Literature DB >> 24206451

Sensitivity of the distribution of mutational fitness effects to environment, genetic background, and adaptedness: a case study with Drosophila.

Alethea D Wang1, Nathaniel P Sharp, Aneil F Agrawal.   

Abstract

Heterogeneity in the fitness effects of individual mutations has been found across different environmental and genetic contexts. Going beyond effects on individual mutations, how is the distribution of selective effects, f(s), altered by changes in genetic and environmental context? In this study, we examined changes in the major features of f(s) by estimating viability selection on 36 individual mutations in Drosophila melanogaster across two different environments in two different genetic backgrounds that were either adapted or nonadapted to the two test environments. Both environment and genetic background affected selection on individual mutations. However, the overall distribution f(s) appeared robust to changes in genetic background but both the mean, E(s), and the variance, V(s) were dependent on the environment. Between these two properties, V(s) was more sensitive to environmental change. Contrary to predictions of fitness landscape theory, the match between genetic background and assay environment (i.e., adaptedness) had little effect on f(s).
© 2013 The Author(s). Evolution © 2013 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Distribution of fitness effects; epistasis; mutation; selection; stress

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24206451     DOI: 10.1111/evo.12309

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Regulation of synaptic development and function by the Drosophila PDZ protein Dyschronic.

Authors:  James E C Jepson; Mohammed Shahidullah; Die Liu; Sylvain J le Marchand; Sha Liu; Mark N Wu; Irwin B Levitan; Matthew B Dalva; Kyunghee Koh
Journal:  Development       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 6.868

3.  Are mutations usually deleterious? A perspective on the fitness effects of mutation accumulation.

Authors:  Kevin Bao; Robert H Melde; Nathaniel P Sharp
Journal:  Evol Ecol       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 2.074

4.  The distribution of fitness effects in an uncertain world.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Evolutionary Rescue over a Fitness Landscape.

Authors:  Yoann Anciaux; Luis-Miguel Chevin; Ophélie Ronce; Guillaume Martin
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Predicting mutational routes to new adaptive phenotypes.

Authors:  Peter A Lind; Eric Libby; Jenny Herzog; Paul B Rainey
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 8.140

7.  Consequences of mutation accumulation for growth performance are more likely to be resource-dependent at higher temperatures.

Authors:  Xiao-Lin Chu; Quan-Guo Zhang
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-06-06

8.  Energy demand and the context-dependent effects of genetic interactions underlying metabolism.

Authors:  Luke A Hoekstra; Cole R Julick; Katelyn M Mika; Kristi L Montooth
Journal:  Evol Lett       Date:  2018-04-03

9.  Inferring Genome-Wide Correlations of Mutation Fitness Effects between Populations.

Authors:  Xin Huang; Alyssa Lyn Fortier; Alec J Coffman; Travis J Struck; Megan N Irby; Jennifer E James; José E León-Burguete; Aaron P Ragsdale; Ryan N Gutenkunst
Journal:  Mol Biol Evol       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 16.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.