Does natural selection alter genetic architecture? An evaluation of quantitative genetic variation among populations of Allonemobiussocius and A. fasciatus

To make long-term predictions using present quantitative genetic theory it is necessary to assume that the genetic variance–covariance matrix ( G ) remains constant or at least changes by a constant fraction. In this paper we examine the stability of the genetic architecture of two traits known to be subject to natural selection; femur length and ovipositor length in two species of the cricket Allonemobius. Previous studies have shown that in A. fasciatus and A. socius natural selection favours an increased body size southwards but a decreased ovipositor length. Such countergradient selection should tend to favour a change in G . In the total sample of eight populations of A. socius and one of A. fasciatus we show that there is significant variation in all genetic covariance components, i.e. V_A for body size, V_A for ovipositor length, and Cov_A. This variation results entirely from an increase in the covariances of A. fasciatus. However, although larger, these components are approximately proportionally increased, thereby leading to no statistically significant change in the genetic correlation. A proportional increase in the covariance components is consistent with changes resulting from genetic drift. On the other hand, the genetic covariance components are significantly correlated with the length of the growing season suggesting that the change in the genetic architecture is the result of selection and drift.     

HOW CLOSELY CORRELATED ARE MOLECULAR AND QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF GENETIC VARIATION? A META‐ANALYSIS

The ability of populations to undergo adaptive evolution depends on the presence of quantitative genetic variation for ecologically important traits. Although molecular measures are widely used as surrogates for quantitative genetic variation, there is controversy about the strength of the relationship between the two. To resolve this issue, we carried out a meta-analysis based on 71 datasets. The mean correlation between molecular and quantitative measures of genetic variation was weak (r = 0.217). Furthermore, there was no significant relationship between the two measures for life-history traits (r = -0.11) or for the quantitative measure generally considered as the best indicator of adaptive potential, heritability (r = -0.08). Consequently, molecular measures of genetic diversity have only a very limited ability to predict quantitative genetic variability. When information about a population's short-term evolutionary potential or estimates of local adaptation and population divergence are required, quantitative genetic variation should be measured directly.     

NATURAL HERITABILITIES: CAN THEY BE RELIABLY ESTIMATED IN THE LABORATORY?

The validity of the assumption, that laboratory estimates of heritabilities will tend to overestimate natural heritabilities, due to a reduction in environmental variability and thus the phenotypic variance of traits, is examined. One hundred sixty-five field estimates of narrow sense heritabilities derived from the literature are compared with 189 estimates from laboratory studies on wild, outbred animal populations derived from the data set of Mousseau and Roff. The results indicate that 84% of field heritabilities are significantly different from zero and that for morphological, behavioral, and life-history traits there are no significant differences between laboratory and field estimates of heritability. Unexpectedly, mean heritabilities for morphological and life-history traits are actually higher in the field than in the lab. Twenty-two cases were found for which both laboratory and natural heritabilities had been estimated on the same traits. For this subset of the data, laboratory heritabilities tended to be higher than field estimates, but the difference was not significant. Also, the correlation between lab and field estimates was high (r = 0.6, P < 0.001), and the regression slope did not differ significantly from one. The major implications of this study are that laboratory estimates of heritability should generally provide reasonable estimations of both the magnitude and the significance of heritabilities in nature.     

WILL POPULATION BOTTLENECKS AND MULTILOCUS EPISTASIS INCREASE ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE?

We apply new analytical methods to understand the consequences of population bottlenecks for expected additive genetic variance. We analyze essentially all models for multilocus epistasis that have been numerically simulated to demonstrate increased additive variance. We conclude that for biologically plausible models, large increases in expected additive variance--attributable to epistasis rather than dominance--are unlikely. Naciri-Graven and Goudet (2003) found that as the number of epistatically interacting loci increases, additive variance tends to be inflated more after a bottleneck. We argue that this result reflects biologically unrealistic aspects of their models. Specifically, as the number of loci increases, higher-order epistatic interactions become increasingly important in these models, with an increasing fraction of the genetic variance becoming nonadditive, contrary to empirical observations. As shown by Barton and Turelli (2004), without dominance, conversion of nonadditive to additive variance depends only on the variance components and not on the number of loci per se. Numerical results indicating that more inbreeding is needed to produce maximal release of additive variance with more loci follow directly from our analytical results, which show that high levels of inbreeding (F > 0.5) are needed for significant conversion of higher-order components. We discuss alternative approaches to modeling multilocus epistasis and understanding its consequences.     

Maintaining evolvability

Although molecular methods, such as QTL mapping, have revealed a number of loci with large effects, it is still likely that the bulk of quantitative variability is due to multiple factors, each with small effect. Typically, these have a large additive component. Conventional wisdom argues that selection, natural or artificial, uses up additive variance and thus depletes its supply. Over time, the variance should be reduced, and at equilibrium be near zero. This is especially expected for fitness and traits highly correlated with it. Yet, populations typically have a great deal of additive variance, and do not seem to run out of genetic variability even after many generations of directional selection. Long-term selection experiments show that populations continue to retain seemingly undiminished additive variance despite large changes in the mean value. I propose that there are several reasons for this. (i) The environment is continually changing so that what was formerly most fit no longer is. (ii) There is an input of genetic variance from mutation, and sometimes from migration. (iii) As intermediate-frequency alleles increase in frequency towards one, producing less variance (as p → 1, p(1 − p) → 0), others that were originally near zero become more common and increase the variance. Thus, a roughly constant variance is maintained. (iv) There is always selection for fitness and for characters closely related to it. To the extent that the trait is heritable, later generations inherit a disproportionate number of genes acting additively on the trait, thus increasing genetic variance. For these reasons a selected population retains its ability to evolve. Of course, genes with large effect are also important. Conspicuous examples are the small number of loci that changed teosinte to maize, and major phylogenetic changes in the animal kingdom. The relative importance of these along with duplications, chromosome rearrangements, horizontal transmission and polyploidy is yet to be determined. It is likely that only a case-by-case analysis will provide the answers. Despite the difficulties that complex interactions cause for evolution in Mendelian populations, such populations nevertheless evolve very well. Longlasting species must have evolved mechanisms for coping with such problems. Since such difficulties do not arise in asexual populations, a comparison of epistatic patterns in closely related sexual and asexual species might provide some important insights.