Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1999 Dec;153(4):1959–1971. doi: 10.1093/genetics/153.4.1959

A comparison of multilocus clines maintained by environmental adaptation or by selection against hybrids.

L E Kruuk 1, S J Baird 1, K S Gale 1, N H Barton 1
PMCID: PMC1460862  PMID: 10581299

Abstract

There has recently been considerable debate over the relative importance of selection against hybrids ("endogenous" selection) vs. adaptation to different environments ("exogenous") in maintaining stable hybrid zones and hence in speciation. Single-locus models of endogenous and exogenous viability selection generate clines of similar shape, but the comparison has not been extended to multilocus systems, which are both quantitatively and qualitatively very different from the single-locus case. Here we develop an analytical multilocus model of differential adaptation across an environmental transition and compare it to previous heterozygote disadvantage models. We show that the shape of clines generated by exogenous selection is indistinguishable from that generated by endogenous selection. A stochastic simulation model is used to test the robustness of the analytical description to the effects of drift and strong selection, and confirms the prediction that pairwise linkage disequilibria are predominantly generated by migration. However, although analytical predictions for the width of clines maintained by heterozygote disadvantage fit well with the simulation results, those for environmental adaptation are consistently too narrow; reasons for the discrepancy are discussed. There is a smooth transition between a system in which a set of loci effectively act independently of each other and one in which they act as a single nonrecombining unit.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (203.3 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Asmussen M. A., Arnold J., Avise J. C. The effects of assortative mating and migration on cytonuclear associations in hybrid zones. Genetics. 1989 Aug;122(4):923–934. doi: 10.1093/genetics/122.4.923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Asmussen M. A., Arnold J. The effects of admixture and population subdivision on cytonuclear disequilibria. Theor Popul Biol. 1991 Jun;39(3):273–300. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(91)90024-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barton N. H., Hewitt G. M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones. Nature. 1989 Oct 12;341(6242):497–503. doi: 10.1038/341497a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barton N. H. The effects of linkage and density-dependent regulation on gene flow. Heredity (Edinb) 1986 Dec;57(Pt 3):415–426. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1986.142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barton N. H., Turelli M. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics. 1991 Jan;127(1):229–255. doi: 10.1093/genetics/127.1.229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barton N., Bengtsson B. O. The barrier to genetic exchange between hybridising populations. Heredity (Edinb) 1986 Dec;57(Pt 3):357–376. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1986.135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. FISHER R. A. Gene frequencies in a cline determined by selection and diffusion. Biometrics. 1950 Dec;6(4):353–361. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hill W. G., Robertson A. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet Res. 1966 Dec;8(3):269–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kirkpatrick M., Servedio M. R. The reinforcement of mating preferences on an island. Genetics. 1999 Feb;151(2):865–884. doi: 10.1093/genetics/151.2.865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Li W. H., Nei M. Stable linkage disequilibrium without epistasis in subdivided populations. Theor Popul Biol. 1974 Oct;6(2):173–183. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(74)90022-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mallet J., Barton N., Lamas G., Santisteban J., Muedas M., Eeley H. Estimates of selection and gene flow from measures of cline width and linkage disequilibrium in heliconius hybrid zones. Genetics. 1990 Apr;124(4):921–936. doi: 10.1093/genetics/124.4.921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Nagylaki T. Clines with variable migration. Genetics. 1976 Aug;83(4):867–886. doi: 10.1093/genetics/83.4.867. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Nagylaki T. Conditions for the existence of clines. Genetics. 1975 Jul;(3):595–615. doi: 10.1093/genetics/80.3.595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Nagylaki T. The evolution of one- and two-locus systems. Genetics. 1976 Jul;83(3 PT2):583–600. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  16. Piálek J., Barton N. H. The spread of an advantageous allele across a barrier: the effects of random drift and selection against heterozygotes. Genetics. 1997 Feb;145(2):493–504. doi: 10.1093/genetics/145.2.493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Slatkin M. Gene flow and selection in a cline. Genetics. 1973 Dec;75(4):733–756. doi: 10.1093/genetics/75.4.733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Slatkin M. Gene flow and selection in a two-locus system. Genetics. 1975 Dec;81(4):787–802. doi: 10.1093/genetics/81.4.787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Slatkin M., Maruyama T. Genetic drift in a cline. Genetics. 1975 Sep;81(1):209–222. doi: 10.1093/genetics/81.1.209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Wright S. Evolution in Mendelian Populations. Genetics. 1931 Mar;16(2):97–159. doi: 10.1093/genetics/16.2.97. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wu C. I., Palopoli M. F. Genetics of postmating reproductive isolation in animals. Annu Rev Genet. 1994;28:283–308. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.28.120194.001435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES