Hubbry Logo
Founder effectFounder effectMain
Open search
Founder effect
Community hub
Founder effect
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Founder effect
Founder effect
Founder effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Founder effect: The original population (left) could give rise to different founder populations (right).

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1942,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.[3]

In the figure shown, the original population has nearly equal numbers of blue and red individuals. The three smaller founder populations show that one or the other color may predominate (founder effect), due to random sampling of the original population. A population bottleneck may also cause a founder effect, though it is not strictly a new population.

The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants—not genetically representative of the population from which they came—establish in a new area.[4][5] In addition to founder effects, the new population is often very small, so it shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation.

Founder mutation

[edit]

In genetics, a founder mutation is a mutation that appears in the DNA of one or more individuals which are founders of a distinct population. Founder mutations initiate with changes that occur in the DNA and can be passed down to other generations.[6][7] Any organism—from a simple virus to something complex like a mammal—whose progeny carry its mutation has the potential to express the founder effect,[8] for instance a goat[9][10] or a human.[11]

Founder mutations originate in long stretches of DNA on a single chromosome; indeed, the original haplotype is the whole chromosome. As the generations progress, the proportion of the haplotype that is common to all carriers of the mutation is shortened (due to genetic recombination). This shortening allows scientists to roughly estimate the age of the mutation.[12]

General

[edit]

The founder effect is a type of genetic drift, occurring when a small group in a population splinters off from the original population and forms a new one. The new colony may have less genetic variation than the original population, and through the random sampling of alleles during reproduction of subsequent generations, continue rapidly towards fixation. The homozygosity increase can be calculated as , where equals inbreeding coefficient and equals population size.[13] This consequence of inbreeding makes the colony more vulnerable to extinction.[14]

The small founding population experiences a loss of heterozygosity after multiple generations. ("Genetic Drift" by Boundless, 2015.[15])

The per generation loss of heterozygosity can be calculated as , where equals heterozygosity.[13] The population of the founders of the colony can also be calculated if the loss of heterozygosity from the bottleneck is known using the same equation.[13]

When a newly formed colony is small, its founders can strongly affect the population's genetic makeup far into the future. In humans, who have a slow reproduction rate, the population will remain small for many generations, effectively amplifying the drift effect generation after generation until the population reaches a certain size. The post-bottleneck population can be calculated with , where equals the number of generations, is the growth rate, is the population equilibrium size, is the natural logarithm base, and is the constant , where is the original size of the founding colony.[13]

Alleles which were present but relatively rare in the original population can move to one of two extremes. The most common one is that the allele is soon lost altogether, but the other possibility is that the allele survives and within a few generations has become much more dispersed throughout the population. The new colony can experience an increase in the frequency of recessive alleles, as well, and as a result, an increased number who are homozygous for certain recessive traits.[13] The equation to calculate reccessive allele frequencies is based on Hardy-Wienberg assumptions.[13]

The variation in gene frequency between the original population and colony may also trigger the two groups to diverge significantly over the course of many generations. As the variance, or genetic distance, increases, the two separated populations may become distinctively different, both genetically and phenotypically, although not only genetic drift, but also natural selection, gene flow and mutation all contribute to this divergence. This potential for relatively rapid changes in the colony's gene frequency led most scientists to consider the founder effect (and by extension, genetic drift) a significant driving force in the evolution of new species. Sewall Wright was the first to attach this significance to random drift and small, newly isolated populations with his shifting balance theory of speciation.[16] Following behind Wright, Ernst Mayr created many persuasive models to show that the decline in genetic variation and small population size accompanying the founder effect were critically important for new species to develop.[17] However, much less support for this view is shown today, since the hypothesis has been tested repeatedly through experimental research, and the results have been equivocal at best.[further explanation needed] Speciation by genetic drift is a specific case of peripatric speciation which in itself occurs in rare instances.[18] It takes place when a random change in genetic frequency of population favours the survival of a few organisms of the species with rare genes which cause reproductive mutation. These surviving organisms then breed among themselves over a long period of time to create a whole new species whose reproductive systems or behaviors are no longer compatible with the original population. [further explanation needed][19]

Serial founder effect

[edit]

Serial founder effects have occurred when populations migrate over long distances. Such long-distance migrations typically involve relatively rapid movements followed by periods of settlement. The populations in each migration carry only a subset of the genetic diversity carried from previous migrations. As a result, genetic differentiation tends to increase with geographic distance as described by the "isolation by distance" model.[20] The migration of humans out of Africa is characterized by serial founder effects.[21] Africa has the highest degree of human genetic diversity of any continent, which is consistent with an African origin of modern humans.[22]

In island ecology

[edit]

Founder populations are essential to the study of island biogeography and island ecology. A natural "blank slate" is not easily found, but a classic series of studies on founder population effects was done following the catastrophic 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, which erased all life on the island.[23][24] Another continuing study has been following the biocolonization of Surtsey, Iceland, a new volcanic island that erupted offshore between 1963 and 1967. An earlier event, the Toba eruption in Sumatra about 73,000 years ago, covered some parts of India with 3–6 m (10–20 ft) of ash, and must have coated the Nicobar Islands and Andaman Islands, much nearer in the ash fallout cone, with life-smothering layers, forcing the restart of their biodiversity.[25]

However, not all founder effect studies are initiated after a natural disaster; some scientists study the reinstatement of a species that became locally extinct or hadn't existed there before. A study has been in place since 1958 studying the wolf/moose interaction on Isle Royale in Lake Superior after those animals naturally migrated there, perhaps on winter ice. Hajji and others, and Hundertmark & Van Daele, studied the current population statuses of past founder effects in Corsican red deer and Alaskan elk, respectively. Corsican red deer are still listed as an endangered species, decades after a severe bottleneck. They inhabit the Tyrrhenian islands and surrounding mainlands currently, and before the bottleneck, but Hajji and others wanted to know how the deer originally got to the islands, and from what parent population or species they were derived. Through molecular analysis, they were able to determine a possible lineage, with red deer from the islands of Corsica and Sardinia being the most related to one another. These results are promising, as the island of Corsica was repopulated with red deer from the Sardinian island after the original Corsican red deer population became extinct, and the deer now inhabiting the island of Corsica are diverging from those inhabiting Sardinia.[26][27]

Kolbe and others set up a pair of genetically sequenced and morphologically examined lizards on seven small islands to watch each new population's growth and adaptation to its new environment. Specifically, they were looking at the effects on limb length and perch width, both widely varying phenotypic ranges in the parent population. Unfortunately, immigration did occur, but the founder effect and adaptive differentiation, which could eventually lead to peripatric speciation, were statistically and biologically significant between the island populations after a few years. The authors also point out that although adaptive differentiation is significant, the differences between island populations best reflect the differences between founders and their genetic diversity that has been passed down through the generations.[28]

Founder effects can affect complex traits, such as song diversity. In the Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis), the percentage of unique songs within a repertoire and within‐song complexity were significantly lower in birds from founder populations.[29]

It was found by Tarr et al. (1998) that the loss of heterozygosity of the Laysan finch (Telespiza cantans) after founding events on small islands in the Pacific Ocean closely matched theoretical calculations upon examination of microsatellite loci.[30]

Among human populations

[edit]

Genetic studies of founder effect have concentrated on discovering ancestral and novel genetic diseases caused by founder effect and, to a lesser degree, on ancestry-related founder effects on populations, races, and ancient migrations, as well as other aspects. The founder population could be the common ancestry of race or ethnicity or the forced localizations caused by artificial countries inside the larger group of ancestry, hence causing an original founder effect.[clarification needed] Race and specific founder effect mutation diseases are found in all races or ethnicities,[citation needed] and country-specific mutation diseases are caused by increasing homozygosity (the existence of same gene on both chromosomes pairs, hence a recessive disease may increase in just few generations). The genetic abnormality will increase incrementally with the decrease of number of isolated populations making tribe-specific diseases (such as Ashkenazi Jews, Amish, and Bedouins) and novel genetic defects.[31] In recessive diseases, founder populations where underlying levels of genome-wide homozygosity are high due to shared common ancestry, but also for consanguineous populations that will have large genome-wide homozygous regions due to inbreeding. Having a catalog of disease-associated variation in these populations enables rapid, early, and accurate diagnoses that may improve patient outcomes due to informed clinical management and early interventions. Enclosed communities such as Amish communities, Ashkenazi communities, and relatively isolated islands allow scientists to better understand and further discover the mutated genes that cause these rare diseases and allow them to also discover protective genes as well.[32]

Due to various migrations throughout human history, founder effects are somewhat common among humans in different times and places. The French Canadians of Quebec are a classical example of founder population. Over 150 years of French colonization, between 1608 and 1760, an estimated 8,500 pioneers married and left at least one descendant on the territory.[33] Following the takeover of the colony by the British crown in 1760, immigration from France effectively stopped, but descendants of French settlers continued to grow in number mainly due to their high fertility rate. Intermarriage occurred mostly with the deported Acadians and migrants coming from the British Isles. Since the 20th century, immigration in Quebec and mixing of French Canadians involve people from all over the world. While the French Canadians of Quebec today may be partly of other ancestries, the genetic contribution of the original French founders is predominant, explaining about 90% of regional gene pools, while Acadian (descended from other French settlers in eastern Canada) admixtures contributing 4% British and 2% Native American and other groups contributing less.[34] The founder effect can also be observed among some communities of the Romani people, an Indo-Aryan ethnic group, which numbers approximately 8-10 million people in Europe, and additional numbers in other parts of the world, such as the United States and Latin America, and who were traditionally a nomadic population.[35]

In humans, founder effects can arise from cultural isolation, and inevitably, endogamy. For example, the Amish populations in the United States exhibit founder effects because they have grown from a very few founders, have not recruited newcomers, and tend to marry within the community. Though still rare, phenomena such as polydactyly (extra fingers and toes, a symptom of a condition such as[36][37] Weyers acrodental dysostosis[36] or Ellis–Van Creveld syndrome[37]) are more common in Amish communities than in the American population at large.[38] Maple syrup urine disease affects about one out of 180,000 infants in the general population.[citation needed] Due in part to the founder effect,[39] however, the disease has a much higher prevalence in children of Amish, Mennonite, and Jewish descent.[40][41] Similarly, a high frequency of fumarase deficiency exists among the 10,000 members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a community which practices both endogamy and polygyny, where an estimated 75–80% of the community are blood relatives of just two men—founders John Y. Barlow and Joseph Smith Jessop.[42] In South Asia, castes like the Gujjars, the Baniyas and the Pattapu Kapu have estimated founder effects about 10 times as strong as those of Finns and Ashkenazi Jews.[43]

In Africa, many members of the Vadoma tribe inherit ectrodactyly, giving them the nickname of the "two-toed tribe".[44][failed verification]

The island of Pingelap also suffered a population bottleneck in 1775 following a typhoon that had reduced the population to only 20 people. As a result, complete achromatopsia has a current rate of occurrence of roughly 10%, with an additional 30% being carriers of this recessive condition.

Around 1814, a small group of British colonists founded a settlement on Tristan da Cunha, a group of small islands in the Atlantic Ocean, midway between Africa and South America. One of the early colonists apparently carried a rare, recessive allele for retinitis pigmentosa, a progressive form of blindness that afflicts homozygous individuals. As late as 1961, the majority of the genes in the gene pool on Tristan were still derived from 15 original ancestors; as a consequence of the inbreeding, of 232 people tested in 1961, four were suffering from retinitis pigmentosa. This represents a prevalence of 1 in 58, compared with a worldwide prevalence of around 1 in 4,000.[45]

The abnormally high rate of twin births in Cândido Godói could be explained by the founder effect.[46]

On 31 August 2023, researchers reported, based on genetic studies, that a human ancestor population bottleneck (from a possible 100,000 to 1000 individuals) occurred "around 930,000 and 813,000 years ago ... lasted for about 117,000 years and brought human ancestors close to extinction."[47][48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Founder effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The founder effect is a phenomenon in where a new population is established by a small number of individuals from a larger source population, resulting in reduced and altered frequencies in the descendants compared to the original group. This process, a specific type of , occurs because the founding individuals carry only a subset of the present in the parent population, leading to a bottleneck that amplifies random sampling effects on pools. Founder effects typically arise during events such as migration, colonization, or population isolation, where the small founding group—often fewer than 100 individuals—does not represent the full genetic spectrum of the source population. Over generations, this can cause certain alleles, including rare or deleterious ones, to become disproportionately common or even fixed in the new population due to limited gene flow and ongoing drift, rather than natural selection. For instance, neutral or mildly deleterious mutations present in the founders may reach higher frequencies, potentially increasing the prevalence of genetic disorders. The consequences of the founder effect extend to evolutionary biology and public health, as reduced genetic variation can limit adaptability to environmental changes and elevate risks for recessive diseases in endogamous communities. In conservation genetics, it highlights vulnerabilities in small, isolated populations, such as endangered species, where inbreeding further exacerbates diversity loss. Notable examples include the Amish communities in Pennsylvania, where founder effects have led to elevated rates of conditions like Ellis-van Creveld syndrome (dwarfism with polydactyly) due to shared ancestry from 18th-century European migrants. Similarly, in Ashkenazi Jewish populations, bottlenecks around A.D. 70 and 1100–1400 amplified alleles for lysosomal storage disorders, such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher disease, with frequencies like 0.032 for the N370S mutation in Gaucher. More recently, in Arab populations, cultural practices like consanguinity have intensified founder effects, contributing to over 160 rare syndromes, including Sanjad-Sakati syndrome linked to specific TBCE variants. These cases underscore the founder effect's role in shaping human genetic diversity and informing targeted genetic screening strategies.

Definition and Mechanisms

Core Concept

The founder effect is a type of that arises when a small group of individuals separates from a larger source population to establish a new population, leading to a reduction in and potentially altered frequencies in the new group compared to the original population. This phenomenon results from the random sampling of alleles during the founding event, where the genetic makeup of the founders does not perfectly represent the diversity or frequencies present in the source population, independent of or other adaptive forces. The effect is particularly pronounced in small founding groups, as fewer individuals mean a higher likelihood of losing rare alleles or fixating others by chance. The concept was first fully articulated by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in his 1942 book Systematics and the Origin of Species, where he described it as the "founder principle" in the context of speciation and population establishment on islands or isolated habitats. Mayr built upon earlier theoretical work on genetic drift by population geneticist Sewall Wright, who in the 1930s developed mathematical models demonstrating how random fluctuations in allele frequencies could occur in finite populations, laying the groundwork for understanding non-adaptive evolutionary changes. Wright's contributions, particularly in his 1931 paper "Evolution in Mendelian Populations," emphasized the role of stochastic processes in evolution, which Mayr later applied specifically to founder scenarios. At its core, the founder effect is a specific manifestation of , which refers to random changes in frequencies within a due to sampling error in reproduction, rather than deterministic factors like selection. Unlike broader that can affect any size over generations, the founder effect is tied to the initial colonization event by a small subset, amplifying drift's impact from the outset and often resulting in a that deviates markedly from the source. This distinction highlights how the founder effect initiates a trajectory of reduced heterozygosity and potential genetic bottlenecks in the new . The founder effect is related to but distinct from the bottleneck effect, another form of drift involving a sharp reduction in an existing 's size. To illustrate, the founder effect resembles drawing a small handful of cards from a large, well-shuffled deck where each card represents an in the source population's ; the selected cards may disproportionately include or exclude certain types purely by chance, mirroring how founders can skew representation without reflecting the original deck's composition. This analogy underscores the probabilistic nature of the process, where the smaller the founding group, the greater the deviation from expected frequencies.

Genetic and Evolutionary Impacts

The founder effect results in a significant reduction in within the newly established compared to the source , as only a of alleles is carried by the small number of founders. This loss occurs because the founding individuals represent a non-random sample of the original , leading to the exclusion of many alleles that were present in the larger source . Consequently, heterozygosity decreases, limiting the overall available for future generations. This diminished often leads to increased homozygosity, particularly when mating occurs among closely related founders, elevating the potential for . In such isolated populations, the limited pool heightens the expression of recessive traits, including deleterious ones, thereby increasing the risk of recessive disorders. The combination of low heterozygosity and can compromise population fitness and resilience to environmental changes. Allele frequencies in founder populations undergo random shifts due to the inherent in small group establishment, which can elevate the proportion of rare or cause others to be lost entirely. Over time, amplifies these changes, potentially driving certain alleles to fixation (reaching 100% frequency) or complete elimination from the population. These fluctuations differ from selective pressures, as they arise purely from chance rather than adaptive advantage. From an evolutionary perspective, the founder effect can accelerate by promoting genetic isolation and rapid divergence from the source population, as proposed in peripatric speciation models where small founding groups evolve distinct traits in new environments. Additionally, if the founders happen to carry advantageous variants, these can become disproportionately common, facilitating adaptive evolution in response to novel selective pressures. Such outcomes underscore the founder effect's role in generating evolutionary novelty, though they also heighten risk due to reduced adaptability. In comparison to other forms of , such as the bottleneck effect, the founder effect specifically involves the initiation of a small, isolated from a larger one, whereas bottlenecks reduce an existing large through sudden, drastic declines. Both mechanisms diminish via drift, but founder events emphasize the non-representative sampling at , often leading to longer-term isolation and .

Mathematical Foundations

The founder effect can be quantitatively modeled using adaptations of the Wright-Fisher model, which describes in a finite of constant size NN (diploid individuals). In this framework, the expected heterozygosity HtH_t at generation tt decays from the initial value H0H_0 according to the formula Ht=H0(1−12N)t,H_t = H_0 \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N}\right)^t, reflecting the random sampling of alleles each generation, with the rate of loss proportional to 1/(2N)1/(2N). This adaptation applies directly to founder populations, where the small initial NN accelerates the decay compared to larger source populations, leading to rapid loss of under neutral assumptions. A key in these models is the NeN_e, which represents the size of an ideal Wright-Fisher population experiencing the same rate of drift as the actual ; in founder scenarios, NeN_e is typically much smaller than the size due to high relatedness among founders. For with separate es and unequal numbers of breeding males (NmN_m) and females (NfN_f), the effective size is given by Ne=4NmNfNm+Nf,N_e = \frac{4 N_m N_f}{N_m + N_f}, which reduces NeN_e when sex ratios are imbalanced, further intensifying drift effects in small founder groups. For a neutral with initial pp in a founder population, the probability of eventual fixation remains approximately pp, as derived from diffusion approximations to the Wright-Fisher ; however, in small NN, the variance of trajectories increases, making outcomes more and elevating the chance of rapid loss or fixation relative to larger populations. provides a complementary approach for modeling founder effects, tracing lineages backward in time from the present sample to their common ancestors among the founders; in small populations, this results in rapid coalescence times, often within a few generations, due to the elevated probability that any two lineages merge in the prior generation, scaling as 1/(2N)1/(2N). This backward perspective efficiently captures the compressed genealogical structure induced by founders, facilitating simulations of diversity loss without forward enumeration of all possible histories. Empirical studies of founder-derived populations, such as the Finnish and Hutterite communities, validate these models by demonstrating significant deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, with excess homozygosity attributable to drift and rather than selection or genotyping artifacts; for instance, genome-wide analyses in these isolates reveal locus-specific disequilibria consistent with reduced NeN_e and elevated fixation rates predicted by the adapted Wright-Fisher framework.

Variants and Processes

Single Founder Event

The single founder event involves a discrete process where a small of individuals migrates or becomes separated from a larger source population, typically comprising a small number of individuals not representative of the original , and establishes a new population in an isolated . This initial stage of migration or separation reduces the through random sampling, leading to immediate loss of alleles and compared to the source. Following establishment, the group undergoes initial reproduction in the new environment, where limited numbers amplify and further alter frequencies without subsequent from the original population, solidifying the genetic bottleneck. Several factors modulate the severity of genetic impacts during a single founder event. The size of the founding group is paramount: smaller propagules experience intensified , resulting in greater reductions in heterozygosity and allelic diversity, as the directly influences the strength of random allele fixation or loss. Imbalances in the among founders can exacerbate this by skewing and reproductive contributions, leading to uneven transmission of sex-linked or autosomal variation and heightened vulnerability to drift on the underrepresented sex's genome. Additionally, high relatedness among the founding individuals promotes , which accelerates homozygosity and further depletes , compounding the founder bottleneck's effects beyond simple drift. Detection of a single founder event relies on genomic signatures in the derived population, such as elevated across loci due to reduced opportunities for recombination in the small founding group, which persists as a hallmark of recent isolation. Other indicators include an excess of rare variants relative to neutral expectations under expansion, reflecting post-founding accumulation on a depleted background, alongside overall reduced heterozygosity and allelic richness compared to the source population. These patterns can be quantified using site frequency spectra or coalescent-based models to infer the timing and intensity of the founding bottleneck. Laboratory demonstrations have empirically validated the rapid genetic shifts in single founder events. In experimental evolution with Drosophila melanogaster, small founding populations (e.g., derived from 20-50 individuals) exhibit swift changes and loss of variation within generations, as shown in founder-flush designs where isolated lines display altered quantitative traits and increased drift compared to large controls. Similarly, bacterial experiments using Pseudomonas fluorescens or Escherichia coli with bottlenecked founders (e.g., 100-1,000 cells) demonstrate constrained adaptive trajectories, with founder genotypes dominating and limiting diversity, highlighting how initial sampling biases propagate through reproduction without external .

Serial Founder Effect

The serial founder effect refers to a process in where multiple successive founder events occur during range expansions or migrations, each new population being established by a small of individuals from the previous one, resulting in cumulative loss of . This chain of bottlenecks amplifies , as alleles are sampled repeatedly from progressively smaller gene pools, leading to a stepwise reduction in variation that exceeds what a single founder event would produce. For instance, in stepwise migrations, each colonizing group carries only a fraction of the source population's alleles, fostering isolation and differentiation along the expansion axis. A key signature of the serial founder effect is the establishment of a "serial founder gradient," characterized by progressively decreasing heterozygosity and increasing genetic differentiation, measured as FSTF_{ST}, with distance from the original source population. Heterozygosity declines linearly or exponentially along this path, reflecting the compounded , while FSTF_{ST} rises due to allele frequency shifts, often correlating with geographic distance in empirical data. Mathematically, the serial founder effect extends single-event models through iterative applications, where expected heterozygosity decays cumulatively across generations or steps. In discrete models, heterozygosity at step t+1t+1 is given by Ht+1=Ht(1−12Nf)H_{t+1} = H_t \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N_f}\right), with NfN_f as the effective founder per step, yielding a steeper overall loss than isolated events; for nn steps, this approximates Hn≈H0(1−12Nf)nH_n \approx H_0 \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N_f}\right)^n. Continuous approximations describe an , H(d)=H0e−d/κeH(d) = H_0 e^{-d / \kappa_e}, where dd is and κe\kappa_e scales with propagule size. Evolutionarily, serial founder effects promote genetic isolation, elevating drift over selection and facilitating local adaptations in peripheral populations through reduced and fixation of beneficial variants. They also shape phylogeographic patterns, such as clinal variation in frequencies, by enabling "gene surfing" where neutral or mildly deleterious s reach high frequencies at expansion fronts. Recent genomic studies using whole-genome sequencing have confirmed serial founder effects in expanding species ranges. In invasive honey bees (Apis mellifera), populations at range edges show reduced nucleotide diversity (π=2.00×10−3\pi = 2.00 \times 10^{-3} vs. 2.22×10−32.22 \times 10^{-3} in central areas) and elevated FSTF_{ST} (up to 0.095), with secondary bottlenecks increasing and slowing expansion rates to 7.18 km/year. Similarly, whole-genome analyses of (Canis dingo) reveal 36% lower nucleotide diversity than wolves, alongside 1.6–4.7 times more runs of homozygosity, indicating compounded founder effects during colonization of .

Founder Mutations

A founder mutation refers to a genetic variant that arises in one or more founder individuals of a and subsequently increases in frequency within the descendant group due to , particularly in isolated or bottlenecked populations. These mutations are typically inherited along with surrounding chromosomal segments from a common , leading to their enrichment in geographically or culturally isolated communities. Founder mutations often carry neutral or deleterious effects, with the latter frequently associated with monogenic disorders due to reduced that limits masking by other alleles. A key characteristic is the presence of extended shared blocks around the mutation site, which are identical by descent and reflect the limited recombination events since the founding event. These haplotype signatures diminish in length over generations as recombination breaks them down, providing clues to the mutation's origin and age. Detection of founder mutations relies on haplotype analysis to identify extended regions of similarity among affected individuals, often using dense genotyping or sequencing data to map shared segments. Identity-by-descent (IBD) mapping further refines this by pinpointing genomic regions inherited from a common ancestor, enhancing resolution in founder populations. The age of such mutations is estimated through the decay of (LD) surrounding the variant, where the extent of LD erosion correlates with the number of recombination events since origination, typically modeled using or haplotype length distributions. A well-documented example is the -Δ32 deletion, a 32-base-pair prevalent in northern European populations at frequencies up to 10-15%, which arose once in a single and confers near-complete resistance to HIV-1 infection in homozygotes by disrupting the CCR5 coreceptor. Estimates place its origin between 700 and 3,500 years ago, based on LD decay and geographic distribution patterns. In , the "Finnish disease heritage" encompasses over 35 enriched disorders due to founder effects from historical bottlenecks, including the Fin major (c.1040delG) in the AGA gene causing aspartylglucosaminuria, which accounts for about 98% of cases and originated around 200-800 years ago. Another Finnish example is the R133C in NOTCH3, responsible for over 80% of cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and () cases, tracing back to a common approximately 400 years ago. The clinical relevance of founder mutations lies in their role in elevating the incidence of rare genetic disorders within specific populations, such as recessive conditions manifesting at higher rates due to or isolation. This enrichment enables cost-effective population-specific screening panels, improving early and carrier detection for diseases like those in the Finnish heritage. In , recognizing founder variants facilitates targeted therapies and , as shared genetic backgrounds allow for streamlined variant interpretation and the development of precision interventions tailored to high-risk groups.

Ecological and Population Applications

Island Biogeography

The founder effect plays a pivotal role in island biogeography by influencing the initial establishment of on isolated landmasses, integrating with the MacArthur-Wilson equilibrium theory of island biogeography, which posits that results from a balance between and rates. In this framework, founder events occur during when small numbers of individuals from mainland or nearby source populations arrive on islands, often via rare dispersal events, leading to reduced that shapes subsequent community assembly and evolutionary trajectories. These stochastic founder processes complement the theory's emphasis on immigration rates, which decrease with increasing isolation, thereby amplifying the genetic bottlenecks inherent in island . Islands exhibit high levels of largely attributable to repeated founder effects across multiple colonization events, where limited from source populations results in unique evolutionary lineages confined to specific islands. For instance, the Hawaiian radiation, comprising over 800 endemic species derived from a small number of ancestral colonizers from the Asian mainland, demonstrates how founder events foster through and to novel island habitats. This pattern of elevated is widespread, as oceanic barriers restrict propagule size and frequency, promoting divergence in isolated island populations over time. Ecological factors such as dispersal limitations, particularly ocean barriers, intensify founder bottlenecks by ensuring that colonizing groups are typically small and unrepresentative of source diversity, which in turn facilitates adaptive radiations as descendants exploit unoccupied niches. On remote archipelagos like or the Galápagos, these barriers not only limit immigration but also create conditions for rapid morphological and ecological diversification from founder stocks, as seen in the exploitation of varied resources post-. The single founder event mechanism underlies initial colonization in such systems, where a limited set of genotypes establishes the population base for subsequent radiations.00229-6.pdf) Prominent case studies illustrate these dynamics, including the Galápagos finches (Geospiza spp.), where founder-derived populations on individual islands display significant morphological variation in beak size and shape, attributable to genetic bottlenecks during archipelago colonization that reduced variation and promoted local adaptation. Recent genomic analyses further confirm founder effects in island lizards; for example, a 2023 study of introduced Podarcis siculus on Pod Mrčaru Island revealed genome-wide differentiation and low neutral genetic diversity consistent with a strong founder bottleneck from the 1971 translocation, despite subsequent adaptive evolution in limb morphology. The low genetic diversity stemming from founder effects renders island populations particularly vulnerable to conservation threats, including habitat loss, , and , as reduced variability limits adaptive potential and increases risk. This vulnerability is exacerbated in small, isolated populations, where further bottlenecks from anthropogenic perturbations can lead to and diminished resilience, underscoring the need for targeted management strategies like connectivity enhancement or genetic supplementation.

Human Populations

The founder effect has profoundly shaped human genetic diversity through historical migrations that established isolated populations from small founding groups. During the , ancestors of Native Americans migrated from across the Bering Land Bridge around 15,000–20,000 years ago, resulting in a significant bottleneck that reduced and led to the fixation of certain alleles. Similarly, Polynesian expansions across the Pacific, beginning around 3,000 years ago from and involving serial settlements of remote islands, exhibited marked reductions in variability, decreasing from west to east, indicative of repeated founder events. These migrations created lasting genetic signatures, as small groups carried limited subsets of ancestral diversity, amplifying the frequency of specific variants in descendant populations. In isolated human groups, founder effects have elevated the frequencies of certain disease-associated alleles, demonstrating genetic homogeneity. Among , a during medieval migrations in led to the high prevalence of the 1278insTATC mutation causing Tay-Sachs disease, with carrier rates reaching 1 in 27 due to drift in a small founding cohort. Icelanders trace their origins to Viking settlers around 870 CE, a founding population of roughly 400–800 individuals from and the , resulting in reduced heterozygosity and increased identity-by-descent segments across the . These patterns highlight how founder events, combined with subsequent isolation, concentrate rare variants that would otherwise remain low-frequency in larger populations. Advancements in ancient DNA analysis since 2015 have illuminated founder events in by sequencing genomes from archaeological remains, revealing serial bottlenecks during expansions. For instance, studies of Native American groups using Y-chromosome and mtDNA data show stepwise reductions in diversity from north to south, consistent with serial founder effects during post-Beringian migrations. In the community, descended from about 200 Swiss-German founders in the , the Ellis-van Creveld mutation in the EVC gene reaches a carrier frequency of 1 in 77, causing and due to in this closed population. Such founder mutations contribute to disease clusters, prompting genetic screening programs that raise ethical concerns, including risks of stigmatization, coerced testing in tight-knit communities, and unequal access to counseling for groups like and the . As of 2025, large-scale genomic databases like gnomAD have integrated data from underrepresented populations, identifying novel founder variants in groups such as those in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region of and communities, where regional carrier rates for recessive disorders exceed global averages by up to 10-fold. These resources enhance variant interpretation and reveal how founder effects persist in modern demographics, informing targeted screening while addressing equity in genomic research.

Non-Human Examples

The founder effect has profoundly shaped the genetic landscape of cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) populations, stemming from a severe population bottleneck during the late Pleistocene, approximately 10,000–12,000 years ago, which reduced the species' effective population size to as few as 7,000 individuals and resulted in extremely low genetic diversity across nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. This historical event, akin to a founder bottleneck, led to near-complete monozygosity at many loci, with over 99% of surveyed cheetahs showing identical alleles, contributing to elevated inbreeding and physiological vulnerabilities such as high male infertility rates (up to 70% abnormal sperm morphology) and increased susceptibility to diseases like feline infectious peritonitis. Similar patterns appear in the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), where isolation in southern Florida reduced the population to fewer than 30 individuals by the 1990s, amplifying founder effects through genetic drift and inbreeding that manifested in congenital defects like kinked tails and cardiac abnormalities. To mitigate these, conservation efforts in 1995 introduced eight female pumas from a Texas population, boosting heterozygosity by 52% and improving fitness metrics, including a 200% increase in sperm motility among admixed males, thereby countering the founder-induced decline. In , the invasive vine () exemplifies founder effects following its introduction to the from in the late , where small propagule numbers—often fewer than 100 individuals per site—led to rapid clonal expansion across the Southeast but with markedly reduced compared to native ranges. Despite multiple introductions, invasive populations exhibit only 20–30% of the allelic diversity found in Asian source populations, as measured by inter-simple sequence repeat markers, enabling unchecked spread over 7 million hectares while limiting adaptive potential to new stressors like herbicides. This low-diversity founder signature underscores how initial colonization bottlenecks can facilitate invasion success through vegetative propagation, though it heightens vulnerability to evolving pathogens. Microbial systems provide controlled insights into founder effects, as demonstrated in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment with , initiated in 1988 with 12 replicate populations derived from a single clonal ancestor cultured in a glucose-limited medium. Early mutations in one lineage, arising within the first 2,000 generations, enabled citrate utilization—a novel adaptation absent in the wild-type founder—while parallel replicates diverged due to stochastic founder-driven , resulting in distinct evolutionary trajectories despite identical starting conditions and environments. These founder effects highlight how initial , even at the clonal level, influences long-term adaptability, with populations showing up to 37% fitness gains but varying metabolic profiles shaped by historical contingencies. Broader implications of founder effects in non-human taxa inform endangered species management, where interventions like genetic supplementation, as in the Florida panther case, restore diversity and enhance population viability without eradicating local adaptations. Emerging research in the 2020s, leveraging , reveals founder dynamics in recovery post-bleaching; for instance, the 2023 in caused a 77% loss of genotypic diversity in wild (Acropora palmata) populations, leaving surviving recruits with bottlenecked microbiomes dominated by heat-tolerant bacterial taxa that may drive recolonization but limit resilience to future events. Similarly, post-bleaching metagenomic analyses of mountainous star coral (Orbicella faveolata) show shifts in microbial community composition, with founder symbionts influencing host recovery rates and underscoring the need for diverse larval sources in restoration.

References

  1. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Founder-Effect
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/founder-effect
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1216062/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11225585/
  5. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/bottlenecks-and-founder-effects/
  6. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-biology/natural-selection/population-genetics/a/genetic-drift-founder-bottleneck
  7. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674862500
  8. https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/16/2/97/6045152
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1201091/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genetic-drift/
  11. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/06/3/l_063_03.html
  12. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Map%253A_Raven_Biology_12th_Edition/20%253A_Genes_Within_Populations/20.09%253A_Interactions_Among_Evolutionary_Forces/20.9.2%253A_Genetic_Drift
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10614605/
  14. https://www.geneticsmr.org/articles/genetic-drift-and-founder-effects-implications-for-population-genetics-conservation-and-human-health-7748.html
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/founder-effect
  16. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030152
  17. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18404703/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3338258/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3352377/
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3176099/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3189793/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5614886/
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1180685/
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/6800549
  25. https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/sites/PopGenetics/Pages/geneticdrift.aspx
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2944028/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271998459_Combining_genetic_data_to_identify_relatedness_among_founders_in_a_genetically_depauperate_parrot_the_Kakapo_Strigops_habroptilus
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5124487/
  29. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/32/3/653/977021
  30. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1010243
  31. https://www.sas.rochester.edu/bio/people/faculty/fry_james/assets/pdf/fry_publications/Fry_speciation_expevol_2009.pdf
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3870684/
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0507611102
  34. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47894-1
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10508967/
  36. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/genetics-dictionary/def/founder-variant
  37. https://hccpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13053-023-00256-2
  38. https://journals.biologists.com/dmm/article/17/6/dmm050715/358138/Founder-mutations-and-rare-disease-in-the-Arab
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/5201151
  40. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/10/E1378/2835761
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/25/16/9047
  42. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035897
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-020-00139-8
  44. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470015902.a0005462.pub2
  45. https://www.nature.com/articles/5201905
  46. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15715976/
  47. https://hal.science/hal-01107403/document
  48. https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/8/10/1913/619654
  49. https://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/khuri/HUT_2008/Norio_2003.pdf
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/5201221
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4143101/
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12156693/
  53. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam8326
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22173313/
  55. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbi.12017
  56. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy19822.pdf
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8449318/
  58. https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-016-0146-1
  59. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.73.1.257
  60. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38133599/
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89056-z
  62. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aab3884
  63. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.15.9047
  64. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08910-w
  65. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Origin-and-spread-of-the-1278insTATC-mutation-in-as-Frisch-Colombo/def472d2fb846d8fff640142ab3a8e07b5cc9863
  66. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aar2625
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7870008/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5161672/
  69. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/gte.1999.3.207
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3110977/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12530595/
  72. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1011755
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC46261/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7149701/
  75. https://europepmc.org/article/med/20929847
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47369967_Genetic_Restoration_of_the_Florida_Panther
  77. https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-015-0242-8
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4590328/
  79. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/285289
  80. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0803151105
  81. https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/103/4/835/6564422
  82. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/all-remains-severe-decline-wild-elkhorn-coral-genetic-diversity-floridas-reefs
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10734480/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.