Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:23:36.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spontaneous mutation for a quantitative trait in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Response to artificial selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

María A. López  and
Carlos López-Fanjul
María A. López
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Carlos López-Fanjul*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Genética, Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
*Corresponding author.
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.

Divergent selection for abdominal bristle number was carried out for 47 generations, starting from a completely homozygous population of Drosophila melanogaster. All lines were selected with the same proportion (20%) but at two different numbers of selected parents of each sex (5 or 25). A significant response to selection was obtained in 25 lines (out of 40). In most cases, it could be wholly attributed to a single mutation of relatively large effect (> 0·3 phenotypic standard deviations). A total number of 30 mutations were detected. In agreement with theory, larger responses in each direction were achieved by those lines selected at greater effective population sizes. A large fraction of mutations were lethals (10/30). Thus, the observed divergence between lines of the same effective size selected in opposite directions was smaller than expected under neutrality. The ratio of new mutational variance to environmental variance was estimated to be(0·52±0·09)×10−3.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , April 1993 , pp. 107 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Becker, W. A. (1967). Manual of Procedures in Quantitative Genetics. Pullman: Washington State University Press.Google Scholar
Caballero, A., Toro, M. A. & Lopez-Fanjul, C. (1991). The response to artificial selection from new mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 128, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, G. A. & Robertson, A. (1957). An experimental check on quantitative genetical theory. II. The long-term effects of selection. Journal of Genetics 55, 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, F. D. & Braskerud, O. (1989). Mutational variance for pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 77, 416–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankham, R., Jones, L. P. & Barker, J. S. F. (1968). The effects of population size and selection intensity in selection for a quantitative trait in Drosophila. III. Analyses of lines. Genetical Research 12, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. (1982 a). Predictions of response to artificial selection from new mutations. Genetical Research 40, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. (1982 b). Rates of change in quantitative traits from fixation of new mutations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 79, 142–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. & Keightley, P. D. (1988). Interrelations of mutation, population size, artificial and natural selection. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quantitative Genetics(ed. Eisen, E. J., Goodman, M. M., Namkoong, G. and Weir, B. S.), pp. 57–70. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. & Rasbash, J. (1986). Models of long-term artificial selection in finite population with recurrent mutation. Genetical Research 48, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keightley, P. D. & Hill, W. G. (1983). Effects of linkage on response to directional selection from new mutations. Genetical Research 42, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keightley, P. D. & Hill, W. G. (1992). Quantitative genetic variation in body size of mice from new mutations. Genetics 131, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latter, B. D. H. & Robertson, A. (1962). The effects of inbreeding and artificial selection on reproductive fitness. Genetical Research 3, 110–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, M. A. & Lopez-Fanjul, C. (1993). Spontaneous mutation for a quantitative trait in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Distribution of mutant effects on the trait and fitness. Genetical Research 61, 117–126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M. (1988). The rate of polygenic mutation. Genetical Research 51, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M. & Hill, W. G. (1986). Phenotypic evolution from neutral mutation. Evolution 40, 915–935.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackay, T. F. C. (1990). Distribution of effects of new mutations affecting quantitative traits. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 13, 219–228.Google Scholar
Mackay, T. F. C, Lyman, R. F., Jackson, M. S., Terzian, C. & Hill, W. G. (1992). Polygenic mutation in Drosophila melanogaster: estimates from divergence among inbred strains. Evolution 46, 300–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, W. R. (1989). Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 46, 300–316.Google Scholar
Yoo, B. H. (1980). Long-term selection for a quantitative character in large replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Lethals and visible mutants with large effects. Genetical Research 35, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar