Assortative mating for fitness and the evolution of recombination

Evolution

Volumn 60, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1337-1343

  Blachford, Alistair ^a   Agrawal, Aneil F ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assortative mating; Evolution of recombination; Modifier model; Mutation selection balance

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; ASSORTATIVE MATING; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; FITNESS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MUTATION; NATURAL SELECTION; RECOMBINATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC RECOMBINATION; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; MUTATION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; RECOMBINATION, GENETIC; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 33748195592     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1554/05-502.1     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bakker, T. C. M., R. Künzler, and D. Mazzi. 1999. Condition-related mate choice in sticklebacks. Nature 401:234.
2. Barton, N. H. 1995. A general-model for the evolution of recombination. Genet. Res. 65:123-144.
3. Barton, N. H., and B. Charlesworth. 1998. Why sex and recombination? Science 281:1986-1990.
4. Barton, N. H., and S. P. Otto. 2005. Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169:2353-2370.
5. Bell, G. 1982. The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
6. Charlesworth, B. 1990. Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet. Res. 55:199-221.
7. Charlesworth, D., B. Charlesworth, and C. Strobeck. 1979. Selection for recombination in partially self-fertilizing populations. Genetics 93:237-244.
8. Davis, C. H. 1995. The effect of assortative mating and environmental variation on selection for sexual reproduction. Evol. Theory 11:51-53.
9. de Visser, J. A. G. M., R. F. Hoekstra, and H. van den Ende. 1997. Test of interaction between genetic markers that affect fitness in Aspergillus niger. Evolution 51:1499-1505.
10. Elena, S. F., and R. E. Lenski. 1997. Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature 390:395-398.
11. Fawcett, T. W., and R. A. Johnstone. 2003. Mate choice in the face of costly competition. Behav. Ecol. 14:771-779.
12. Feldman, M. W., F. B. Christiansen, and L. D. Brooks. 1980. Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77:4838-4841.
13. Feldman, M. W., S. P. Otto, and F. B. Christiansen. 1997. Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. Annu. Rev. Genet. 30:261-295.
14. Fisher, R. A. 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 52:399-433.
15. Jaffe, K. 2000. Emergence and maintenance of sex among diploid organisms aided by assortative mating. Acta Biotheor. 48:137-147.
16. Kimura, M. 1965. Attainment of quasi linkage equilibrium when gene frequencies are changing by natural selection. Genetics 52:875-890.
17. Kimura, M., and T. Maruyama. 1966. The mutational load with epistatic interactions in fitness. Genetics 54:1337-1351.
18. Kondrashov, A. S. 1982. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet. Res. 40:325-332.
19. _. 1984. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. Genet. Res. 44:199-217.
20. Lenormand, T., and S. P. Otto. 2000. The evolution of recombination in a heterogeneous environment. Genetics 156:423-438.
21. Martin, G., S. P. Otto, and T. Lenormand. 2005. Selection for recombination in structured populations. Genetics 172:593-609.
22. Moran, P. A. P., and C. A. B. Smith. 1966. Commentary on R. A. Fisher's paper on the correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Cambridge Univ. Press, London.
23. Nagylaki, T. 1993. The evolution of multilocus systems under weak selection. Genetics 134:627-647.
24. Otto, S. P., and M. W. Feldman. 1997. Deleterious mutations, variable epistatic interactions, and the evolution of recombination. Theor. Popul. Biol. 51:134-147.
25. Otto, S. P., and T. Lenormand. 2002. Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:252-261.
26. Otto, S. P., and S. L. Nuismer. 2004. Species interactions and the evolution of sex. Science 304:1018-1020.
27. Rice, W. R. 1998. Requisite mutational load, pathway epistasis and deterministic mutation accumulation in sexual versus asexual populations. Genetica 102/103:71-81.
28. Rowe, L., and G. Arnqvist. 1996. Analysis of causal components of assortative mating in water striders. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 38:297-286.
29. Roze, D., and T. Lenormand. 2005. Self-fertilization and the evolution of recombination. Genetics 170:841-857.
30. Vetta, A. 1975. Assortative mating, linkage and genotypic frequencies. Ann. Hum. Genet. 39:105-109.
31. Whitlock, M. C., and D. Bourguet. 2000. Factors affecting the genetic load in Drosophila: synergistic epistasis and correlations among fitness components. Evolution 54:1654-1660.
32. Wright, S. 1921. Systems of mating. III. Assortative mating based on somatic resemblance. Genetics 6:144-161.