Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T19:01:50.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Directional selection and the evolution of sex and recombination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Brian Charlesworth
Brian Charlesworth
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, 1101 E. 57th St, Chicago IL 60637–1573, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Models of the evolutionary advantages of sex and genetic recombination due to directional selection on a quantitative trait are analysed. The models assume that the trait is controlled by many additive genes. A nor-optimal selection function is used, in which the optimum either moves steadily in one direction, follows an autocorrelated linear Markov process or a random walk, or varies cyclically. The consequences for population mean fitness of a reduction in genetic variance, due to a shift from sexual to asexual reproduction are examined. It is shown that a large reduction in mean fitness can result from such a shift in the case of a steadily moving optimum, under light conditions. The conditions are much more stringent with a cyclical or randomly varying environment, especially if the autocorrelation for a random environment is small. The conditions for spread of a rare modifier affecting the rate of genetic recombination are also examined, and the strength of selection on such a modifier determined. Again, the case of a steadily moving optimum is most favourable for the evolution of increased recombination. The selection pressure on a recombination modifier when a trait is subject to strong truncation selection is calculated, and shown to be large enough to account for observed increases in recombination associated with artificial selection. Theoretical and empirical evidence relevant to evaluating the importance of this model for the evolution of sex and recombination is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 205 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Barton, N. H. (1990). Pleiotropic models of quantitative variation. Genetics 124, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, A. & Feldman, M. W. (1990). More on selection for and against recombination. Theoretical Population Biology 38, 68–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bergman, A. & Feldman, M. W. (1992). Recombination dynamics and the fitness landscape. Physica 56, 57–67.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. (1974). Linkage disequilibrium and genetic variability. Genetical Research 23, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. G. (1985). The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics, 2nd edn.Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, B., (1984 a). Some quantitative methods for studying evolutionary patterns in single characters. Paleobiology 10, 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B., (1984 b). The cost of phenotypic evolution. Paleobiology 10, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B. (1987). The heritability of fitness. In Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (ed. Bradbury, J. W. and Andersson, M. B.), pp. 21–40. Chichester, U. K.: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, B. (1989). The evolution of sex and recombination. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 4, 264–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. (1990). Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genetical Research 55, 199–221.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1970). Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection. In Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.), pp. 128–177. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1992). An advantage of sexual reproduction in a rapidly changing environment. Journal of Heredity (05–06), 169–173.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. W. & Liberman, U. (1986). An evolutionary reduction principle for genetic modifiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83, 4824–4827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, M. W., Christiansen, F. B. & Brooks, L. D. (1980). Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 77, 4824–4827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. (1965). The effect of linkage on directional selection. Genetics 52, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. (1974). The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78, 737–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleming, W. H. (1979). Equilibrium distribution of continuous polygenic traits. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Journal of Applied Mathematics 36,149–168.Google Scholar
Flexon, P. B. & Rodell, C. F. (1982). Genetic recombination and directional selection for DDT resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 298, 672–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, J. H. (1973). Polymorphism in random environments. Theoretical Population Biology 4, 193–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorodetskii, V. P., Zhuchenko, A. A. & Korol, A. B. (1991). Efficiency of feedback selection for recombination in Drosophila. Soviet Genetics 26, 1261–1269.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1919). The combination of linkage values and the calculation of distance between loci of linked factors. Journal of Genetics 8, 299–309.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. & Jayakar, S. D. (1963). Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction. Journal of Genetics 58, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houle, D. (1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karlin, S. & Liberman, U. (1974). Random temporal variation in selection intensities: case of large population size. Theoretical Population Biology 5, 59–103.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. (1965). A stochastic model concerning the maintenance of genetic variability in quantitative characters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 54, 731–736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrashov, A. S. (1988). Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrashov, A. S. & Turelli, M. (1992). Deleterious mutations, apparent stabilizing selection and the maintenance of quantitative genetic variation. Genetics 132, 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korol, A., Preygel, I. & Preygel, S. (1990). Variability of Crossing Over in Higher Organisms (in Russian). Kishinev, Moldova: Shtiintsa.Google Scholar
Lande, R. (1975). The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character. Genetical Research 26, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latter, B. H. D. (1970). Selection in finite populations with multiple alleles. II. Centripetal selection, mutation and isoallelic variation. Genetics 66, 165–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M. & Gabriel, W. (1983). Phenotypic evolution and parthenogenesis. American Naturalist 122, 745–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. & Lande, R. (1992). Evolution and extinction in response to environmental change. In Biotic Interaction and Global Change (ed. Kareiva, P.Kingsolver, J. G. and Huey, R. B.), pp. 234–250. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Gabriel, W. & Wood, A. M. (1991). Adaptive and demographic responses of plankton populations to environmental change. Limnology and Oceanography 36, 1301–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1943). Polygenic inheritance and natural selection. Biological Reviews 18, 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1980). Selection for recombination in a polygenic model. Genetical Research 35, 269–277.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1988). Selection for recombination in a polygenic model -the mechanism. Genetical Research 51, 59–63.Google Scholar
Michod, R. E. & Levin, B. R. (1988). The Evolution of Sex. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Shnol, E. & Kondrashov, A. S. (1993). The effect of selection on the phenotypic variance. Genetics (in the press).Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1953). The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. (1950). Variation and Evolution in Plants. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turelli, M. (1984). Heritable variation via mutationselection balance: Lerch's zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theoretical Population Biology 25, 138–193.Google Scholar