Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1998 May;149(1):435–444. doi: 10.1093/genetics/149.1.435

Testing for epistasis between deleterious mutations.

S A West 1, A D Peters 1, N H Barton 1
PMCID: PMC1460116  PMID: 9584115

Abstract

Determining the way in which deleterious mutations interact in their effects on fitness is crucial to numerous areas in population genetics and evolutionary biology. For example, if each additional mutation leads to a greater decrease in log fitness than the last (synergistic epistasis), then the evolution of sex and recombination may be favored to facilitate the elimination of deleterious mutations. However, there is a severe shortage of relevant data. Three relatively simple experimental methods to test for epistasis between deleterious mutations in haploid species have recently been proposed. These methods involve crossing individuals and examining the mean and/or skew in log fitness of the offspring and parents. The main aim of this paper is to formalize these methods, and determine the most effective way in which tests for epistasis could be carried out. We show that only one of these methods is likely to give useful results: crossing individuals that have very different numbers of deleterious mutations, and comparing the mean log fitness of the parents with that of their offspring. We also reconsider experimental data collected on Chlamydomonas moewussi using two of the three methods. Finally, we suggest how the test could be applied to diploid species.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (146.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Charlesworth B., Barton N. H. Recombination load associated with selection for increased recombination. Genet Res. 1996 Feb;67(1):27–41. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300033450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. Elena S. F., Lenski R. E. Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature. 1997 Nov 27;390(6658):395–398. doi: 10.1038/37108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Keightley P. D., Caballero A. Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Apr 15;94(8):3823–3827. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.8.3823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Keightley P. D. Nature of deleterious mutation load in Drosophila. Genetics. 1996 Dec;144(4):1993–1999. doi: 10.1093/genetics/144.4.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Keightley P. D., Ohnishi O. EMS-induced polygenic mutation rates for nine quantitative characters in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1998 Feb;148(2):753–766. doi: 10.1093/genetics/148.2.753. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Keightley P. D. The distribution of mutation effects on viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1994 Dec;138(4):1315–1322. doi: 10.1093/genetics/138.4.1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. 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]
  9. Kondrashov A. S. Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J Hered. 1993 Sep-Oct;84(5):372–387. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111358. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. Genet Res. 1984 Oct;44(2):199–217. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300026392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Kondrashov A. S., Houle D. Genotype-environment interactions and the estimation of the genomic mutation rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Biol Sci. 1994 Dec 22;258(1353):221–227. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1994.0166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kondrashov A. S. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet Res. 1982 Dec;40(3):325–332. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300019194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Ohnishi O. Spontaneous and ethyl methanesulfonate-induced mutations controlling viability in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Homozygous effect of polygenic mutations. Genetics. 1977 Nov;87(3):529–545. doi: 10.1093/genetics/87.3.529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Otto S. P., Feldman M. W. Deleterious mutations, variable epistatic interactions, and the evolution of recombination. Theor Popul Biol. 1997 Apr;51(2):134–147. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1997.1301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. de Visser J. A., Hoekstra R. F., van den Ende H. An experimental test for synergistic epistasis and its application in Chlamydomonas. Genetics. 1997 Mar;145(3):815–819. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.3.815. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES