Literature DB >> 21098719

Inferences about the distribution of dominance drawn from yeast gene knockout data.

Aneil F Agrawal1, Michael C Whitlock.   

Abstract

Data from several thousand knockout mutations in yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) were used to estimate the distribution of dominance coefficients. We propose a new unbiased likelihood approach to measuring dominance coefficients. On average, deleterious mutations are partially recessive, with a mean dominance coefficient ~0.2. Alleles with large homozygous effects are more likely to be more recessive than are alleles of weaker effect. Our approach allows us to quantify, for the first time, the substantial variance and skew in the distribution of dominance coefficients. This heterogeneity is so great that many population genetic processes analyses based on the mean dominance coefficient alone will be in substantial error. These results are applied to the debate about various mechanisms for the evolution of dominance, and we conclude that they are most consistent with models that depend on indirect selection on homeostatic gene expression or on the ability to perform well under periods of high demand for a protein.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21098719      PMCID: PMC3030496          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.110.124560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  49 in total

Review 1.  The evolution of dominance.

Authors:  D Bourguet
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Haldane's sieve and adaptation from the standing genetic variation.

Authors:  H A Orr; A J Betancourt
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Gene regulatory networks generating the phenomena of additivity, dominance and epistasis.

Authors:  S W Omholt; E Plahte; L Oyehaug; K Xiang
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Dosage, deletions and dominance: simple models of the evolution of gene expression.

Authors:  L D Hurst; J P Randerson
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2000-08-21       Impact factor: 2.691

5.  Widespread aneuploidy revealed by DNA microarray expression profiling.

Authors:  T R Hughes; C J Roberts; H Dai; A R Jones; M R Meyer; D Slade; J Burchard; S Dow; T R Ward; M J Kidd; S H Friend; M J Marton
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 38.330

6.  On the average coefficient of dominance of deleterious spontaneous mutations.

Authors:  A García-Dorado; A Caballero
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Selection, load and inbreeding depression in a large metapopulation.

Authors:  Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  The rate of mutation and the homozygous and heterozygous mutational effects for competitive viability: a long-term experiment with Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  D Chavarrías; C López-Fanjul; A García-Dorado
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  The fitness effects of spontaneous mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans.

Authors:  L L Vassilieva; A M Hook; M Lynch
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Systematic screen for human disease genes in yeast.

Authors:  Lars M Steinmetz; Curt Scharfe; Adam M Deutschbauer; Dejana Mokranjac; Zelek S Herman; Ted Jones; Angela M Chu; Guri Giaever; Holger Prokisch; Peter J Oefner; Ronald W Davis
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2002-07-22       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  64 in total

1.  Selective Strolls: Fixation and Extinction in Diploids Are Slower for Weakly Selected Mutations Than for Neutral Ones.

Authors:  Fabrizio Mafessoni; Michael Lachmann
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  The consequences of rare sexual reproduction by means of selfing in an otherwise clonally reproducing species.

Authors:  Joanna Masel; David N Lyttle
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 1.570

3.  Fitness landscapes: an alternative theory for the dominance of mutation.

Authors:  Federico Manna; Guillaume Martin; Thomas Lenormand
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  The evolution of selfing is accompanied by reduced efficacy of selection and purging of deleterious mutations.

Authors:  Ramesh Arunkumar; Rob W Ness; Stephen I Wright; Spencer C H Barrett
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Dominance genetic variance for traits under directional selection in Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Jacqueline L Sztepanacz; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 6.  Measuring intolerance to mutation in human genetics.

Authors:  Zachary L Fuller; Jeremy J Berg; Hakhamanesh Mostafavi; Guy Sella; Molly Przeworski
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  Heritable Micro-environmental Variance Covaries with Fitness in an Outbred Population of Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Jacqueline L Sztepanacz; Katrina McGuigan; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 8.  It's not magic - Hsp90 and its effects on genetic and epigenetic variation.

Authors:  Rebecca A Zabinsky; Grace Alexandria Mason; Christine Queitsch; Daniel F Jarosz
Journal:  Semin Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2018-06-06       Impact factor: 7.727

9.  Understanding the Hidden Complexity of Latin American Population Isolates.

Authors:  Jazlyn A Mooney; Christian D Huber; Susan Service; Jae Hoon Sul; Clare D Marsden; Zhongyang Zhang; Chiara Sabatti; Andrés Ruiz-Linares; Gabriel Bedoya; Nelson Freimer; Kirk E Lohmueller
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 10.  Weak selection and protein evolution.

Authors:  Hiroshi Akashi; Naoki Osada; Tomoko Ohta
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.