Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1997 Sep;147(1):147–155. doi: 10.1093/genetics/147.1.147

Inbreeding Depression and Inferred Deleterious-Mutation Parameters in Daphnia

H W Deng 1, M Lynch 1
PMCID: PMC1208098  PMID: 9286675

Abstract

DENG and LYNCH recently proposed a method for estimating deleterious genomic mutation parameters from changes in the mean and genetic variance of fitness traits upon inbreeding in outcrossing populations. Such observations are readily acquired in cyclical parthenogens. Selfing and life-table experiments were performed for two such Daphnia populations. We observed a significant inbreeding depression and an increase of genetic variance for all traits analyzed. DENG and LYNCH's original procedures were extended to estimate genomic mutation rate (U), mean dominance coefficient (h), mean selection coefficient (s), and scaled genomic mutational variance (V(m)/V(e)). On average, U, h, s and V(m)/V(e) (^ indicates an estimate) are 0.74, 0.30, 0.14 and 4.6E-4, respectively. For the true values, the U and h are lower bounds, and s and V(m)/V(e) upper bounds. The present U, h and V(m)/V(e) are in general concordance with earlier results. The discrepancy between the present s and that from mutation-accumulation experiments in Drosophila (~0.04) is discussed. It is shown that different reproductive modes do not affect gene frequency at mutation-selection equilibrium if mutational effects on fitness are multiplicative and not completely recessive.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (979.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Charlesworth B. Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet Res. 1990 Jun;55(3):199–221. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300025532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Crow J. F. How much do we know about spontaneous human mutation rates? Environ Mol Mutagen. 1993;21(2):122–129. doi: 10.1002/em.2850210205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Deng H. W., Lynch M. Estimation of deleterious-mutation parameters in natural populations. Genetics. 1996 Sep;144(1):349–360. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.1.349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Johnston M. O., Schoen D. J. Mutation rates and dominance levels of genes affecting total fitness in two angiosperm species. Science. 1995 Jan 13;267(5195):226–229. doi: 10.1126/science.267.5195.226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kacser H., Burns J. A. The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 1981 Mar-Apr;97(3-4):639–666. doi: 10.1093/genetics/97.3-4.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kibota T. T., Lynch M. Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli. Nature. 1996 Jun 20;381(6584):694–696. doi: 10.1038/381694a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kimura M., Maruyama T. The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. Genetics. 1966 Dec;54(6):1337–1351. doi: 10.1093/genetics/54.6.1337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kondrashov A. S., Crow J. F. Haploidy or diploidy: which is better? Nature. 1991 May 23;351(6324):314–315. doi: 10.1038/351314a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. doi: 10.1038/336435a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. II. Facultative apomixis and selfing. Genetics. 1985 Nov;111(3):635–653. doi: 10.1093/genetics/111.3.635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lynch M., Bürger R., Butcher D., Gabriel W. The mutational meltdown in asexual populations. J Hered. 1993 Sep-Oct;84(5):339–344. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lynch M., Ennis R. Resource availability, maternal effects, and longevity. Exp Gerontol. 1983;18(2):147–165. doi: 10.1016/0531-5565(83)90008-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Lynch M. The rate of polygenic mutation. Genet Res. 1988 Apr;51(2):137–148. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300024150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. MULLER H. J. THE RELATION OF RECOMBINATION TO MUTATIONAL ADVANCE. Mutat Res. 1964 May;106:2–9. doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(64)90047-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Morton N. E., Crow J. F., Muller H. J. AN ESTIMATE OF THE MUTATIONAL DAMAGE IN MAN FROM DATA ON CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1956 Nov;42(11):855–863. doi: 10.1073/pnas.42.11.855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Mukai T., Chigusa S. I., Mettler L. E., Crow J. F. Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1972 Oct;72(2):335–355. doi: 10.1093/genetics/72.2.335. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Perrot V., Richerd S., Valéro M. Transition from haploidy to diploidy. Nature. 1991 May 23;351(6324):315–317. doi: 10.1038/351315a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Robertson A. The Effect of Inbreeding on the Variation Due to Recessive Genes. Genetics. 1952 Mar;37(2):189–207. doi: 10.1093/genetics/37.2.189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schultz S. T., Willis J. H. Individual variation in inbreeding depression: the roles of inbreeding history and mutation. Genetics. 1995 Nov;141(3):1209–1223. doi: 10.1093/genetics/141.3.1209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES