Deleterious mutation and the evolution of eusociality

Evolution

Volumn 56, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 2359-2367

  Cherry, Joshua L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Deleterious mutation; Eusociality; Evolution; Genetic models; Kin selection; Sex

Indexed keywords

EUSOCIALITY; EVOLUTION; KIN SELECTION; MUTATION; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0036964289     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00161.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-695.
2. Garcia-Dorado, A., C. Lopez-Fanjul, and A. Caballero. 1999. Properties of spontaneous mutations affecting quantitative traits. Genet. Res. 74:341-350.
3. Haigh, J. 1978. The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population: Muller's ratchet. Theor. Popul. Biol. 14:251-267.
4. Hamilton, W. D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J. Theor. Biol. 7:17-52.
5. Houle, D., D. K. Hoffmaster, S. Assimacopoulos, and B. Charlesworth. 1992. The genomic mutation rate for fitness in Drosophila. Nature 359:58-60.
6. Keightley, P. D., and A. Eyre-Walker. 1999. Terumi Mukai and the riddle of deleterious mutation rates. Genetics 153:515-523.
7. Kondrashov, A. S. 1982. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet. Res. 40:325-332.
8. Lynch, M., J. Blanchard, D. Houle, T. Kibota, S. Schultz, L. Vassilieva, and J. Willis. 1999. Perspective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53:645-663.
9. Manning, J. T. 1984. Males and the advantage of sex. J. Theor. Biol. 108:215-220.
10. Meagher, S., D. J. Penn, and W. K. Potts. 2000. Male-male competition magnifies inbreeding depression in wild house mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:3324-3329.
11. Mukai, T. 1964. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Spontaneous mutation rate of polygenes controlling viability. Genetics 50:1-19.
12. Mukai, T., and T. Yamazaki. 1964. Position effect of spontaneous mutant polygenes controlling viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Jpn. Acad. 40:840-845.
13. _. 1968. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. V. coupling-repulsion effect of spontaneous mutant polygenes controlling viability. Genetics 59:513-535.
14. Mukai, T., S. I. Chigusa, L. E. Mettler, and J. F. Crow. 1972. Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 72:335-355.
15. Muller, H. J. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutat. Res. 1:2-9.
16. Ohnishi, O. 1977. Spontaneous and ethyl methanesulfonate-induced mutations controlling viability in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Homozygous effect of polygenic mutations. Genetics 87:529-545.
17. Saito, Y. 1994. Is sterility by deleterious recessives an origin of inequalities in the evolution of eusociality? J. Theor. Biol. 166:113-115.
18. Shabalina, S. A., L. Y. Yampolsky, and A. S. Kondrashov. 1997. Rapid decline of fitness in panmictic populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under relaxed natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:13034-13039.
19. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-692.
20. Trivers, R. L. 1976. Sexual selection and resource-accruing abilities in Anolis garmani. Evolution 30:253-269.