Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:54:41.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor: 1. The advantage of recombination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Alexey S. Kondrashov
Alexey S. Kondrashov
Affiliation:
Research Computer Center of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 142292 Pushchino, Moscow Region, USSR
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.

A population with u deleterious mutations per genome per generation is considered in which only those individuals that carry less than a critical number of k mutations are viable. It has been shown previously that under such conditions sexual reproduction is advantageous. Here we consider selection at a locus that determines recombination frequency of the whole genome. The value v = u/ √ k has been found to play the decisive role. When v < 0·35 the direction of selection for recombination may be different for different cases, but the intensity of selection is always very small. The advantage of recombination becomes considerable when v > 0·5, its growth under increasing v being approximately linear. If v > 2 no less than 95% of the progeny are bound to die because of the selection against deleterious mutations. Since this seems to be too great a mutation load, we may assume 0·5 < v < 2·0 for any sexual population if mutation really maintains crossing-over. Results on selection at a locus which controls mutability provide evidence that v is located within the specified interval if the physiological cost of a twofold reduction of the mutation rate is within the range 10–80%. A number of consequences of this hypothesis about the mechanism of selection for sex and recombination are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , October 1984 , pp. 199 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

REFERENCES

Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. (1976). An experiment on recombination load in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 23, 167–183.Google Scholar
Chinnici, J. P. (1971). Modification of recombination frequency in Drosophila. II. The polygenic control of crossingover. Genetics 69, 75–96.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1970). Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection. In Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.). Berlin. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1979). Minor viability mutants in Drosophila. Genetics 92 (suppl.), 165–172.Google ScholarPubMed
Crow, J. F. (1983). Disease and evolution. Evolution 37, 863–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. & Kimura, M. (1979). Efficiency of truncation selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 76, 396–399.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. & Denniston, C. (1981). The mutation component of genetic damage. Science 212, 888–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dishler, V. YA. (1983). Induced recombinogenesis in higher plants. Zinatne, Riga (in Russian).Google Scholar
Feldman, M. W., Christiansen, F. B. & Brooks, L. D. (1980). Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 77, 4838–4841.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1957). The cost of natural selection. Journal of Genetics 55, 511–526.Google Scholar
Karlin, S. & McGregor, J. (1974). Towards the theory of evolution of the modifier gene. Theoretical Population Biology 5, 59–103.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. & Maruyama, T. (1966). The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. Genetics 54, 1337–1351.Google Scholar
Kimura, M. & Crow, J. P. (1978). Effect of overall phenotypic selection on genetic change at individual loci. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 75, 6168–6171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrashov, A. S. (1982). Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genetical Research 40, 325–332.Google Scholar
Kondrashov, A. S. (1984). Rate of evolution in changing environment. Journal of Theoretical Biology 107, 249–260.Google Scholar
Kreitman, M. (1983). Nucleotide polymorphism at the alcohol dehydrogenase locus of Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 304, 412–416.Google Scholar
Krutyakov, V. M., Belyakova, N. V., Kleiner, N. E., Leoina, O. K., Shevelev, I. V. (1983). Eucaryotic 3–5 exonuclease correcting DNA polymerase errors. Dokladi Akademyi Nauk SSSR 272, 1491–1494.Google Scholar
Kunkel, T. A. & Loeb, L. A. (1981). Fidelity of mammalian DNA polymerases. Science 213, 765–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langley, C. H., Montgomery, E. & Quattlebaum, W. F. (1982). Restriction map variation in the Adh region of Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 79, 5631–5635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leigh, E. G. (1973). The evolution of mutation rates. Genetics 73, (suppl.), 1–18.Google Scholar
Li, W.-H., Gojobori, T. & Nei, M. (1981). Pseudogenes as a paradigme of neutral evolution. Nature 292, 8237–8239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loucas, M., Vegrini, Y. & Krimbas, C. B. (1981). The genetics of Drosophila subobscura populations. XVII. Further genie heterogeneity within electromorphs by urea denaturation and the effect of the increased genie variability on linkage disequilibrium studies. Genetics 97, 429–441.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miyata, T. (1982). Evolutionary changes and functional constraints in DNA sequences. In Molecular Evolution, Protein Polymorphism and Neutral Theory (ed. Kimura, M.), pp. 233–268. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mukai, T. (1980). The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. XIV. Effects of the incomplete dominance of the IN(2LR) SM1 (Cy) chromosome on the estimates of various genetic parameters. Genetics 94, 169–184.Google Scholar
Mukai, T., Chigusa, S. T., Mettler, L. E. & Crow, J. P. (1972). Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 72, 335–355.Google Scholar
Mukai, T. & Cockerman, C. C. (1977). Spontaneous mutation rates of enzyme loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 74, 2514–2517.Google Scholar
Mukai, T., Kusakabe, S. & Tachida, H. (1983). Indirect negative evidence for frequency-dependent selection with respect to viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Japanese Journal of Genetics 58, 297–314.Google Scholar
Neel, J. V. & Rothman, E. D. (1978). Indirect estimates of mutation rates in tribal Amerindians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 75, 5585–5588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neel, J. V., Mohrenveiser, H. W. & Meisler, M. H. (1980). Rate of spontaneous mutations at human loci encoding protein structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 77, 6037–6041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohta, T. (1976). Role of very slightly deleterious mutations in molecular evolution and polymorphism. Theoretical Population Biology 10, 254–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, D. P. & Barry, E. G. (1977). The cytogenetics of Neurospora. Advances in Genetics 19, 133–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmalhausen, I. I. (1949). Factors of Evolution: The Theory of Stabilizing Selection. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Schmalhausen, I. I. (1982). Organisms as a whole in an individual and historical development. Moscow, Nauka (in Russian).Google Scholar
Selander, R. K. & Levin, B. R. (1980). Genetic diversity and structure in Escherichia coli populations. Science 210, 545–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shields, W. M. (1982). Philopatry, Inbreeding and the Evolution of Sex. State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
Simmons, M. J. & Crow, J. F. (1977). Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annual Review of Genetics 11, 49–78.Google Scholar
Tucic, N., Ayala, F. J. & Marinkovic, D. (1981). Correlation between recombination frequency and fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 56, 61–71.Google Scholar
Turner, J. R. G. (1967). Why does the genome not congeal? Evolution 21, 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, H. L. K.Genetic Recombination: Understanding the Mechanisms. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar