Targets above the level of the individual
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 41

Targets Above The Level of The Individual PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Targets Above The Level of The Individual. These two components are inherently a phenotype not of An individual, but a pair of individuals in a sexual population. DNA encodes information that interacts with the environment to influence phenotype.

Download Presentation

Targets Above The Level of The Individual

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Targets above the level of the individual

Targets Above The Level of The Individual


Dna encodes information that interacts with the environment to influence phenotype

These two components are inherently a phenotype not of

An individual, but a pair of individuals in a sexual population

DNA encodes information that interacts with the environment to influence phenotype

Among The Traits That Can Be Influenced By Genetically Determined Responses to the Environment Are:

  • The Viability in the Environment

  • Given Alive, the Mating Success in the Environment

  • Given Alive and Mated, Fertility or Fecundity in the Environment.


Dna encodes information that interacts with the environment to influence phenotype1

Darwin felt that competition was a major determinant of viability, and competition is only manifest at the level of interacting individuals.

DNA encodes information that interacts with the environment to influence phenotype

Among The Traits That Can Be Influenced By Genetically Determined Responses to the Environment Are:

  • The Viability in the Environment

  • Given Alive, the Mating Success in the Environment

  • Given Alive and Mated, Fertility or Fecundity in the Environment.


Targets above the level of the individual

Sexual Selection refers to the selection targeting the events that lead up to successful mating or its failure. Many of these events emerge from interactions among individuals and thereby constitute targets of selection above the level of the individual. Such targets under sexual selection are often split into two types:

  • Intrasexual selection that arises out of competition between individuals of the same sex for mates, and

  • Intersexual selection that arises out of the interactions between individuals of opposite sex that lead to mating or its failure.


Targets above the level of the individual

Intrasexual and intersexual selection are often interwoven, resulting in conflicts that direct selective responses to different units of selection in the two sexes.

E.g., the butterfly Pieris napi. Males try to mate as often as possible. Females can also mate more than once, and if they do, there can be sperm competition. However, a female typically becomes non-receptive after mating for a time, and the length of this time depends on how full her spermatheca is.


Intrasexual and intersexual selection in pieris napi

Intrasexual and intersexual selection in Pieris napi.

To ensure mating success and avoid competition with sperm from other males, the males produce non-functional sperm to fill up the female’s spermatheca and make her non-receptive to other males. Thus, males have adapted to intrasexual competition with other males (via sperm competition) by manipulating female sexual receptivity (intersexual selection) and the quality of their ejaculate (the major male indicator of success in intersexual selection).


Intrasexual and intersexual selection in pieris napi1

Intrasexual and intersexual selection in Pieris napi.

The inactive, apyrene sperm can serve as a source of nutrients that can affect the female reproductive success. Therefore, females can also select for males producing a high amount of apyrene sperm, and there is at least genetic variance for this female preference (perhaps additive?). Selection on the female preference further impacts on male intrasexual selection.


Common theme

Common Theme

Constant fitness on a target of selection above the level of the individual induces frequency and/or density dependent selection when measured at the level of the individual. This is an artifact of attributing fitness to an individual when the true target is beyond the individual, but this has many important selective consequences.


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 1967

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

  • This species is polymorphic for two chromosomal inversions, AR and CH.

  • This behaves as an autosomal, single-locus, two-allele unit of selection.

  • The male mating success of AR/AR, AR/CH, and CH/CH was estimated by the number of matings each male genotype achieved divided by the expected number of matings for that genotype under a neutral, random mating model in many different populations over a range of genotype frequencies.


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19671

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

The male mating success in Ehrman’s data fit well to equations of the form:

0.6+ij/Gij

where Gij is the frequency of genotype ij and ij is an empirically derived constant that scales the frequency dependent mating success of males with genotype ij. Note that the success of any given male genotype is inversely proportional to its frequency, a result often described as a “rare male” mating advantage.


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19672

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

 = 0.2

 = 0.1

 = 0.05


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19673

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

Assume neutrality in females, then:

1

The average female fitness is 1, so the total average fitness in a 50:50 sex ratio population is 0.975 – a flat fitness landscape!

0

p

0

1


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19674

Our familiar equation!

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

Assume random mating, then the change in the male p is:


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19675

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

Despite the flat adaptive landscape, this system evolves until the average excesses of mating success are 0 at:

This is a stable, balanced polymorphism that does not change average fitness and that is not associated with an average fitness peak!


E g male mating success in drosophila pseudoobscura ehrman 1966 19676

E.g., Male Mating Success in Drosophila pseudoobscura (Ehrman, 1966, 1967)

At Equilibrium:

Genotype: AR/AR AR/CHCH/CH

Fitness: 0.997 0.843 1.195

This is a stable, balanced polymorphism that appears to be associated with heterozygote inferiority and that appears to have two peaks at p=0 and p=1!

Targets of selection above the level of the individual lead to many paradoxes when we try to assign the fitnesses to individuals rather than interacting sets of individuals.


The fertility fecundity target is a mated pair

The Fertility/Fecundity Target Is a Mated Pair:

E.g., ABO incompatibility.

If there is leakage of blood across the placenta, a mother can mount an immunological reaction against a developing fetus that bears antigens not found in the mother. This results in a significant increase in the rate of spontaneous abortions in those couples that have ABO genotypes that yield ABO maternal-fetal incompatible combinations. For example, a type O woman married to a type O man would not be at risk for any ABO induced spontaneous abortions, but a type O woman married to a type AB man would have every pregnancy at risk. Therefore, fertility is not an individual attribute but rather is an attribute of a mating pair of individuals.


The fertility fecundity target is a mated pair1

The Fertility/Fecundity Target Is a Mated Pair:

Genotype Frequency in Next Generation:

Where the bij =

And:


The fertility fecundity target is a mated pair2

Fertilities that determine the selective response:

Fertility

Of aa

When

Mated

To AA

Fertility

Of aa

When

Mated

To Aa

Fertility

Of aa

When

Mated

To aa

Fertility

Of Aa

When

Mated

To Aa

Fertility

Of aa

When

Mated

To Aa

Fertility

Of aa

When

Mated

To aa

The Fertility/Fecundity Target Is a Mated Pair:

It is only the average fertilities of the mating pairs that matter, and the genotypic averages are for their offspring; hence this can involve mating pairs that do not even include the focal genotype.


Targets above the level of the individual

Plots of average fertility over all mating pairs and average excess across p for the special case of:

b1=1

b2=0.7

b3=0.8

b4=1.3

b5=0.7

b6=0.75


Competition

Competition

  • Darwin thought that competition was an important contributor to fitness

  • An individual does not have a competitive ability.

  • Competitive abilities are manifest only at the level of interacting individuals

  • A constant fitness model at the level of competing individuals results in frequency dependent selection at the individual level.


Competition random mating random encounter model of cockerham et al 1972

CompetitionRandom mating, random encounter model of Cockerham et al. 1972

Note that the individual fitnesses are frequency dependent, and hence can display complex evolutionary dynamics.


Competition random mating random encounter model of cockerham et al 19721

CompetitionRandom mating, random encounter model of Cockerham et al. 1972

Because of the potential complex evolutionary dynamics, Cockerham et al analyzed this model using the concept of a protected polymorphism that occurs when at least one allele at a locus is favored by natural selection when very rare and selected against when very common.

To see if a selective regime results in protecting an allele from loss, all you need to do is look at the average excess of the allele when it is rare. If the average excess of the allele is positive, it is protected. If two or more alleles are protected, the polymorphism is protected.


Competition random mating random encounter model of cockerham et al 19722

aA=p[p2w22+2pqw21+q2w20]+q[p2w12+2pqw11+q2w10]-

CompetitionRandom mating, random encounter model of Cockerham et al. 1972

=p2[p2w22+2pqw21+q2w20]+2pq[p2w12+2pqw11+q2w10]+q2[p2w02+2pqw01+q2w00]

When there is no dominance or recessiveness

As p 0, wooand aAw10 - w00

As q 0, w22and aaw12 - w22

So the polymorphism is protected whenever:


Competition random mating random encounter model of cockerham et al 19723

CompetitionRandom mating, random encounter model of Cockerham et al. 1972


Competition random mating random encounter model of cockerham et al 19724

CompetitionRandom mating, random encounter model of Cockerham et al. 1972


Kin and family selection

Kin and Family Selection

  • Individuals in many species interact strongly with their offspring, their parents, and their siblings.

  • Fitness effects often emerge at the level of a family.

  • When a group of interacting relatives is the target of selection, kinselection is the result.

  • Kin selection has to be frequency dependent and non-linear, in contrast to the linear inequality of Hamilton’s rule that the cost(alturistic ind.)<benefit(to recipient) X relatedness of recipient to the alturist


Kin and family selection1

Kin and Family Selection

Random mating, 1-locus model


Kin and family selection2

Kin and Family Selection

Random mating, 1-locus model

A recessive, alturistic allele

p

aA

Note, in this case selection drives A to fixation, which always lowers average fitness

p


Kin and family selection3

Stable polymorphism

Kin and Family Selection

Random mating, 1-locus model

A recessive, alturistic allele

p

aA

Note, in this case selection results in a balanced (and protected) polymorphism for a recessive allele, but does not optimize average fitness!

p


Frequency dependent selection in general

Frequency-Dependent Selection In General

  • does not maximize average fitness

  • evolutionary outcomes are not predictable from apparent individual-level fitness projections

  • the course of evolution violates Fisher’s fundamental theorem

  • The average excess still correctly predicts the course of adaptive evolution


Think like a gamete

THINK LIKE A GAMETE!


A unit of selection can have targets below at and above the individual simultaneously

A Unit of Selection Can Have Targets Below, At and Above the Individual Simultaneously


Huntington s disease an autosomal dominant late onset neurodegenerative disease

Huntington’s Disease: An Autosomal Dominant, Late Onset Neurodegenerative Disease


Huntington s disease

Huntington’s Disease


Huntington s disease1

Huntington’s Disease


Huntington s disease2

Huntington’s Disease

CAG repeats in subject’s HD allele

Number of Repeats in Single Sperm From Subject

Once the 27 repeat threshold has been passed, there is strong molecular drive to increase the repeat number during male germ line mitosis. This causes “anticipation” – the disease tends to occur earlier and earlier with passing generations, which increases the deleterious fitnesses consequences at the individual level.


Huntington s disease3

Huntington’s Disease

neutral

Intense selection against

Fitnesses consequences at the individual level.


Huntington s disease4

Huntington’s Disease

Reed and Neel (1959) found that the relative fitness of affected sibs is 1.12 when the fitness of non-affected sibs is set to 1 (Hh sibs had more children despite the disease). Hence, both germline level selection and individual fertility selection operating within families seem to favor this disease.

However, families with this disease are often discriminated against, and since (until recently) the at-risk sibs could not be identified, all children of a choreic individual had reduced chances of mating or having children, often by choice.


Huntington s disease5

Huntington’s Disease

(<1)

(>1)


Huntington s disease6

Huntington’s Disease

Natural selection upon this one unit of selection involves

strong germ line selection favoring HD below the level of the individual

increasing individual selection operating in opposition to germ line selection against HD

individual-level fertility selection within families favoring HD

strong family level selection against choreic families.


Targets above the level of the individual

Units of Selection Can Have Multiple Targets of Selection,andTargets of Selection Can Have Multiple Units of Selection


  • Login