Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:52:11.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Polymorphism from environmental heterogeneity: models are only robust if the heterozygote is close in fitness to the favoured homozygote in each environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Rolf F. Hoekstra ,
R. Bijlsma  and
A. J. Dolman
Rolf F. Hoekstra
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, Centre of Biological Sciences, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands
R. Bijlsma
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, Centre of Biological Sciences, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands
A. J. Dolman
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, Centre of Biological Sciences, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands
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.

The lack of robustness of models of the maintenance of polymorphism in a heterogeneous environment which has been pointed out by Maynard Smith & Hoekstra (1980), applies also to models based on habitat selection, on temporal variation and on density-regulated selection. Only if (partial) dominance ‘switches’ between environments such that the fitness of the heterozygote is always close to the favoured homozygote, is there reasonable robustness. This is true for all models considered. It is argued that there are good reasons for supposing that the favourable allele at a locus may show dominance, although the experimental evidence is still scanty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , June 1985 , pp. 299 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

References

REFERENCES

Arnold, J. & Anderson, W. W. (1983). Density-regulated selection in a heterogeneous environment. American Naturalist 121, 656–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avery, P. J. (1978). Selection effects in a model of two intermigrating colonies of finite size. Theoretical Population Biology 13, 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braswell, E. H. (1975). Subunit interaction in lactate dehydrogenase. In Isozymes, vol. I (ed. Markert, C. L.), pp. 119–135. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briscoe, D. A., Robertson, A. & Malpica, J. M. (1975). Dominance at Adh locus in response to adult Drosophila melanogaster to environmental alcohol. Nature 255, 148–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, F. B. (1975). Hard and soft selection in a subdivided population. American Naturalist 109, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dempster, E. R. (1955). Maintenance of genetic heterogeneity. Cold Spring Harbour Symposia on Quantitative Biology 20, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. (1976). The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration. Annual Review of Genetics 10, 253–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the dominance ratio. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 42, 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Holt, S. B. (1944). The experimental modification of dominance in Danforth's short-tailed mutant mice. Annals of Eugenics 12, 102–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, E. B. (1940). Genetic research in the lepidoptera. Annals of Eugenics 10, 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, J. H. (1976). A general model to account for enzyme variation in natural populations. II. Characterization of the fitness functions. American Naturalist 110, 809–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. & Jayakar, S. D. (1963). Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction. Journal of Genetice 58, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrick, P. W., Ginevan, M. E. & Ewing, E. P. (1976).Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, R. F. (1978). Sufficient conditions for polymorphism with cyclical selection in a subdivided population. Genetical Research 31, 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. S. (1980). Can genes choose habitats? Nature 286, 757–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. S. & Probert, F. R. (1980). Habitat selection maintains a deleterious allele in a heterogeneous environment. Nature 287, 632–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kacser, H. & Burns, J. A. (1973). The control of flux. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 27, 65–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Kacser, H. & Burns, J. A. (1981). The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics 97, 639–666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levene, H. (1953). Genetic equilibrium when more than one ecological niche is available. American Naturalist 87, 331–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1974). The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1966). Sympatric speciation. American Naturalist 100, 637–650.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1970). Genetic polymorphism in a varied environment. American Naturalist 104, 487–490.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. & Hoekstra, R. F. (1980). Polymorphism in a varied environment: how robust are the models? Genetical Research 35, 45–57.Google Scholar
Place, A. R. & Powers, D. A. (1984). Kinetic characterization of the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH-B4) allozymes of Fundulus heteroclitus. Journal of Biological Chemistry 259, 1309–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rendel, J. M. (1967). Canalization and gene control. London: Logos Press.Google Scholar
Van Delden, W., Boerema, A. C. & Kamping, A. (1978). The alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphism in populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Selection in different environments. Genetics 90, 161–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zouros, E. & Van Delden, W. (1982). Substrate-preference polymorphism at an esterase locus of Drosophila mojavensis. Genetics 100, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed