Bottleneck Effect Calculators
0 calculators tagged with “Bottleneck Effect”
All Calculators
No calculators found for this topic.
Genetic Consequences of Bottlenecks
- Reduced allelic richness: Rare alleles are disproportionately lost — with only 10 individuals surviving, any allele present at < 5% frequency has a high probability of being absent
- Reduced heterozygosity: Expected H decreases proportionally with 1 − 1/(2Ne); single severe bottleneck (Ne = 10) reduces H by ~5% per generation
- Allele frequency shifts: Random survivors determine post-bottleneck allele frequencies regardless of pre-bottleneck adaptive value
- Inbreeding depression: Increased homozygosity exposes deleterious recessive alleles
Famous Examples
Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus): extreme genetic uniformity — skin grafts accepted between unrelated individuals; reproductive problems (low sperm quality, high infant mortality). Northern elephant seals: reduced to ~20 individuals in the 1890s; recovered to 170,000+ but with very low genetic diversity at all loci studied. Florida panther: severe inbreeding depression reversed by genetic rescue (Texas pumas introduced 1995).
Founder Effect
Related concept: a small number of individuals establishes a new population, carrying only a subset of the source population's alleles. Examples: Amish population (founder effect for Ellis-van Creveld syndrome); Ashkenazi Jewish disease alleles; island colonization events.
Glossary
Frequently Asked Questions
The bottleneck effect occurs when a population drastically shrinks, randomly eliminating alleles from the gene pool. Key effects: (1) Loss of rare alleles — alleles at < 5–10% frequency in the original population are unlikely to be represented in a small survivor group. (2) Reduced heterozygosity — fewer distinct alleles means less variation. (3) Altered allele frequencies — surviving allele frequencies may not reflect the original population. (4) Increased inbreeding — small post-bottleneck populations have elevated inbreeding coefficients. Effects are irreversible in the short term — lost alleles cannot be recovered without immigration from other populations.
Bottleneck effect: an existing population is drastically reduced in size by a catastrophic event (disease, hunting, habitat loss, natural disaster). The surviving individuals represent a random subset of the original gene pool. Founder effect: a small group leaves an existing population to establish a new one in a different location (island colonization, migration, religious community isolation). The founders carry only a subset of source population alleles. Both are forms of genetic drift causing random allele loss and frequency changes, but differ in mechanism — catastrophic reduction vs. colonization. Both reduce genetic diversity in the resulting population.
Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) experienced one or more severe population bottlenecks, estimated to have occurred ~10,000–12,000 years ago during the megafaunal extinctions and possibly earlier. The genetic consequences are extreme: virtually no variation at MHC (immune) loci — skin grafts between unrelated cheetahs are accepted without rejection (unusual in outbred species); extremely low microsatellite diversity; reduced sperm motility and high proportion of morphologically abnormal sperm. Despite population recovery to ~7,000 individuals, genetic diversity remains very low, making cheetahs highly vulnerable to novel disease outbreaks and environmental change.
Recovery of genetic diversity after a bottleneck depends on: population size, mutation rate, and immigration from other populations. Mutation alone is very slow — new mutations arise at ~10⁻⁸ per locus per generation; restoring allelic richness through mutation alone takes thousands of generations. Gene flow (immigration) from genetically distinct populations is much faster for restoration. Heterozygosity recovers faster than allelic richness after a bottleneck — a single migrant from a diverse source population can dramatically increase allelic richness. Cheetahs have recovered numerically but not genetically after ~10,000 years — demonstrating that numerical recovery does not equal genetic recovery.