Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T06:09:34.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multilocus models of inbreeding depression with synergistic selection and partial self-fertilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

B. Charlesworth ,
M. T. Morgan  and
D. Charlesworth
B. Charlesworth*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Barnes Laboratory, 5630 S. Ingleside Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
M. T. Morgan
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Barnes Laboratory, 5630 S. Ingleside Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
D. Charlesworth
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Barnes Laboratory, 5630 S. Ingleside Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
*
† 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.

Mean fitness and inbreeding depression values in multi-locus models of the control of fitness were studied, using both a model of mutation to deleterious alleles, and a model of heterozygote advantage. Synergistic fitness interactions between loci were assumed, to find out if this more biologically plausible model altered the conclusions we obtained previously using a model of multiplicative interactions. Systems of unlinked loci were assumed. We used deterministic computer calculations, and approximations based on normal or Poisson theory. These approximations gave good agreement with the exact results for some regions of the parameter space. In the mutational model, we found that the effect of synergism was to lower the number of mutant alleles per individual, and thus to increase the mean fitness, compared with the multiplicative case. Inbreeding depression, however, was increased. Similar effects on mean fitness and inbreeding depression were found for the case of heterozygote advantage. For that model, the results were qualitatively similar to those previously obtained assuming multiplicativity. With the mutational load model, however, the mean fitness sometimes decreased, and the inbreeding depression increased, at high selfing rates, after declining as the selfing rate increased from zero. We also studied the behaviour of modifier alleles that changed the selfing rate, introduced into equilibrium populations. In general, the results were similar to those with the multiplicative model, but in some cases an ESS selfing rate, with selfing slightly below one, existed. Finally, we derive an approximate expression for the inbreeding depression in completely selfing populations. This depends only on the mutation rate and the dominance coefficient and can therefore be used to obtain estimates of the mutation rate to mildly deleterious alleles for plant species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 177 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

Abbott, R. J. & Gomes, M. F. (1988). Population genetic structure and outcrossing rate of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Heredity 62, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondari, K. & Dunham, R. A. (1987). Effects of inbreeding on economic traits in channel catfish. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 74, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. B. (1986). The interdependence of mating structure and inbreeding depression. Theoretical Population Biology 30, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. (1980). The cost of sex in relation to mating system. Journal of Theoretical Biology 84, 655–671.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. (1990). Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genetical Research 55, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, D. & Charlesworth, B. (1987). Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle 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
Crow, J. F. (1970). Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection. In Mathematical Models in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.-I.), pp. 128–177. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. & Simmons, M. J. (1983). The mutation load in Drosophila. In The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila (ed. Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L. and Thompson, J. N.), pp. 1–35. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1862). The Various Contrivances by which Orchids are Fertilised by Insects. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Gallais, A. (1984). An analysis of heterosis versus inbreeding effects with an autotetraploid cross-fertilized plant: Medicago sativa. Genetics 106, 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, A. R. & Lindgren, D. (1985). Effect of inbreeding on production of filled seed in Pinus radiata – experimental results and a model of gene action. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 71, 334–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B. (1989). Genetic analysis of plant mixtures. Genetics 122, 943–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B. & Langridge, J. (1963). Phenotypic stability of growth in the self-fertilized species, Arabidopsis thaliana. In Statistical Genetics and Plant Breeding (ed. Hanson, W. D. and Robinson, H. F.), pp. 368–394. Washington, D.C.: NAS-NRC.Google Scholar
Griffing, B. & Zsiros, E. (1971). Heterosis associated with genotype-environment interactions. Genetics 68, 443–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heller, J. & Smith, J. M. (1979). Does Muller's ratchet work with selling? Genetical Research 32, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsinger, K. E. (1988). Inbreeding depression doesn't matter: the genetic basis of mating system evolution. Evolution 42, 1235–1244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopf, F. A., Michod, R. E. & Sanderson, M. J. (1988). The effect of reproductive system on mutation load. Theoretical Population Biology 33, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imam, A. G. & Allard, R. W. (1965). Population studies in predominantly self-pollinated species. VI. Genetic variability between and within natural populations of wild oats from differing habitats in California. Genetics 51, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. F. (1939). Continued inbreeding in maize. Genetics 24, 462–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M. & Maruyama, T. (1966). The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. Genetics 54, 1337–1351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M. & Ohta, T. (1971). Theoretical Topics in Population Genetics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
King, J. L. (1967). Continuously distributed factors affecting fitness. Genetics 53, 403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, S. E. & Waller, D. M. (1986). Genetic consequences of outcrossing in the cleistogamous annual, Impatiens capensis. I. Population genetic structure. Evolution 41, 969–978.Google 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
Lande, R. & Schemske, D. W. (1985). The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. I. Genetic models. Evolution 39, 24–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M. (1988). Design and analysis of experiments on random genetic drift and inbreeding depression. Genetics 120, 791–807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagylaki, T. (1976). A model for the evolution of self fertilization and vegetative reproduction. Journal of Theoretical Biology 58, 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, R. (1956). The influence of the breeding system on the genecology of Thlaspi alpestre L. New Phytologist 55, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, J., Eccleston, J. & Ehrhardt, D. W. (1987). Density-dependent flowering phenology, outcrossing, and reproduction in Impatiens capensis. Oecologia 72, 341–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, J. & Ehrhardt, D. W. (1990). Effects of intraspecific competition on outcrossing advantage in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 44, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sved, J. A., Reed, T. E. & Bodmer, W. F. (1967). The number of balanced polymorphisms that can be maintained in a natural population. Genetics 55, 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sved, J. & Wilton, A. N. (1989). Inbreeding depression and the maintenance of deleterious genes by mutation: model of a Drosophila chromosome. Genetical Research 54, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, L. (1988). Inbreeding, crossing and variation in stamen number in Scleranthus annuus (Caryophyllaceae), a selfing annual. Evolutionary Trends in Plants 2, 31–39.Google Scholar
Waller, D. M. (1984). Differences in fitness between seedlings derived from cleistogamous and chasmogamous flowers in Impatiens capensis. Evolution 38, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1977). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, vol. 3, Experimental Results and Evolutionary Deductions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ziehe, M. & Roberds, J. H. (1989). Inbreeding depression due to overdominance in partially self-fertilizing plant populations. Genetics 121, 861–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed