Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Apr 7;271(1540):705–714. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2635

Two steps forward, one step back: the pleiotropic effects of favoured alleles.

Sarah P Otto 1
PMCID: PMC1691650  PMID: 15209104

Abstract

Pleiotropy is one of the most commonly observed attributes of genes. Yet the extent and influence of pleiotropy have been underexplored in population genetics models. In this paper, I quantify the extent to which pleiotropy inhibits the spread of alleles in response to directional selection on a focal trait. Under the assumption that pleiotropic effects are extensive and deleterious, the fraction of alleles that are beneficial overall is severely limited by pleiotropy and rises nearly linearly with the strength of directional selection on the focal trait. Over a broad class of distribution of pleiotropic effects, the mean selective effect of those alleles that are beneficial overall is halved, on average, by pleiotropy. The fraction of new mutant alleles that are beneficial overall and that succeed in fixing within a population is even more severely limited when directional selection is weak, but it rises quadratically with the strength of directional selection. Finally, the mean selective effect of mutant alleles that are beneficial and succeed in fixing is reduced by one-third, on average, by pleiotropy. These results help to shape our understanding of the evolutionary inertia caused by pleiotropy.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (164.0 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Barton N. H. Linkage and the limits to natural selection. Genetics. 1995 Jun;140(2):821–841. doi: 10.1093/genetics/140.2.821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barton N. H. Pleiotropic models of quantitative variation. Genetics. 1990 Mar;124(3):773–782. doi: 10.1093/genetics/124.3.773. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bulmer M. G. The maintenance of the genetic variability of polygenic characters by heterozygous advantage. Genet Res. 1973 Aug;22(1):9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dobzhansky T, Holz A M. A Re-Examination of the Problem of Manifold Effects of Genes in Drosophila Melanogaster. Genetics. 1943 Jul;28(4):295–303. doi: 10.1093/genetics/28.4.295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gillespie J. H. Pleiotropic overdominance and the maintenance of genetic variation in polygenic characters. Genetics. 1984 Jun;107(2):321–330. doi: 10.1093/genetics/107.2.321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Griswold Cortland K., Whitlock Michael C. The genetics of adaptation: the roles of pleiotropy, stabilizing selection and drift in shaping the distribution of bidirectional fixed mutational effects. Genetics. 2003 Dec;165(4):2181–2192. doi: 10.1093/genetics/165.4.2181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Keightley Peter D., Lynch Michael. Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution. 2003 Mar;57(3):683–689. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01561.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kondrashov A. S., Turelli M. Deleterious mutations, apparent stabilizing selection and the maintenance of quantitative variation. Genetics. 1992 Oct;132(2):603–618. doi: 10.1093/genetics/132.2.603. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lande R. The Genetic Covariance between Characters Maintained by Pleiotropic Mutations. Genetics. 1980 Jan;94(1):203–215. doi: 10.1093/genetics/94.1.203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mackay T. F., Lyman R. F., Jackson M. S. Effects of P element insertions on quantitative traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1992 Feb;130(2):315–332. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.2.315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Orr H. A. The evolutionary genetics of adaptation: a simulation study. Genet Res. 1999 Dec;74(3):207–214. doi: 10.1017/s0016672399004164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Otto S. P., Jones C. D. Detecting the undetected: estimating the total number of loci underlying a quantitative trait. Genetics. 2000 Dec;156(4):2093–2107. doi: 10.1093/genetics/156.4.2093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Slatkin M., Frank S. A. The quantitative genetic consequences of pleiotropy under stabilizing and directional selection. Genetics. 1990 May;125(1):207–213. doi: 10.1093/genetics/125.1.207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Taylor C. F., Higgs P. G. A population genetics model for multiple quantitative traits exhibiting pleiotropy and epistasis. J Theor Biol. 2000 Apr 21;203(4):419–437. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.1094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Turelli M. Effects of pleiotropy on predictions concerning mutation-selection balance for polygenic traits. Genetics. 1985 Sep;111(1):165–195. doi: 10.1093/genetics/111.1.165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wagner G. P. Multivariate mutation-selection balance with constrained pleiotropic effects. Genetics. 1989 May;122(1):223–234. doi: 10.1093/genetics/122.1.223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhang Xu-Sheng, Wang Jinliang, Hill William G. Pleiotropic model of maintenance of quantitative genetic variation at mutation-selection balance. Genetics. 2002 May;161(1):419–433. doi: 10.1093/genetics/161.1.419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES