Dosage, deletions and dominance: Simple models of the evolution of gene expression

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 205, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 641-647

  Hurst, Laurence D ^a   Randerson, James P ^a  

^a University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENZYME;

DOMINANT GENE; ENZYME ACTIVITY; EVOLUTION; GENE DELETION; GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE MUTATION; GENETIC SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0034699139     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2095     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. BOURGUET D. The evolution of dominance. Heredity. 83:1999;1-4.
2. CHARLESWORTH B. Evidence against Fisher's theory of dominance. Nature. 278:1979;848-849.
3. CORNISH-BOWDEN A. Dominance is not inevitable. J. theor. Biol. 125:1987;333-338.
4. CROW J., KIMURA M. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. 1970;Harper and Rowe, New York.
5. DYKHUIZEN D. E., DEAN A. M. Enzyme-activity and fitness - evolution in solution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:1990;257-262.
6. FISHER R. A. The possible modification of the response of the wild type to recurrent mutations. Am. Nat. 62:1928;115-126.
7. FORSDYKE D. R. The heat-shock response and the molecular-basis of genetic dominance. J. theor. Biol. 167:1994;1-5.
8. GROSSNIKLAUS U., MADHUSUDHAN M. S., NANJUNDIAH V. Nonlinear enzyme kinetics can lead to high metabolic flux control coefficients: implications for the evolution of dominance. J. theor. Biol. 182:1996;299-302.
9. HALDANE J. B. S. A note on Fisher's theory of the evolution of dominance, and on a correlation between dominance and linkage. Am. Nat. 64:1930;87-90.
10. HALDANE J. B. S. The theory of the evolution of dominance. J. Genet. 37:1939;365-374.
11. HURST L. D., MCVEAN G. T., MOORE T. Imprinted genes have few and small introns. Nat. Genet. 12:1996;234-237.
12. KACSER H. Dominance not inevitable but very likely. J. theor. Biol. 126:1987;505-506.
13. KACSER H. A superior theory. J. theor. Biol. 149:1991;141-144.
14. KACSER H., BURNS J. A. The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 97:1981;639-666.
15. KEIGHTLEY P. D. A metabolic basis for dominance and recessivity. Genetics. 143:1996;621-625.
16. MAYO O., BURGER R. The evolution of dominance: a theory whose time has passed? Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 72:1997;97-110.
17. ORR H. A. A test of fisher theory of dominance. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88:1991;11413-11415.
18. OTTO S. P., BOURGUET D. Balanced polymorphisms and the evolution of dominance. Am. Nat. 153:1999;561-574.
19. QUASTEL M., HARRISON R., CICARDI M., ALPER C. A., ROSEN F. S. Behavior in vivo of normal and dysfunctional Cl inhibitor in normal subjects and patients with hereditary angioneurotic-edema. J. Clin. Invest. 71:1983;1041-1046.
20. SAVAGEAU M. A. Dominance according to metabolic control analysis - major achievement or house of cards. J. theor. Biol. 154:1992;131-136.
21. SAVAGEAU M. A., SORRIBAS A. Constraints among molecular and systemic properties - implications for physiological genetics. J. theor. Biol. 141:1989;93-115.
22. SZATHMÁRY E. Do deleterious mutations act synergistically? Metabolic control theory provides a partial answer. Genetics. 133:1993;127-132.
23. WRIGHT S. Fisher's theory of dominance. Am. Nat. 63:1929;274-279.