Skip to content
NatureHQ

Study

Genome-wide evolutionary analysis of natural history and adaptation in the world's tigers

Liu, Y.-C.; Sun, X.; Driscoll, C.; Miquelle, D. G.; Xu, X.; Martelli, P.; Uphyrkina, O.; Smith, J. L. D.; O'Brien, S. J.; Luo, S.-J.

Current Biology, 2018

Peer-reviewedgenomic studylaboratory

Whole genomes were sequenced from tigers across the surviving populations and analysed for population structure, historical population size and signatures of selection.

Studied in
Panthera tigris
Sample size
32 tiger genomes sequenced across surviving populations

Six living populations are genetically distinguishable, each with low diversity and evidence of a severe historical bottleneck. Selection signals differ between them — the Amur tiger, the largest and most northerly, shows selection on genes related to body size and metabolism.

What it means

The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.

How the authors put it

Tigers comprise six extant genetically distinct subspecies whose separate histories and local adaptations argue for managing them as separate conservation units.

How NatureHQ reads it

This is the current best answer on how many kinds of tiger there are, and it is worth noticing that it disagrees with the 2004 marker study in detail while agreeing on the shape: few units, shallow divergence, real regional adaptation. The Amur result is the one that turns a taxonomic argument into something a reader can see — the biggest tigers are big for reasons written into their genomes, not merely because it is cold where they live.

  • Small numbers per population, unavoidable at these population sizes.
  • Selection signals identify candidate genes rather than demonstrate the trait they produce.
  • Extinct populations could not be sequenced at the same depth, so the historical picture is partial.

What this study is used for on NatureHQ

One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.

Published by: Cell PressPublished in a Cell Press journal.

doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.019

This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref on 2026-08-11.

NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-11.