n ia >}. 2 i= a= Möhle s Theorem can now be applied for fied population size M as θ showing that holds. Now B = M C M, where C M converges to C as M. P does not depend on M. Therefore lim lim M θ Πt M θ /θ P e t G 3 where G = P CP. The approach taken in this paper is to investigate the stationary distribution in a diffusion process, or underlying dual coalescent process directly rather than use Möhle s theorem for convergence from the discrete Wright- Fisher model. Wakeley 2 investigates an infinitely-many-demes model. In a prelimit model there are g demes, then as g in a time scale proportional to g generations there is an instantaneous scattering phase where individuals migrate to different demes, then a collecting phase where migration of an 7

8 individual to an occupied deme results in instantaneous coalescence. Mathematics used in describing this model is the convergence theorem with two time scales of Möhle 998b where α = g in Eq.. Vogl et al. 23 construct an MCMC algorithm for inference in the infinitely-many-demes model which is appplied to real data. Ethier and Nagylaki 98 study convergence of Wright-Fisher models with two time scales to a diffusion model, with applications in population genetics. Wakeley and Takahashi 24 use their results elegantly to study frequencies in their infinitely-many-demes model, where time scales within demes are much faster than the time scale across demes. A similar approach cannot be used for the finite number of demes in this paper, as the number of demes tending to infinity is crucial in their approach. Gutenkunst et al. 29 have developed numerical software called a i for determining the site frequency spectrum of a multiple-island Wright- Fisher diffusion with migrations and selection, with mutations modelled by setting boundary conditions at the corners, 2 =, and, of the region Ω. 4. Stationary distribution with slow mutation and migration rates We will demonstrate that in the limit of slow mutation and migration rates, an accurate approimation to the stationary solution of Eq. 8 can be found as a set of effective line densities on the boundary of the region Ω. The method is similar to that used by Burden and Tang 26, 27 to find an approimate stationary solution to the multi-allele neutral Wright-Fisher model for an arbitrary instantaneous rate matri. We begin by rescaling the mutation rates by a small parameter θ << via the equations q 2 = θα, q 2 = θβ, m 2 = θµ 2, m 2 = θµ 2, 4 where α, β, µ 2 and µ 2 are O. For instance, one might choose θ = maq 2, q 2, m 2, m 2, though this specific choice is not absolutely necessary. For notational convenience we will also set = = the relative abundance of allele A on island- and 2 = y = the relative abundance of allele A on island-2. With this reparameterisation, and setting the time derivative 8

9 to zero, Eq. 8 becomes = 2 2 { f, y} + {y yf, y} 2r 2 2r 2 y2 θ {µ 2y α + β } f, y θ y {µ 2 y αy + β y} f, y. 5 In the first instance our aim will be to find the stationary solution to leading order in θ as θ close to the boundary of Ω. Consider first the region close to the edge y =. Following the procedure described in Appendi A of Burden and Tang 26, without loss of generality we write the solution in the form f, y = θ 2 sy θs k= g k y k. 6 This epansion is essentially a generalisation of the Frobenius method for solving ordinary differential equations Teschl, 22 to our partial differential equation. The purpose of the function s is to capture the leading order power of y. From numerical simulations, and from eperience with the multi-allelic solution Burden and Tang, 26, we will assume this eponent to be close to for small θ. As we shall see, it will turn out that the choice of eponent and the overall normalisation θ 2 ensure that s and g are analytic functions for < <, which remain finite as θ. For fied and θ the behaviour of each term in Eq. 5 as y is as listed in the middle column of Table. Keeping only the dominant Oy θs 2 terms allows us to etract s as follows: = { } y 2r 2 y yf, y θµ 2 + βf, y + Oy. = θ 2 sg { } y 2r 2 y yθs θµ 2 + βy θs + Oy = θ 3 sg s 2r 2 µ 2 + βθs y θs 2 + Oy 2r 2 7 9

10 Table : Asymptotic behaviour of each term in Eq. 5. and y mean / and / y respectively. Λ Term lim y Term lim θ /2r { 2 f} Oy θs log y 2 2 θ 2 { g } + Oθ 2 /2r 2 y{y 2 yf} Oy θs 2 Divergent θ µ 2 yf Oy θs log y Oθ 3 θ { µ 2 f α + β f} Oy θs log y Oθ 2 θ y {µ 2 + βf} Oy θs 2 Divergent θ y { µ 2 y αy βyf} Oy θs Oθ 3 This can only be achieved if s = 2r 2 µ 2 + β. 8 Up to this point there is no requirement that θ should be small. We now impose such a requirement, and note that as a consequence, Eqs. 6 and 8 imply that f, y drops off rapidly away from the boundary at y =. Now introduce a cutoff a distance Λ from the boundary and define an effective line density f eff, such that f eff d is the probability contained in the region, + d, Λ. Then f eff = Λ = θ 2 s f, y dy g k k= Λ = θg Λ θs + θ 2 k= y θs +k dy Λ θs+k θs + k = θg + Oθ 2, as θ. 9 Importantly, we see that θ f eff is independent of Λ in the absolute limit θ, and that for practical purposes the approimation to a line density is accurate to leading order in θ provided θs log Λ <<, 2

11 or equivalently, Λ >> e /θ when s = O. Similarly we have that Λ yf, y dy = Oθ 2, Λ y yf, y dy = Oθ 2, as θ. 2 Thus the asymptotic behaviour of the integral of each term in Eq. 7 is as listed in the right-hand column of Table. Note that by Eq. 8 and a calculation similar to that leading to Eq. 2 the sum of the two integrals listed as divergent is also Oθ 2. Integrating Eq. 5 term-by-term, dividing by θ, and taking the limit θ then gives The general solution to this equation is d 2 d 2 g =. 22 g = a + φ + a φ, 23 where a and φ are arbitrary constants. Repeating the above derivation on each of the 4 edges of the unit square we obtain, to lowest order in θ, the following approimate solutions valid in the 4 regions shown in Fig. 2: f, y = 2θ 2 r r 2 µ 2 + βy 2θr 2µ 2 +β A + Φ + A Φ, f 2, y = 2θ 2 r r 2 µ 2 y + α 2θr µ 2 y+α B + Φ y f 3, y = 2θ 2 r r 2 µ 2 + α y 2θr 2µ 2 +α C Φ f 4, y = 2θ 2 r r 2 µ 2 y + β 2θr µ 2 y+β D Φ + D + Φ, y y + B Φ y + C + Φ,, 24 where the parameters A, B, C, D, and Φ are yet to be determined. Note that there is in general a net flu of probability flow around the boundary of the square, encapsulated in a single parameter Φ. To see that the same value of Φ is relevant to all 4 sides of Ω, we temporarily reinstate

12 y Λ Λ Λ f 3, y f 4, y f 2, y f, y Λ Figure 2: Regions in which the functions f, y to f 4, y defined in Eq. 24 are valid. the time derivative on the left hand side of Eq. 5 and integrate out from the boundary at y = to the cutoff Λ employed in Eq. 9 to obtain f eff t = 2r 2 = { } f eff 2 + higher order in θ 2r { } f eff + higher order in θ. 25 The factor in square brackets is the flu of probability from left to right across the bottom edge of the unit square. Substituting in f from Eq. 24 gives f eff = θr Λ = θr A + Φ 2θr 2 µ 2 + βy 2θr 2µ 2 A + Φ +β dy + A Φ + A Φ + Oθ 2, 26 2

13 and hence to lowest order in θ the probability flu is θ d {A + Φ + A Φ} = θφ d The analogous calculation along the three remaining edges gives B + Φ f2 eff y = θr 2 + B Φ + Oθ 2, y y C Φ f3 eff = θr + C + Φ + Oθ 2, D Φ f4 eff y = θr 2 + D + Φ + Oθ 2, y y 28 all of which lead to the same anticlockwise flu, as required if probability is to be conserved. The parameters A, B, C, D and Φ are set by matching solutions at the corners. For instance, for, y close to,, Eq. 24 implies that the dominant behaviour is from f, and f, y = 2A + Φθ 2 r r 2 βy 2θr 2β + Oθ, 29 f, y = 2D Φθ 2 r r 2 β 2θr β y + Oθ, 3 from f 4. These can only be consistent if A + Φ = D Φ. Applying a similar argument to the 4 corners gives D Φ = A + Φ µ 2 + βa Φ = µ 2 + αb + Φ B Φ = C + Φ µ 2 + αc Φ = µ 2 + βd + Φ The solution of these equations, up to an overall factor κ, is A = κ4α + 3µ 2 + µ 2, B = κ4β + µ 2 + 3µ 2, C = κ4β + 3µ 2 + µ 2, D = κ4α + µ 2 + 3µ 2, Φ = κµ 2 µ

14 The overall scale κ is set by normalising the total probability to. Noting that the contribution to the probability in the vicinity of the corners is O, whereas the contribution in the vicinity of the edges that is, the 4 shaded areas in Fig. 2 is Oθ, we observe that it is sufficient to consider only the corner contributions. For instance, in the vicinity of the corner, y =,, in order to have an integrable singularity we epect f, y constant +Oθ y +Oθ. This is achieved in a way consistent with Eqs. 29 and 3 if f, y 2θ 2 r r 2 βa + Φ 2θr β y 2θr 2β. 33 The contribution from the corner, Λ, Λ is then Λ Λ f, y d dy = A + Φ 2β + Oθ = κ β µ 2 + µ 2 + 2α + Oθ. 34 Suppose we define P ab to be the joint probability to zeroth order in θ that a single individual selected at random from island is of allele type A a, and a single individual selected at random from island 2 is of allele type A b. These zero-order probabilities are precisely the corner probabilities. Since and 2 are the relative frequencies of allele A on islands and 2 respectively, we have from Eq. 34 that P 22 = κ β µ 2 + µ 2 + 2α. 35 Similarly, calculating contributions from the corners, y =,,, and, gives respectively P 2 = B + Φ 2µ 2 + β = 2κ, P = C + Φ 2α = κ α µ 2 + µ 2 + 2α, P 2 = D + Φ 2µ 2 + α = 2κ. 36 To leading order in θ the sum of these must be, and hence κ = αβ α + βµ 2 + µ 2 + 2α + β. 37 4

15 The corner probabilities are then P P 2 P 2 P 22 = α + βµ 2 + µ 2 + 2α + β µ 2 + µ 2 + 2ββ 2αβ 2αβ µ 2 + µ 2 + 2αα. 38 As mentioned above, the choice of θ is to some etent arbitrary. Equation 4 implies that for given scaled rates q ab and m ij, the numerical values of α, β, µ 2, and µ 2 scale like θ, and Eqs. 32 and 37 ensure that A, B, C, D and Φ also scale like θ. From Eqs. 24, 26, 28 and 38 it is then clear that the approimate functions f to f 4, f eff to f4 eff and probabilities P ab are independent of the initial choice of θ for given q ab and m ij. More specifically, in terms of the scaled rates, the principal results are summarised to leading order in θ as: from Eq 24, f, y = 8κr r 2 m 2 + q 2 y 2r 2m 2 +q 2 q2 + m 2 + q 2 + m 2 f 2, y = 8κr r 2 m 2 y + q 2 2r m 2 y+q 2 q2 + m 2 y f 3, y = 8κr r 2 m 2 + q 2 y 2r 2m 2 +q 2 q2 + m 2 f 4, y = 8κr r 2 m 2 y + q 2 2r m 2 y+q 2 q2 + m 2 + q 2 + m 2 y y, ; + q 2 + m 2, y + q m 39, from Eqs. 26 and 28 for the effective line densities, f eff q2 + = 4κr m 2 + q 2 + m 2 f2 eff q2 + m 2 y = 4κr 2 + q 2 + m 2 y y f3 eff q2 + m 2 = 4κr + q 2 + m 2 f4 eff q2 + y = 4κr m q 2 + m 2 y y,,, ; 4 5

16 and from Eq. 38 for the corner probabilities, P P 2 P 2 = qm + 2q P 22 where m + 2q 2 q 2 2q 2 q 2 2q 2 q 2 m + 2q 2 q 2, 4 κ = q 2q 2 qm + 2q, q = q 2 + q 2, m = m 2 + m 2, 42 and r and r 2 are defined by Eq. 7. Note that the asymmetry in the effective line densities, Eq. 4 is due to a net flu of probability anticlockwise around the boundary of Ω when m 2 m 2 see Eqs. 27 and 32. In this sense the line density differs from the small-θ limit of Wright s well known beta-function solution to the 2-allele neutral diffusion, for which the boundary conditions at = and constrain the flu to be zero. 5. Alternative derivation of P ab and f eff : Backward generator In Section 4 the probabilities P ab are defined to be the joint probability that a single individual selected at random from island is of allele type A a, and a single individual selected at random from island 2 is of allele type A b. These probabilities can be written to zeroth order in θ as P = E X X 2, P 2 = E X X 2, P 2 = E X X 2, P 22 = E X X 2, 43 where X i = X i are the type-a allele frequencies defined in Eq. 4 in the stationary distribution. Here we give an alternative derivation of the analytic formulae for these probabilities to zeroth order in θ, namely Eq. 4. The starting point is a general result Etheridge, 2, Section 3.6 that E LgX =, 44 6

17 for any function g in the domain of the generator L of the backward Kolmogorov equation, with epectation in the stationary distribution of the process if it eists. For the 2-island, 2-allele model the backward generator is De Iorio and Griffiths, 24 L = 2 i i 2 2 r i= i 2 i + m 2 2 q 2 + q 2 + m q q As before we assume the migration rates m ij and mutation rates q ab to be Oθ as θ. For the remainder of this section, let E denote epectation to order zero in θ and E epectation up to first order in θ including zero order terms. It is possible to calculate the probabilities in Eq. 43 eactly, but with small rates this is easier. Then, where E X = E X 2 = E X2 = E X 2 2 = π, 46 π, π 2 = q 2 + q 2 q 2, q 2 47 is the stationary left-eigenvector of the mutation rate matri. To confirm Eq. 46, note that = E LX = m 2 E X 2 X E X q 2 + q 2 E X, = E LX 2 = m 2 E X X 2 E X2 q 2 + q 2 E X. 48 The eact solution to these equations is E X = E X2 = π. Then, = E LX 2 = r E X X + 2E X m2 X 2 X X q 2 + X q 2 = r E X E X 2 + small order terms. 49 Therefore E X 2 = E X = π, and similarly for X 2. 7

18 Applying Eq. 44 with g = 2, we have = E LX X 2 = m 2 E X2 2 m2 E X X 2 q2 E X X 2 + q2 E X 2 X + m 2 E X 2 m2 E X X 2 q2 E X X 2 + q2 E X X 2 = m 2 + m 2 + 2q 2 + q 2 E X X 2 + m2 + m 2 + 2q 2 π + higher order terms. 5 The zero order approimation 46 is used to obtain the last line. Therefore to order zero we recover Eq. 4, P = E X X 2 = m 2 + m 2 + 2q 2 m 2 + m 2 + 2q 2 + q 2 π = m + 2q 2q 2 m + 2qq, 5 where m and q are defined by Eq. 42. By symmetry Now and by symmetry P 22 = E X X 2 = m + 2q 2q 2 m + 2qq. 52 P 2 = E X X 2 = π E X X 2 = 2q 2 q 2 m + 2qq, 53 P 2 = E X X 2 = 2q 2q 2 m + 2qq = P It is easy to confirm that the 4 probabilities in Eqs. 5 to 54 sum to. Note too that if m 2 = m 2 = then the four probabilities are found from the product measure, respectively π 2, π 2 2, π π 2, π 2 π, as they should be. It is also possible to calculate to Oθ the marginal probability that subsamples are monomorphic, E X n and E X n 2. This will give an indication of the order in n for which the approimations hold. Consider L n = nn 2 r n + n m 2 2 q 2 + q 2 n. 55 8

19 Taking epectations and setting E LX n =, E X n E X n = 2r n E m 2 X X 2 X q 2 + X q 2 X n Taking into account the order of the terms Thus E X n E X n 2r = n E m2 X 2 + X q 2 X n = 2r m2 P 2 + π q 2. n and similarly n E X n = π 2r m2 P 2 + π q 2 j j= n E X n 2 = π 2r 2 m2 P 2 + π q 2 j. 58 These estimates are Oθ, however to hold for larger n and remain nonnegative m2 P 2 m2 P 2 2r + q 2 log n, 2r 2 + q 2 log n. 59 π π We net calculate the effective line density f eff, where X 2 = and X varies. We first calculate E X n X n 2 X 2 where n, n 2, and from this deduce the line density. In calculating epectations E acting on powers of X, X 2 we are effectively just using the corner probabilities where X and X 2 can only take values or. Thus j= E X n X 2 = P 2, n. 6 We will also make use of the zero-order epectations E X n = E X = π, E X n X 2 X 2 =, E X X =. 6 9

20 Now consider a recursive calculation of E X n X 2 from the stationary equation = E LX n X 2. For n >, = nn E X n X 2 E X n 2r X 2 + ne X n X 2 m 2 X 2 X X q 2 + X q 2 E X n m2 X X 2 X 2 q 2 + X 2 q 2 = 2r nn np 2 m 2 + q 2 This gives the recursive rule E X n X 2 E X n X 2 P 2 m 2 + q 2 P 2 q 2 π + q 2 P E X n X 2 = E X n X 2 c n c 2 nn, 63 where c = 2r P 2 m 2 + q 2, c 2 = 2r P 2 m 2 + q 2 P 2 q 2 π + q 2 P The recursion gives E X n X 2 = E X X 2 c n j=2 = E X X 2 n c j= = E X X 2 c 2 c j c 2 n j=2 jj j d c 2 n n d + c 2 n d. Now it is possible to calculate E X n X n 2 X 2, which is Oθ for 65 2

21 n, n 2. Epanding X n 2 and substituting from 65: E X n X n 2 X 2 n 2 n2 = k E X n +k X 2 k k= n 2 n2 = c k n +k d + c 2 n+k d k k= = c n n2 d + c 2 n n 2 d. 66 Note that the terms E X X 2 c 2 do not contribute because n 2 n2 k= k k = n 2 =. By writing this epectation as E X n X n 2 X 2 = we read off the line density f eff = c + c 2 = c + c 2 n n 2 f eff d, 67 + c. 68 Evaluating the constants with the aid of Eqs. 42, 47 and 53 gives c = 4κr q 2 + m 2, c + c 2 = 4κr q m, 69 in agreement with Eq. 4. The remaining three line densities are found in a similar fashion. 6. Alternative derivation of the probabilities P ab : The coalescent The probability P ab that one individual chosen at random from island- and one individual chosen at random from island-2 are of allele types A a and A b respectively can also be derived, to lowest order in θ, using the coalescent. Consider the most recent common ancestor of two individuals, one chosen from each island. Tracing lines of descent backwards in time, it is clear that 2

22 at least one migration event has occurred in the common ancestry of these individuals since the common ancestor. The random time T m since the most recent migration event is an eponential random variable with rate m = m 2 + m 2. 7 Since m is of order θ, we have that T m = Oθ. Immediately before the migration event, both lines of descent inhabit the same island, and so standard coalescent theory tells us that the time elapsed between the common ancestor and the migration event is O. It follows that, since the mutation rates q ab are of order θ, to calculate the probability P ab to lowest order in θ, it is sufficient firstly to consider only the time since the migration event, and secondly to assume that the ancestors at the time of the migration event were of the same allele type. Thus to O in θ, we have two independently mutating parallel lines of descent, both descending from the same allele type. Suppose we first fi the time since the migration event to be t. For any 2 2 rate matri Q it is well known that e tq = I + e tq Q, 7 q where I is the identity matri and q = q 2 + q 2. Then from Eqs. 47 and 7, P 2 fied time t = π e tq e tq 2 + π 2 e tq 2 e tq 22 = π q 2 q q2 e tq q e tq q 2 +π 2 q e tq q 2 q e tq = q 2 q e 2tq π. 72 Taking the epectation with respect to the random time T m then gives P 2 = q 2 = q 2π q q e 2tq π me mt dt e 2q/m e d. 73 The change of variable in the last line illustrates the point that it is not sufficient to consider only a single mutation event along each descendent 22

23 line, even though our aim is only to calculate P 2 to leading order: The small parameters occur in the eponential in the ratio q/m, which is O as θ. Evaluation of the integral and some straightforward rearranging gives which agrees with Eq. 4. Similarly P fied time t = P 2 = 2q 2 m + 2q π, 74 q 2 q e 2tq π, 75 and hence, after taking the epectation with respect to T m and rearranging, yields P = m + 2q 2 m + 2q π, 76 also agreeing with Eq. 4. The probabilities P 2 and P 22 follow by symmetry. 7. Comparison with the numerical simulation Below we compare numerical stationary distributions of the transition matri Eq. with our approimate analytic solutions to the diffusion limit forward Kolmogorov equation near the boundary of Ω, namely Eq.39, and with the approimate line densities on the boundary of Ω, Eq. 4. Figure 3 shows plots of the approimate analytic solutions f to f 4 given in Eq. 39 along traverse lines perpendicular to and in the vicinity of the edges of the unit square Ω =,, for the scaled parameters in Eq. 9, together with appropriately scaled probabilities of the numerically determined stationary solution shown in Figs. a and b. The analytic solutions are a close match, but begin to drift off slightly as one moves away from the boundary. Figure 4 shows the analogous plot to Fig. 3, ecept the that both mutation and migration rates are greater by a factor of, that is, q 2 =.75, q 2 =.5 m 2 = 2, m 2 =

24 Bottom edge Top edge log f, y log f 3, y y y Left hand edge Right hand edge log f 4, y y..5.9 log f 2, y y Figure 3: Logarithmic plots of the approimate analytic solutions f to f 4 given in Eq. 39 along traverse lines perpendicular to and in the vicinity of the edges of the unit square Ω =,,. Also plotted circles is the numerically determined solution obtained as M M 2 times the stationary eigenvector of the transition matri Eq.. Parameters for the approimate analytic solutions are given in Eq. 9 and for the numerical simulation are as in the caption to Fig. a and b. In this case the approimate functions f to f 4 are clearly a poor approimation. In general, we find that Eq. 39 begins to fail if θ = maq 2, q 2, m 2, m 2 24

25 Bottom edge Top edge log f, y log f 3, y y y Left hand edge Right hand edge log f 4, y -2-2 y..5.9 log f 2, y -2-2 y Figure 4: The same as Fig. 3, ecept that mutation rates have been multiplied by a factor of. That is, scaled rates are as in Eq.77, and the unscaled rates are u 2 =.5 3, u 2 = 3, v 2 = 8 3, v 2 =.2 3 eceeds.. In Fig. 5 the effective line densities of Eq. 4 are compared with the numerically determined stationary eigenvector of the transition matri Eq. along the 4 edges of the square lattice {,..., M } {,..., M 2 }. Figure 5a 25

26 a b log f eff or log f eff y -2 - bottom edge RH edge top edge LH edge log f eff or log f eff y bottom edge RH edge top edge LH edge or y or y Figure 5: Logarithmic plots of the approimate effective line densities f eff to f4 eff given in Eq. 4 along the 4 edges of the unit square Ω =,,. Also plotted as circles is the numerically determined stationary eigenvector of the transition matri Eq. along the 4 edges of the square lattice {,..., M } {,..., M 2 } and as crosses the zeroth order theoretical probabilities P ab in Eq. 38. The probabilities marked as circles and crosses have been multiplied by M top edge or bottom edge or M 2 left-hand edge or right-hand edge for comparison with the functions f eff to f4 eff. Parameters in the left hand plot a for the approimate line densities f eff to f4 eff are given in Eq. 9 and for the numerical simulation are as in the caption to Figs. a and b. In the right hand plot b the the mutation and migration rates have been decreased by a factor of. That is, as in Eq. 78 for the approimate line densities and M =, M 2 = 5, u 2 =.5 5, u 2 = 5, v 2 = 8 5, v 2 =.2 5 for the numerical simulation. corresponds to the same set of scaled parameters as Fig. 3, namely Eq. 9. Figure 5b corresponds to scaled mutation and migration rates which are reduced by a factor of, namely q 2 =.75 3, q 2 =.5 3 m 2 = 2 3, m 2 = Recall that Eq. 2 must be satisfied for the effective line density to be independent of Λ to lowest order in θ. For the parameters in Fig. 5a we 26

27 have θ. and Λ = /M 2 = /5 for the top and bottom edges of Ω or Λ = /M = / for the left-hand and right-hand edges of Ω. Thus θ log Λ.5 and the effective line density is only a coarse approimation to the probability that a site will be biallelic throughout the entire population on one island and non-segregating throughout the entire population on the other island. In Fig. 5b we have θ log Λ.5, and effective line density is in much closer agreement. Note that the asymmetry in each plot is due to a net flu of probability anticlockwise around the boundary of Ω see Eq. 27, reflecting the asymmetry in migration rates, m 2 m 2. Also plotted in Fig. 5 are the fiation probabilities P ab at the corners of Ω calculated from Eq. 4, which agree poorly with the numerical stationary distribution at the corners in a but agree well in b. 8. Conclusions We have investigated the stationary distribution of the diffusion limit of the 2-island, 2-allele Wright-Fisher model in the limit of small migration and mutation rates. By small rates we mean that the scaled migration rates m ij and mutation rates q ab defined by Eq. 6 are assumed to be of the order of a small positive parameter θ <<. An empirical situation relevant to this parameter regime is gene flow between divergent species Souissi et al., 28; Stuglik and Babik, 26. Our results for the leading-order-in-θ stationary distribution near the boundary of its sample space Ω, illustrated in Fig. 2, and for the induced effective line densities and effective point masses at the edges and corners of Ω are summarised in Eq. 39 to 4. In an infinite sites model the induced effective line densities are site frequency spectra of sites which are bi-allelic in one island and non-segregating in the other. Of particular interest is the observation that these line densities include an asymmetric part proportional to m 2 m 2, corresponding to a net flu of probability around the perimeter of Ω. This result is the analogue of similar observation for the case of multi-allelic neutral diffusion in a single population, in which the corresponding line densities contain an asymmetric part driven by the non-reversible part of the instantaneous mutation rate matri Burden and Tang, 26. The corner probabilities P ab summarised in Eq. 4 represent the joint probability that a single individual selected at random from island is of allele type A a, and a single individual selected at random from island 2 is of 27

28 allele type A b. In an infinite sites model, they are the relative abundances of allele combinations at sites which are simultaneously non-segregating on both islands. As epected, for non-zero mutation rates allele-type abundances are positively correlated, and for zero mutation rates they are uncorrelated. Results for the corner probabilities were verified directly from the backward generator in Section 5 and from the coalescent in Section 6. The coalescent calculation is informative. It demonstrates that the lowest order approimation to P 2 and P 2 corresponds to an ancestry of two individuals, one chosen randomly from each island, such that the ancestry includes precisely one migration event occurring before any mutations since the common ancestor, followed by any allowed number of mutations since the migration. The method described in this paper can in principle be etended to the general case of g islands and K allele types. In this case the sample space of the stationary distribution is a product Ω = S S of g copies of the K -dimensional simple S. There are K g corner probabilities to determine labelled P a...a g, where a i =,..., K labels the allele type fied on island-i. Each of these probabilities is of O. Corresponding to the states in which one island is bi-allelic and the remaining g islands are non-segregating, there are g k 2 K g effective line densities, contributing a total probability of Oθ. The factor g comes from the choice of segregating island; the factor K 2 comes from the choice of two allele types contributing to the bi-allelic site; and the factor K g comes from the allele types fied on the remaining g islands. The remaining states, i.e. those for which more than one island is segregating or for which a site is tri-allelic or higher, contribute a total probability of Oθ 2. Acknowledgements This research was done when Robert Griffiths visited the Mathematical Sciences Institute, Australian National University in November and December 27. He thanks the Institute for their support and hospitality. References References Blythe, R. A., McKane, A. J., 27. Stochastic models of evolution in genetics, ecology and linguistics. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Eperiment 27 7, P78. 28

29 Burden, C. J., Griffiths, R. C., 28. The stationary distribution of a Wright- Fisher diffusion model with general small mutation rates, arxiv: q-bio.pe. Burden, C. J., Tang, Y., 26. An approimate stationary solution for multiallele neutral diffusion with low mutation rates. Theoretical Population Biology 2, Burden, C. J., Tang, Y., 27. Rate matri estimation from site frequency data. Theoretical Population Biology 3, De Iorio, M., Griffiths, R. C., 24. Importance sampling on coalescent histories. ii: Subdivided population models. Advances in Applied Probability 36 2, Etheridge, A., 2. Some Mathematical Models from Population Genetics: École D Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXIX-29. Vol. 22 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. Ethier, S. N., Nagylaki, T., 98. Diffusion approimations of markov chains with two time scales and applications to population genetics. Advances in Applied Probability 2, Gutenkunst, R. N., Hernandez, R. D., Williamson, S. H., Bustamante, C. D., 29. Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations from multidimensional snp frequency data. PLoS genetics 5, e695. Herbots, H. M., 997. The structured coalescent. In: Donnelly, P., Tavaré, S. Eds., Progress in Population Genetics and Human Evolution. Vol. 87 of IMA Vols Math. Appl. Springer-Verlag, pp Möhle, M., 998a. Coalescent results for two-se population models. Advances in Applied Probability 3 2, Möhle, M., 998b. A convergence theorem for markov chains arising in population genetics and the coalescent with selfing. Advances in Applied Probability 3 2, Notohara, M., 2. The structured coalescent process with weak migration. Journal of applied probability 38, 7. 29

30 Schrempf, D., Hobolth, A., 27. An alternative derivation of the stationary distribution of the multivariate neutral wright fisher model for low mutation rates with a view to mutation rate estimation from site frequency data. Theoretical population biology 4, Slatkin, M., 98. Fiation probabilities and fiation times in a subdivided population. Evolution 35 3, Souissi, A., Bonhomme, F., Manchado, M., Bahri-Sfar, L., Gagnaire, P.- A., 28. Genomic and geographic footprints of differential introgression between two divergent fish species solea spp.. Heredity Available online ahead of publication. Stuglik, M. T., Babik, W., 26. Genomic heterogeneity of historical gene flow between two species of newts inferred from transcriptome data. Ecology and evolution 6 3, Takahata, N., 99. Genealogy of neutral genes and spreading of selected mutations in a geographically structured population. Genetics 29 2, Teschl, G., 22. Ordinary differential equations and dynamical systems. Vol. 4. American Mathematical Society Providence, Ch. 4. Vogl, C., Bergman, J., 25. Inference of directional selection and mutation parameters assuming equilibrium. Theoretical population biology 6, Vogl, C., Das, A., Beaumont, M., Mohanty, S., Stephan, W., 23. Population subdivision and molecular sequence variation: theory and analysis of drosophila ananassae data. Genetics 65 3, Wakeley, J., 2. The coalescent in an island model of population subdivision with variation among demes. Theoretical population biology 59 2, Wakeley, J., Takahashi, T., 24. The many-demes limit for selection and drift in a subdivided population. Theoretical population biology 66 2, Wright, S., 943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28 2, 4. 3