Literature DB >> 28563758

ON THE EFFECT OF FOUNDER EVENTS ON EPISTATIC GENETIC VARIANCE.

Charles J Goodnight1.   

Abstract

Mayr (1963) proposed that small isolated propagules from a large panmictic population would occasionally undergo a genetic revolution due to loss of genetic variability. More recently Templeton (1980a) has suggested that founder events may be much more important in systems that have strong epistasis. Because of the work of these and other authors it becomes an interesting theoretical problem to study the distribution of epistatic variance in a population following a founder event. In the model presented here measures of coancestry (Cockerham, 1967, 1984; Cockerham and Weir, 1973; Weir and Cockerham, 1973, 1977; Tachida and Cockerham, unpubl.) are used to examine the effect of founder events on additive-by-additive epistasis. Using this approach, the coancestries, or intraclass correlations, within individuals and within demes, together with the genetic variance components in the ancestral population are used to obtain the variance within and among demes following a founder event. Examples are analyzed for single founder events of 1-25 individuals and multiple founder events of two individuals. Following a single founder event, the contribution of the additive variance to the variance within demes relative to the additive variance in the ancestral population is always less than one. However, the contribution of epistatic variance to the variance within demes relative to the epistatic variance in the ancestral population is always greater than one. Thus, while a founder event decreases the contribution of additive variance to the variance within demes, it increases the contribution of epistatic variance to the variance within demes. The contribution of epistatic variance to the variance among demes following a single founder event is not qualitatively different from the contribution of additive variance to the variance among demes. These results indicate that epistatic variance is less likely than additive variance to cause a genetic revolution following a single founder event. When populations undergo multiple founder events the situation changes considerably. Epistatic variance may contribute as much as four times its original value to the variance among demes, while additive variance can contribute maximally twice its original value to the variance among demes. Thus, epistasis, which is relatively unimportant following a single founder event, may have major evolutionary implications if drift is allowed to continue for several generations. © 1987 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Year:  1987        PMID: 28563758     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1987.tb05772.x

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


  12 in total

1.  Genomic distribution of transposable elements among individuals of an inbred Drosophila line.

Authors:  C Di Franco; D Galuppi; N Junakovic
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.082

2.  Population biology of two land snails (Mesomphix spp.): variation among six southern appalachian sites with differing disturbance histories.

Authors:  A E Stiven
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 3.225

3.  Detecting epistatic genetic variance with a clonally replicated design: models for lowvs high-order nonallelic interaction.

Authors:  R L Wu
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  Genetic diversity and bottleneck studies in endangered Bhutia and Manipuri pony breeds.

Authors:  A K Gupta; Mamta Chauhan; Anuradha Bhardwaj
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 2.316

5.  Mapping QTLs with main and epistatic effects underlying grain yield and heading time in soft winter wheat.

Authors:  Jochen C Reif; Hans P Maurer; Viktor Korzun; Erhard Ebmeyer; T Miedaner; Tobias Würschum
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-04-08       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  The founder effect theory: quantitative variation and mdg-1 mobile element polymorphism in experimental populations of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  C Terzian; C Biémont
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  1988-02-29       Impact factor: 1.082

7.  Directionality of epistasis in a murine intercross population.

Authors:  Mihaela Pavlicev; Arnaud Le Rouzic; James M Cheverud; Günter P Wagner; Thomas F Hansen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-06-01       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation.

Authors:  Marty Kardos; Ellie E Armstrong; Sarah W Fitzpatrick; Samantha Hauser; Philip W Hedrick; Joshua M Miller; David A Tallmon; W Chris Funk
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Dominance of Deleterious Alleles Controls the Response to a Population Bottleneck.

Authors:  Daniel J Balick; Ron Do; Christopher A Cassa; David Reich; Shamil R Sunyaev
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Phenotypic evolution from genetic polymorphisms in a radial network architecture.

Authors:  Arnaud Le Rouzic; Paul B Siegel; Orjan Carlborg
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 7.431

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.