Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:12:31.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The apparent selection on neutral marker loci in partially inbreeding populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. Charlesworth
D. Charlesworth
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Barnes Laboratory, 5630 S. Ingleside Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
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.

Deterministic computer calculations were used to investigate the effects on the fitnesses of genotypes at neutral loci that are caused by associations with several linked or unlinked selected loci, in partially self fertilizing populations. Both mutation to partially recessive alleles and heterozygote advantage at the selected loci were studied. In the heterozygote advantage models, either arbitrary linkage between all loci was modelled, with a single neutral locus, or many unlinked selected and neutral loci were modelled. Large apparent overdominance could be generated in all types of model studied. As has previously been suggested, these types of effect can explain the observed associations between fitness and heterozygosity in partially inbreeding populations. There were also apparent fitness differences between the genotypes at the neutral locus among the progeny produced by selfing, especially with linkage between the neutral and selected loci. There is thus no genotype-independent fitness value for these progeny. Marker based methods for estimating the relative fitness of selfed and outcrossed progeny assume equality of these fitnesses, and will therefore be inaccurate (with in most cases a bias towards overestimating the degree of inbreeding depression) when there is linkage between the neutral marker loci and loci determining fitness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 159 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

Alvarez, G., Zapata, C., Amaro, R. & Guerra, A. (1989). Multilocus heterozygosity and fitness in the European oyster, Ostrea edulis L. Heredity, London 63, 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaumont, A. R., Beveridge, C. M. & Budd, M. D. (1983). Selection and heterozygosity within single families of the mussel Mytilus edulis (L.) Marine Biology Letters 4, 151–161.Google Scholar
Bennet, J. H. & Binet, F. E. (1956). Association between Mendelian factors with mixed selfing and random mating. Heredity, London 10, 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijlsma-Meeles, E. & Bijlsma, R. (1988). The alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster: fitness measurements and predictions under conditions with no alcohol stress. Genetics 120, 743–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, A. H. D. (1979). Enzyme polymorphism in plant populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 15, 1–42.Google Scholar
Bush, R. M. (1988). The fitness consequences of multiple-locus heterozygosity: The relationship between heterozygosity and growth rate in pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Bush, R. M., Smouse, P. E. & Ledig, F. T. (1987). The fitness consequences of multiple-locus heterozygosity: the relationship between heterozygosity and growth rate in pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.). Evolution 41, 787–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cannings, C. A. & Edwards, A. F. W. (1969). Expected genotype frequencies in a small sample: deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. American Journal of Human Genetics 21, 245–247.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, D. & Charlesworth, B. (1990). Inbreeding depression with heterozygote advantage and its effect on selection for modifiers changing the outcrossing rate. Evolution 44, 870–888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, D., Morgan, M. T. & Charlesworth, B. (1990). Inbreeding depression, genetic load and the evolution of outcrossing rates in a multi-locus system with no linkage. Evolution 44, 1469–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheliak, W. M., Dancik, B. P., Morgan, K., Yeh, F. C. H. & Strobeck, C. (1985). Temporal variation of the mating system in a natural population of jack pine. Genetics 109, 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerham, C. C. & Rawlings, J. O. (1967). Apparent heterosis of a neutral gene with inbreeding. Ciência et Cultura, São Paolo 19, 88–94.Google Scholar
Ennos, R. A. (1990). Detection and measurement of selection: genetic and ecological approaches. In Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources (ed. Brown, A. H. D., Clegg, M. T., Kahler, A. L. and Weir, B. S.), pp. 181–199. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Gaffney, P. M. (1990). Enzyme heterozygosity, growth rate, and viability in Mytilus edulis: another look. Evolution 44, 204–210.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaffney, P. M., Scott, T. M., Koehn, R. K. & Diehl, W. J. (1990). Interrelationships of heterozygosity, growth rate and heterozygote deficiencies in the coot clam, Mulinia lateralis. Genetics 124, 687–699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganders, F. R., Carey, K. & Griffiths, A. J. F. (1977). Natural selection for a fruit dimorphism in Plectritis congesta (Valerianaceae). Evolution 31, 873–881.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haldane, J. B. S. (1950). The association of characters as a result of inbreeding and linkage. Annals of Eugenics 15, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, A. (1990). The interaction between selection and linkage in plant populations. In Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources (ed. Brown, A. H. D., Clegg, M.T., Kahler, A. L. and Weir, B. S.), pp. 163–180. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Hedrick, P. W., Jain, S. K. & Holden, L. (1978). Multilocus systems in evolution. Evolutionary Biology 2, 104–184.Google Scholar
Houle, D. (1989). Allozyme-associated heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 123, 789–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahler, A. L. & Wehrhahn, C. F. (1986). Association between quantitative traits and enzyme loci in the F2 population of a maize hybrid. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 72, 15–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M. (1958). Zygotic frequencies of a partially self-fertilizing population. Annual Report of the National Institute of Genetics, Japan 8, 104–105.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. & Ohta, T. (1971). Theoretical Topics in Population Genetics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Koehn, R. K. & Gaffney, P. M. (1984). Genetic heterozygosity and growth rate in Mytilus edulis. Marine Biology 82, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondrashov, A. S. (1985). Deleterious mutation as an evolutionary factor. II. Facultative apomixis and selfing. Genetics 111, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrashov, A. S. (1988). Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, R. F., Allendorf, F. W. & Knudsen, K. L. (1987). Differences in inbreeding coefficient do not explain the association between heterozygosity at allozyme loci and developmental stability in rainbow trout. Evolution 41, 1413–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leberg, P. L., Smith, M. H. & Rhodes, O. E. (1990). The association between heterozygosity and growth of deer fetuses is not explained by the effects of the loci examined. Evolution 44, 454–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledig, F. T., Guries, R. P. & Bonefeld, B. A. (1983). The relation of growth to heterozygosity in pitch pine. Evolution 37, 1227–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levene, H. (1949). On a matching problem arising in genetics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 20, 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell-Olds, T. & Guries, R. P. (1986). Genetic load and heterozygosity in the Pinaceae. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 28, 942–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, J. B. (1989). Physiological and demographic variation associated with allozyme variation. In Isozymes in Plant Biology (ed. Soltis, D. E. and Soltis, P. S.), pp. 127–145. Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, J. B. & Grant, M. C. (1984). Associations among protein heterozygosity, growth rate, and developmental homeostasis. Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 15, 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitton, J. B. & Jeffers, R. M. (1987). The genetic consequences of mass selection for growth rate in Engelmann spruce. Silvae Genetica 38, 6–12.Google Scholar
Muona, O., Yazdani, R. & Rudin, D. (1987). Genetic change between life stages in Pinus sylvestris: allozyme variation in seeds and planted seedlings. Silvae Genetica 16, 39–42.Google Scholar
Ohta, T. (1971). Associative overdominance caused by linked detrimental mutations. Genetical Research (Cambridge) 18, 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, T. & Cockerham, C. C. (1974). Detrimental genes with partial selfing and effects on a neutral locus. Genetical Research (Cambridge) 23, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plessas, M. E. & Strauss, S. H. (1986). Allozyme differentiation among populations, stands, and cohorts in Monterey pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16, 1155–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritland, K. (1990). Gene identity and the genetic demography of plant populations. In Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources (ed. Brown, A. H. D., Clegg, M. T., Kahler, A. L. and Weir, B. S.), pp. 181–199. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Schuler, J. F. (1954). Natural mutations in inbred lines of maize and their heterotic effect. I. Comparison of parent, mutant and their F1 hybrid in a highly inbred background. Genetics 39, 908–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, J. F. & Sprague, G. F. (1955). Natural mutations in inbred lines of maize and their heterotic effect. II. Comparison of mother line versus mutant when out-crossed to related inbreds. Genetics 41, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. V. & Allard, R. W. (1982). Isozyme heterozygosities in adult and open-pollinated embryo samples of Douglas fir. Silva Fennica 16, 115–121.Google Scholar
Strauss, S. H. (1986). Heterosis at allozyme loci under inbreeding and crossbreeding in Pinus attenuata. Genetics 113, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobeck, C. (1980). Partial selfing and linkage: the effect of a heterotic locus on a neutral locus. Genetics 92, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuber, C. W. (1989). Isozymes as markers for studying and manipulating quantitative traits. In Isozymes in Plant Biology (ed. Soltis, D. E. & Soltis, P. S.), pp. 206–220. Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuber, C. W. (1990). Molecular markers in the manipulation of quantitative characters. In Plant Population Genetics, Breeding, and Genetic Resources (ed. Brown, A. H. D., Clegg, M. T., Kahler, A. L. and Weir, B. S.), pp. 181–199. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Thomson, G. (1977). The effect of a selected locus on a linked neutral locus. Genetics 85, 752–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. (1973). Mixed selfing and random mating at two loci. Genetical Research (Cambridge) 21, 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeh, F. C, Khalil, M. A. K., El-Kassaby, Y. A. & Trust, D. C. (1986). Allozyme variation in Picea mariana from Newfoundland: genetic diversity, population structure, and analysis of differentiation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 16, 713–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziehe, M. & Roberds, J. H. (1989). Inbreeding depression due to overdominance in partially self-fertilizing plant populations. Genetics 121, 861–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zouros, E. & Foltz, D. W. (1984). Possible explanations of heterozygote deficiency in bivalve molluscs. Malacologia 25, 583–591.Google Scholar
Zouros, E., Singh, S. M. & Miles, H. E. (1980). Growth rate in oysters: an overdominant phenotype and its possible explanations. Evolution 34, 856–867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed