An evolutionary advantage of haploidy in large yeast populations

Science

Volumn 299, Issue 5606, 2003, Pages 555-558

  Zeyl, Clifford ^a   Vanderford, Thomas ^a,b   Carter, Michele ^a,c  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PLANTS (BOTANY); SEED;

ADAPTIVE MUTATION;

YEAST;

ADAPTATION; EVOLUTION; GENE; MUTATION; YEAST;

ADAPTATION; ARTICLE; ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION; CELL CYCLE; DIPLOIDY; EVOLUTION; GENE MUTATION; HAPLOIDY; MODEL; NONHUMAN; POPULATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECESSIVE INHERITANCE; YEAST;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; DIPLOIDY; EVOLUTION; GENES, DOMINANT; GENES, FUNGAL; GENES, RECESSIVE; HAPLOIDY; HETEROZYGOTE; HOMOZYGOTE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MUTATION; REPRODUCTION; SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE;

ANIMALIA; EUKARYOTA; METAZOA; PROKARYOTA; SPERMATOPHYTA;

EID: 0037462494     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1078417     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. M. Valero, S. Richard, V. Perrot, C. Destombe, Trends Ecol. Evol. 7, 25 (1992).
2. J. B. S. Haldane, Am. Nat. 71, 337 (1937).
3. G. Bell, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1982).
4. A. Kondrashov, J. Crow, Nature 351, 314 (1991).
5. V. Perrot, S. Richard, M. Valero, Nature 351, 315 (1991).
6. C. D. Jenkins, M. Kirkpatrick, Evolution 49, 512 (1995).
7. S. Otto, D. Goldstein, Genetics 131, 745 (1992).
8. S. Otto, in Theories for the Evolution of Haploid-Diploid Life Cycles, M. Kirkpatrick, Ed. (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1994), pp. 69-96.
9. A. Orr, S. Otto, Genetics 136, 1475 (1994).
10. C. Paquin, J. Adams, Nature 302, 495 (1983).
11. -8.
12. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
13. Paquin and Adams (10) estimated the numbers of adaptive mutations fixed in haploid and diploid populations by counting sudden changes in the frequencies of genetic markers hitchhiking with adaptive mutations. They concluded that fixations were 60% more frequent in diploids. Using competitions between genotypes sampled from their populations before and after inferred fixation events, they estimated the average selective advantage and dominance coefficient for adaptive mutations as s = 0.1 and h = 0.9. However, the times to fixation for such mutations would be much greater than the inferred times (8, 17). Computer simulations of Paquin and Adams' experiment (8) were incompatible with the inferred advantage for diploids.
14. M. Hiraoka, K. Watanabe, K. Umezu, H. Maki, Genetics 156, 1531 (2000).
15. H. A. Orr, Evolution 52, 935 (1998).
16. C. Zeyl, T. Vanderford, M. Carter, data not shown.
17. D. E. Dykhuizen, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 21, 373 (1990).
18. Supported by NSF grant no. DEB-0075594 and a Young Investigator Award for Studies in Molecular Evolution from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (C.Z.) and by Wake Forest University Research Fellowships (T.V.) We thank S. Otto and A. Grant for kindly performing flow cytometric analysis of DNA content in our evolved populations and S. Otto, B. Grimberg, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that greatly improved the manuscript over previous versions. We also thank A. Pearce for her diligent and proficient technical assistance.