Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1986 Apr;112(4):909–922. doi: 10.1093/genetics/112.4.909

Selection for Increased Mutation Rates with Fertility Differences between Matings

K E Holsinger 1, M W Feldman 1, L Altenberg 1
PMCID: PMC1202785  PMID: 3957011

Abstract

Previous studies of mutation modification have considered models in which selection is a result of viability differences that are sex symmetric. The results of a numerical study of a model in which selection is a result of fertility differences between mated pairs demonstrate that the type of selection to which a population is subject can have a significant impact on the evolution of various parameters of the genetic system. When the fertility of matings between individuals with different genotypes exceeds the fertility of at least some of the matings between individuals with the same genotype, selection may favor increased rates of mutation, in contrast to the results from all existing constant viability models with random mating and infinite population size. Increased mutation rates are most frequently favored when forward and back mutation occur at approximately equal rates and when the modifying locus is loosely linked to the selected locus. We present one example in which selection favors increased rates of mutation even though the selection scheme is reducible to one of differential viability between the sexes.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (826.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bodmer W F. Differential Fertility in Population Genetics Models. Genetics. 1965 Mar;51(3):411–424. doi: 10.1093/genetics/51.3.411. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Charlesworth D., Charlesworth B., Strobeck C. Selection for recombination in partially self-fertilizing populations. Genetics. 1979 Sep;93(1):237–244. doi: 10.1093/genetics/93.1.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Christiansen I., Badskjaer J., Jørgensen E. O., Larsen S. Klinisk vurdering af datamat til ekg-overvågning. Ugeskr Laeger. 1980 Jul 28;142(31):1983–1985. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cook R. D. Stochastic selection in large and small populations. Theor Popul Biol. 1975 Feb;7(1):55–63. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(75)90005-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. GRANT V. The regulation of recombination in plants. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1958;23:337–363. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1958.023.01.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Pollak E. With selection for fecundity the mean fitness does not necessarily increase. Genetics. 1978 Oct;90(2):383–389. doi: 10.1093/genetics/90.2.383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Prout T., Bundgaard J., Bryant S. Population genetics of modifiers of meiotic drive. I. The solution of a special case and some general implications. Theor Popul Biol. 1973 Dec;4(4):446–465. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(73)90020-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES