Diploidy, population structure, and the evolution of recombination

American Naturalist

Volumn 174, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2009, Pages

  Roze, Denis ^a,b  

^a STATION BIOLOGIQUE DE ROSCOFF   (France)

^b Université Pierre   (France)

Author keywords

Deleterious mutations; Dominance; Epistasis; Evolution of recombination; Multilocus models; Population structure

Indexed keywords

DOMINANCE; EPISTASIS; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIATION; MUTATION; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RECOMBINATION; SELECTION;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DIPLOIDY; DOMINANT GENE; EVOLUTION; GENETIC EPISTASIS; GENETIC RECOMBINATION; MUTATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS;

DIPLOIDY; EPISTASIS, GENETIC; EVOLUTION; GENES, DOMINANT; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; POPULATION DYNAMICS; RECOMBINATION, GENETIC;

EID: 68549083794     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/599083     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Agrawal, A. F. 2006. Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes? Current Biology 16:R696-R704.
2. -. 2009. Spatial heterogeneity and the evolution of sex in diploids. American Naturalist 174(suppl.):S54-S70.
3. Baer, C. F., M. M. Miyamoto, and D. R. Denver. 2007. Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences. Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619-631. (Pubitemid 47077282)
4. Barton, N. H. 1995. A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genetical Research 65:123-144.
5. Barton, N. H., and S. P. Otto. 2005. Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169:2353-2370.
6. Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229-255.
7. Charlesworth, B. 1990. Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genetical Research 55:199-221. (Pubitemid 20252066)
8. Charlesworth, B., and D. Charlesworth. 1997. Rapid fixation of deleterious alleles can be caused by Muller's ratchet. Genetical Research 70:63-73. (Pubitemid 27478714)
9. Charlesworth, D., M. T. Morgan, and B. Charlesworth. 1993a. Mutation accumulation in finite outbreeding and inbreeding populations. Genetical Research 61:39-56. (Pubitemid 23215490)
10. -. 1993b. Mutation accumulation in finite populations. Journal of Heredity 84:321-325.
11. Felsenstein, J. 1974. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78:737-756.
12. Felsenstein, J., and S. Yokoyama. 1976. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. II. Individual selection for recombination. Genetics 83:845-859.
13. Haag, C. R., and D. Roze. 2007. Genetic load in sexual and asexual diploids: segregation, dominance and genetic drift. Genetics 176: 1663-1678.
14. Haag-Liautard, C., M. Dorris, X. Maside, S. Macaskill, D. L. Halligan, B. Charlesworth, and P. D. Keightley. 2007. Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila. Nature 445:82-85. (Pubitemid 46067305)
15. Hill, W. G., and A. Robertson. 1966. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genetical Research 8:269-294.
16. Iles, M. M., K. Walters, and C. Cannings. 2003. Recombination can evolve in large finite populations given selection on sufficient loci. Genetics 165:2249-2258.
17. Keightley, P. D., and S. P. Otto. 2006. Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations. Nature 443:89-92.
18. Kirkpatrick, M., and C. D. Jenkins. 1989. Genetic segregation and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 339:300-301.
19. Kirkpatrick, M., T. Johnson, and N. H. Barton. 2002. General models of multilocus evolution. Genetics 161:1727-1750.
20. Mandegar, M. A., and S. P. Otto. 2007. Mitotic recombination counteracts the benefits of genetic segregation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274:1301-1307.
21. Martin, G., S. P. Otto, and T. Lenormand. 2006. Selection for recombination in structured populations. Genetics 172:593-609.
22. Nagylaki, T. 1993. The evolution of multilocus systems under weak selection. Genetics 134:627-647. (Pubitemid 23156956)
23. Otto, S. P. 2003. The advantages of segregation and the evolution of sex. Genetics 164:1099-1118.
24. Otto, S. P., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The evolution of recombination: removing the limits to natural selection. Genetics 147:879-906. (Pubitemid 27418594)
25. -. 2001. Selection for recombination in small populations. Evolution 55:1921-1931.
26. Otto, S. P., and T. Lenormand. 2002. Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. Nature Reviews Genetics 3:252-261.
27. Phadnis, N., and J. D. Fry. 2005. Widespread correlations between dominance and homozygous effects of mutations: implications for theories of dominance. Genetics 171:385-392. (Pubitemid 41437567)
28. Rice, W. R. 2002. Experimental tests of the adaptive significance of sexual recombination. Nature Reviews Genetics 3:241-251.
29. Roze, D., and N. H. Barton. 2006. The Hill-Robertson effect and the evolution of recombination. Genetics 173:1793-1811.
30. Roze, D., and T. Lenormand. 2005. Self-fertilization and the evolution of recombination. Genetics 170:841-857.
31. Roze, D., and R Rousset. 2008. Multilocus models in the infinite island model of population structure. Theoretical Population Biology 73:529-542.
32. Simmons, M. J., and J. F. Crow. 1977. Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annual Review of Genetics 11:49-78.
33. Vitalis, R., and D. Couvet. 2001. Two-locus identity probabilities and identity disequilibrium in a partially selling subdivided population. Genetical Research 77:67-81. (Pubitemid 32220066)