Abstract
Mathematical properties of the overdominance model with mutation and random genetic drift are studied by using the method of stochastic differential equations (Itô and McKean 1974). It is shown that overdominant selection is very powerful in increasing the mean heterozygosity as compared with neutral mutations, and if 2Ns (N = effective population size; s = selective disadvantage for homozygotes) is larger than 10, a very low mutation rate is sufficient to explain the observed level of allozyme polymorphism. The distribution of heterozygosity for overdominant genes is considerably different from that of neutral mutations, and if the ratio of selection coefficient (s) to mutation rate (ν) is large and the mean heterozygosity (h) is lower than 0.2, single-locus heterozygosity is either approximately 0 or 0.5. If h increases further, however, heterozygosity shows a multiple-peak distribution. Reflecting this type of distribution, the relationship between the mean and variance of heterozygosity is considerably different from that for neutral genes. When s/v is large, the proportion of polymorphic loci increases approximately linearly with mean heterozygosity. The distribution of allele frequencies is also drastically different from that of neutral genes, and generally shows a peak at the intermediate gene frequency. Implications of these results on the maintenance of allozyme polymorphism are discussed.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.1 MB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Franklin I., Lewontin R. C. Is the gene the unit of selection? Genetics. 1970 Aug;65(4):707–734. doi: 10.1093/genetics/65.4.707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fuerst P. A., Chakraborty R., Nei M. Statistical studies on protein polymorphism in natural populations. I. Distribution of single locus heterozygosity. Genetics. 1977 Jun;86(2 Pt 1):455–483. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kimura M. RULES FOR TESTING STABILITY OF A SELECTIVE POLYMORPHISM. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1956 Jun;42(6):336–340. doi: 10.1073/pnas.42.6.336. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewontin R. C., Ginzburg L. R., Tuljapurkar S. D. Heterosis as an explanation for large amounts of genic polymorphism. Genetics. 1978 Jan;88(1):149–169. doi: 10.1093/genetics/88.1.149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stewart F. M. Variability in the amount of heterozygosity maintained by neutral mutations. Theor Popul Biol. 1976 Apr;9(2):188–201. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90044-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sved J. A., Reed T. E., Bodmer W. F. The number of balanced polymorphisms that can be maintained in a natural population. Genetics. 1967 Mar;55(3):469–481. doi: 10.1093/genetics/55.3.469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Watterson G. A. Models for the logarithmic species abundance distributions. Theor Popul Biol. 1974 Oct;6(2):217–250. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(74)90025-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]