Literature DB >> 20538366

Environmental duress and epistasis: how does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations?

Aneil F Agrawal1, Michael C Whitlock.   

Abstract

To an evolutionary geneticist, the most important property of a new mutation is its effect on fitness. Stress is a reduction in fitness that can also alter the selection on new mutations. Although the effects of environmental and genetic stresses are typically studied separately, it is useful to consider them from the same perspective. Here we evaluate the common perception that stress increases selection. We consider various conceptual paradigms for thinking about selection and stress, and then review the empirical data. We reject the notion that stress typically increases selection. Instead, we find that different types of stresses affect selection differently, though the underlying mechanisms are, as yet, unclear in most cases. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20538366     DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol        ISSN: 0169-5347            Impact factor:   17.712


  46 in total

1.  Reduction in the cumulative effect of stress-induced inbreeding depression due to intragenerational purging in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  L S Enders; L Nunney
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Variation in selective intensity over space alters classic mutation load predictions.

Authors:  A F Agrawal
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Spatial heterogeneity in the strength of selection against deleterious alleles and the mutation load.

Authors:  D Roze
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Evolution under dietary restriction increases male reproductive performance without survival cost.

Authors:  Felix Zajitschek; Susanne R K Zajitschek; Cindy Canton; Grigorios Georgolopoulos; Urban Friberg; Alexei A Maklakov
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Dietary stress does not strengthen selection against single deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  K MacLellan; L Kwan; M C Whitlock; H D Rundle
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  Biased estimates of diminishing-returns epistasis? Empirical evidence revisited.

Authors:  David Berger; Erik Postma
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Abiotic stress does not magnify the deleterious effects of spontaneous mutations.

Authors:  J R Andrew; M M Dossey; V O Garza; M Keller-Pearson; C F Baer; J Joyner-Matos
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-06-24       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Life history as a constraint on plasticity: developmental timing is correlated with phenotypic variation in birds.

Authors:  E C Snell-Rood; E M Swanson; R L Young
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 3.821

9.  Patterns and Mechanisms of Diminishing Returns from Beneficial Mutations.

Authors:  Xinzhu Wei; Jianzhi Zhang
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 16.240

10.  Sibling competition does not magnify inbreeding depression in North American Arabidopsis lyrata.

Authors:  Yan Li; Mark van Kleunen; Marc Stift
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 3.821

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.