Literature DB >> 24916074

Runaway coevolution: adaptation to heritable and nonheritable environments.

Devin M Drown1, Michael J Wade.   

Abstract

Populations evolve in response to the external environment, whether abiotic (e.g., climate) or biotic (e.g., other conspecifics). We investigated how adaptation to biotic, heritable environments differs from adaptation to abiotic, nonheritable environments. We found that, for the same selection coefficients, the coadaptive process between genes and heritable environments is much faster than genetic adaptation to an abiotic nonheritable environment. The increased rate of adaptation results from the positive association generated by reciprocal selection between the heritable environment and the genes responding to it. These associations result in a runaway process of adaptive coevolution, even when the genes creating the heritable environment and genes responding to the heritable environment are unlinked. Although tightening the degree of linkage accelerates the coadaptive process, the acceleration caused by a comparable amount of inbreeding is greater, because inbreeding has a cumulative effect on reducing functional recombination over generations. Our results suggest that that adaptation to local abiotic environmental variation may result in the rapid diversification of populations and subsequent reproductive isolation not directly but rather via its effects on heritable environments and the genes responding to them.
© 2014 The Author(s). Evolution © 2014 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  G × E; genotype by environment; indirect genetic effects

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24916074      PMCID: PMC4184967          DOI: 10.1111/evo.12470

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


  18 in total

1.  Genetic architecture and evolutionary constraint when the environment contains genes.

Authors:  Jason B Wolf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-03-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits.

Authors:  R Lande
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  On indirect genetic effects in structured populations.

Authors:  A F Agrawal; E D Brodie; M J Wade
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Maternal effects and range expansion: a key factor in a dynamic process?

Authors:  Renée A Duckworth
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-04-27       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Why epistasis is important for selection and adaptation.

Authors:  Thomas F Hansen
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Interactions between stressful environment and gene deletions alleviate the expected average loss of fitness in yeast.

Authors:  Lukasz Jasnos; Katarzyna Tomala; Dorota Paczesniak; Ryszard Korona
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  The population genetics of synthetic lethals.

Authors:  P C Phillips; N A Johnson
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Maternal-zygotic epistasis and the evolution of genetic diseases.

Authors:  Nicholas K Priest; Michael J Wade
Journal:  J Biomed Biotechnol       Date:  2010-05-10

9.  The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection.

Authors:  P Bijma; M J Wade
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2008-06-28       Impact factor: 2.411

10.  Genes with social effects are expected to harbor more sequence variation within and between species.

Authors:  Timothy A Linksvayer; Michael J Wade
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.694

View more
  9 in total

1.  Quantitative genetics provides predictive power for paleontological studies of morphological evolution.

Authors:  P David Polly
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Interacting phenotypes and the coevolutionary process: Interspecific indirect genetic effects alter coevolutionary dynamics.

Authors:  Stephen P De Lisle; Daniel I Bolnick; Edmund D Brodie; Allen J Moore; Joel W McGlothlin
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2022-02-10       Impact factor: 4.171

3.  Selfing is the safest sex for Caenorhabditis tropicalis.

Authors:  Luke M Noble; John Yuen; Lewis Stevens; Nicolas Moya; Riaad Persaud; Marc Moscatelli; Jacqueline L Jackson; Gaotian Zhang; Rojin Chitrakar; L Ryan Baugh; Christian Braendle; Erik C Andersen; Hannah S Seidel; Matthew V Rockman
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Evolutionary genetics of maternal effects.

Authors:  Jason B Wolf; Michael J Wade
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Nuclear-mitochondrial epistasis: a gene's eye view of genomic conflict.

Authors:  Michael J Wade; Devin M Drown
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 2.912

6.  Cooperative interactions within the family enhance the capacity for evolutionary change in body size.

Authors:  Benjamin Jm Jarrett; Matthew Schrader; Darren Rebar; Thomas M Houslay; Rebecca M Kilner
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-05-26       Impact factor: 15.460

7.  Offspring genes indirectly influence sibling and maternal behavioural strategies over resource share.

Authors:  David G Ashbrook; Naorin Sharmin; Reinmar Hager
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Maternal-Offspring Interactions: Reciprocally Coevolving Social Environments.

Authors:  Michael J Wade
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 2.645

9.  Baby makes three: Maternal, paternal, and zygotic genetic effects shape larval phenotypic evolution.

Authors:  Christina Zakas; Matthew V Rockman
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.694

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.