Abstract
Theory predicts that short-term adaptation within populations depends on additive (A) genetic effects, while gene-gene interactions 'epistasis (E)' are important only in long-term evolution. However, few data exist on the genetic architecture of adaptive variation, and the relative importance of A versus non-additive genetic effects continues to be a central controversy of evolutionary biology after more than 70 years of debate. To examine this issue directly, we conducted hybridization experiments between two populations of wild soapberry bugs that have strongly differentiated in 100 or fewer generations following a host plant shift. Contrary to expectation, we found that between-population E and dominance (D) have appeared quickly in the evolution of new phenotypes. Rather than thousands of generations, adaptive gene differences between populations have evolved in tens. Such complex genetic variation could underlie the seemingly extreme rates of evolution that are increasingly reported in many taxa. In the case of the soapberry bug, extraordinary ecological opportunity, rather than mortality, may have created hard selection for genetic variants. Because ultimate division of populations into genetic species depends on epistatic loss of hybrid compatibility, local adaptation based on E may accelerate macro-evolutionary diversification.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (86.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Agrawal A. F., Brodie E. D., 3rd, Rieseberg L. H. Possible consequences of genes of major effect: transient changes in the G-matrix. Genetica. 2001;112-113:33–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carroll S. P., Dingle H., Famula T. R., Fox C. W. Genetic architecture of adaptive differentiation in evolving host races of the soapberry bug, Jadera haematoloma. Genetica. 2001;112-113:257–272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Coyne J. A., Barton N. H., Turelli M. Is Wright's shifting balance process important in evolution? Evolution. 2000 Feb;54(1):306–317. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00033.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Goodnight C. J., Wade M. J. The ongoing synthesis: a reply to Coyne, Barton, and Turelli. Evolution. 2000 Feb;54(1):317–324. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00034.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hendry A. P., Wenburg J. K., Bentzen P., Volk E. C., Quinn T. P. Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science. 2000 Oct 20;290(5491):516–519. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5491.516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kruuk L. E., Clutton-Brock T. H., Slate J., Pemberton J. M., Brotherstone S., Guinness F. E. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jan 18;97(2):698–703. doi: 10.1073/pnas.97.2.698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Merilä J, Sheldon BC. Lifetime Reproductive Success and Heritability in Nature. Am Nat. 2000 Mar;155(3):301–310. doi: 10.1086/303330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mousseau T. A., Roff D. A. Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity (Edinb) 1987 Oct;59(Pt 2):181–197. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1987.113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wade M. J. Epistasis, complex traits, and mapping genes. Genetica. 2001;112-113:59–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]