No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The action of evolutionary forces on metric traits
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2011
Abstract
Fisher's theorem of natural selection implies that the population genetic variance of quasi-neutral traits should be mostly additive. In the case of fitness component traits, however, that variance would be characterised by a substantial contribution from non-additive loci. In parallel, Robertson's theorem states that selection will change the population mean of a trait proportionally to the magnitude of the genetic correlation between that trait and fitness, which should be weak for quasi-neutral traits or strong for the mean fitness components. Drosophila data from inbreeding and artificial selection experiments are discussed within that theoretical framework. In addition, the process of regeneration by mutation of the genetic variance of a quasi-neutral trait (abdominal bristle number) in a Drosophila population initially homozygous at all loci has been analysed. After 485 generations of mutation accumulation, the levels of additive variance found in this population closely approached those commonly observed in laboratory populations. Furthermore, these values, together with previously reported estimates for natural populations, could be jointly explained by a model assuming weak causal stabilising selection.
- Type
- Full Paper
- Information
- Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 1 , Issue 3: Darwin Symposium: EAAP Annual Meeting Barcelona, Spain – Tuesday 25th August 2009 , 06 January 2011 , pp. 532 - 537
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010
References
Amador, C, García-Dorado, A, Bersabé, D, López-Fanjul, C 2010. Regeneration of the variance of metric traits by spontaneous mutation in a Drososophila population. Genetics Research (in press).Google Scholar
Bürger, R, Wagner, GP, Stettinger, F 1998. How much heritable variation can be maintained in finite populations by mutation-selection balance? Evolution 43, 1748–1766.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, B 2009. Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 195–205.Google Scholar
Chavarrías, D, López-Fanjul, C, García-Dorado, A 2001. The rate of mutation and the homozygous and heterozygous mutational effects for competitive viability: a long-term experiment with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 158, 681–693.Google Scholar
Clayton, GA, Morris, JA, Robertson, A 1957. An experimental check on quantitative genetical theory. I. Short-term responses to selection. Journal of Genetics 55, 131–151.Google Scholar
Crnokrak, P, Roff, DA 1995. Dominance variance: associations with selection and fitness. Heredity 75, 376–381.Google Scholar
DeRose, MA, Roff, DA 1999. A comparison of inbreeding depression in life-history and morphological traits in animals. Evolution 53, 1288–1292.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longman Inc., Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, López-Fanjul, C 1996. Spontaneous mutational variances and covariances for fitness-related traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 143, 829–837.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Rodríguez-Ramilo, ST, Pérez-Figueroa, A, López-Fanjul, C, Caballero, A 2003. Lack of non-additive genetic effects on early fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 57, 558–565.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd edition. Dover Publications, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Frankham, R, Jones, LP, Barker, JSF 1968. The effects of population size and selection intensity in selection for a quantitative trait in Drosophila. III. Analyses of the lines. Genetical Research 12, 267–283.Google Scholar
Gallego, A, López-Fanjul, C 1983. The number of loci affecting a quantitative trait in Drosophila melanogaster revealed by artificial selection. Genetical Research 42, 137–149.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A 2007. Shortcut predictions for fitness properties at the MSD balance and for its build-up after size reduction under different management strategies. Genetics 176, 983–997.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A, González, J 1996. Stabilizing selection detected for bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 50, 1573–1578.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A, López-Fanjul, C 1983. Accumulation of lethals in highly selected lines of Drosophila melanogaster. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 66, 221–223.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A, Marín, JM 1998. Minimum distance estimation of mutational parameters for quantitative traits. Biometrics 54, 1097–1114.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A, López-Fanjul, C, Caballero, A 1999. Properties of spontaneous mutations affecting quantitative traits. Genetical Research 74, 341–350.Google Scholar
García-Dorado, A, López-Fanjul, C, Caballero, A 2004. Rates and effects of deleterious mutations and their evolutionary consequences. In Evolution: from molecules to ecosystems (ed. A Moya and E Font), pp. 20–32. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Houle, D, Morikawa, B, Lynch, M 1996. Comparing mutational heritabilities. Genetics 143, 1467–1483.Google Scholar
Houle, D, Hughes, KA, Assimacopoulos, S, Charlesworth, B 1997. The effects of spontaneous mutation on quantitative traits. II. Dominance of mutations with effects on life-history traits. Genetical Research 70, 27–34.Google Scholar
Keightley, PD, Eyre-Walker, A 1999. Terumi Mukai and the riddle of deleterious mutation rates. Genetics 153, 515–523.Google Scholar
López-Fanjul, C, Hill, WG 1973. Genetic differences between populations of Drosophila melanogaster for a quantitative trait. I. Laboratory populations. Genetical Research 22, 51–56.Google Scholar
López-Fanjul, C, Fernández, A, Toro, MA 2003. The effect of neutral non-additive gene action on the quantitative index of population divergence. Genetics 164, 1627–1633.Google Scholar
Lynch, M, Blanchard, J, Houle, D, Kibota, T, Schulz, S, Vassilieva, L, Willis, J 1999. Perspective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53, 645–663.Google Scholar
Lynch, M, Hill, WG 1986. Phenotypic evolution by neutral mutation. Evolution 40, 915–935.Google Scholar
Madalena, FE, Robertson, A 1975. Population structure in artificial selection: studies with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 24, 113–126.Google Scholar
Pérez-Figueroa, A, Caballero, A, García-Dorado, A, López-Fanjul, C 2009. The action of purifying selection, mutation and drift on fitness epistatic systems. Genetics 183, 299–313.Google Scholar
Robertson, A 1955. Selection in animals: synthesis. Cold Spring Harbour Symposium on Quantitative Biology 20, 225–229.Google Scholar
Robertson, A 1967. The spectrum of genetic variation. In Population biology and evolution (ed. RC Lewontin), pp. 5–16. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Singh, RS, Rhomberg, LR 1987. A comprehensive study of genic variation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster 11. Estimates of heterozygosity and patterns of geographic differentiation. Genetics 117, 255–271.Google Scholar
Van Buskirk, J, Willi, Y 2006. The change in quantitative genetic variation with inbreeding. Evolution 60, 2428–2434.Google Scholar
Weber, KE 1996. Large genetic change at small fitness cost in large populations of Drosophila melanogaster selected for wind tunnel flight: rethinking fitness surfaces. Genetics 144, 205–213.Google Scholar
Zhang, XS, Hill, WG 2002. Joint effect of pleiotropic selection and real stabilizing selection on the maintenance of quantitative genetic variation at mutation-selection balance. Genetics 162, 459–471.Google Scholar