Literature DB >> 22834737

Fisher's geometrical model of fitness landscape and variance in fitness within a changing environment.

Xu-Sheng Zhang1.   

Abstract

The fitness of an individual can be simply defined as the number of its offspring in the next generation. However, it is not well understood how selection on the phenotype determines fitness. In accordance with Fisher's fundamental theorem, fitness should have no or very little genetic variance, whereas empirical data suggest that is not the case. To bridge these knowledge gaps, we follow Fisher's geometrical model and assume that fitness is determined by multivariate stabilizing selection toward an optimum that may vary among generations. We assume random mating, free recombination, additive genes, and uncorrelated stabilizing selection and mutational effects on traits. In a constant environment, we find that genetic variance in fitness under mutation-selection balance is a U-shaped function of the number of traits (i.e., of the so-called "organismal complexity"). Because the variance can be high if the organism is of either low or high complexity, this suggests that complexity has little direct costs. Under a temporally varying optimum, genetic variance increases relative to a constant optimum and increasingly so when the mutation rate is small. Therefore, mutation and changing environment together can maintain high genetic variance. These results therefore lend support to Fisher's geometric model of a fitness landscape.
© 2012 The Author(s). Evolution© 2012 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22834737     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01610.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  9 in total

1.  Assessing pleiotropy and its evolutionary consequences: pleiotropy is not necessarily limited, nor need it hinder the evolution of complexity.

Authors:  William G Hill; Xu-Sheng Zhang
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Pleiotropic mutations are subject to strong stabilizing selection.

Authors:  Katrina McGuigan; Julie M Collet; Scott L Allen; Stephen F Chenoweth; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-05-02       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 3.  Pleiotropy, constraint, and modularity in the evolution of life histories: insights from genomic analyses.

Authors:  Kimberly A Hughes; Jeff Leips
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 5.691

Review 4.  Quantitative genetic study of the adaptive process.

Authors:  R G Shaw; F H Shaw
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Catch Me if You Can: Adaptation from Standing Genetic Variation to a Moving Phenotypic Optimum.

Authors:  Sebastian Matuszewski; Joachim Hermisson; Michael Kopp
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Genetic architecture and functional characterization of genes underlying the rapid diversification of male external genitalia between Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritiana.

Authors:  Kentaro M Tanaka; Corinna Hopfen; Matthew R Herbert; Christian Schlötterer; David L Stern; John P Masly; Alistair P McGregor; Maria D S Nunes
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Fisher's geometric model with a moving optimum.

Authors:  Sebastian Matuszewski; Joachim Hermisson; Michael Kopp
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2014-07-10       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Why is cancer not more common? A changing microenvironment may help to explain why, and suggests strategies for anti-cancer therapy.

Authors:  Xiaowei Jiang; Ian P M Tomlinson
Journal:  Open Biol       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 6.411

9.  The Origin of Additive Genetic Variance Driven by Positive Selection.

Authors:  Li Liu; Yayu Wang; Di Zhang; Zhuoxin Chen; Xiaoshu Chen; Zhijian Su; Xionglei He
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 16.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.