Loading in 5 sec....

Sasha Gimelfarb died on May 11, 2004PowerPoint Presentation

Sasha Gimelfarb died on May 11, 2004

- 63 Views
- Uploaded on
- Presentation posted in: General

Sasha Gimelfarb died on May 11, 2004

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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sasha Gimelfarb

died on May 11, 2004

Reinhard Bürger

Department of Mathematics, University of Vienna

has been invoked in the explanation of evolutionary

phenomena such as

- Evolution of behavioral traits
- Maintenance of high levels of genetic variation
- Ecological character divergence
- Reproductive isolation and sympatric speciation

- Bulmer (1974, 1980)
- Slatkin (1979, 1984)
- Christiansen & Loeschcke (1980), Loeschcke & Christiansen (1984)
- Clarke et al (1988), Mani et al (1990)
- Doebeli (1996), Dieckmann & Doebeli (1999)
- Matessi, Gimelfarb, & Gavrilets (2001)
- Bolnick & Doebeli (2003)
- Bürger (2002a,b), Bürger & Gimelfarb (2004)

- A randomly mating, diploid population with discrete generations and equivalent sexes is considered.
- Its size is large enough that random genetic drift can be ignored.
- Viability selection acts on a quantitative trait.
- Environmental effects are ignored (in particular, GxE interaction). Therefore, the genotypic value can be identified with the phenotype.

- Fitness is determined by two components:
- by stabilizing selection on a quantitative trait,

- and
- by competition among individuals of similar trait value,

The strength of competition experienced by

phenotype g (= genotypic value) for a given

distribution P of phenotypes is

where and VA denote the mean and (additive

genetic)variance of P.

If stabilizing selection acts independently of

competition, the fitness of an individual with

phenotype g can be written as

where F(N) describes population growth according

to N´=NF(N). (F may be as in the discrete logistic,

the Ricker, the Beverton-Holt, the Hassell, or the

Maynard Smith model.)

For weak selection ( , f = a/s constant),

this fitness function is approximated by

where is a compoundmeasure for the strength

offrequency and densitydependence relative to

stabilizing selection, i.e., .

- The trait is determined by additive contributions from n diploid loci, i.e., there is neither dominance nor epistasis.
- At each locus there are two alleles. The allelic effects at locus i are -gi/2 and gi/2. (This is general because the scaling constants can be absorbed by the position of the optimum and the strength of selection.)

pi , pi´ : frequencies of gamete i in consecutive generations

Wjk :fitness of zygote consisting of gametes j, k

R(jk->i): probability that a jk-individual produces a

gamete of type i through recombination

: mean fitness

- What aspects of genetics and what aspects of ecology are relevant, and under what conditions?
- When does FDS have important consequences for the genetic structure of a population?
- How does FDS affect the genetic structure?
- How much genetic variation is maintained by this kind of FDS?

- The structure is the same as in Turelli and Barton 2004 (but ). The proofs of the results below use their results.
- The population is assumed to be in demographic equilibrium, i.e., N and η are treated as constants.
- All models of intraspecific competition and stabilizing selection I know have the above differential equation as their weak-selection approximation.
- ‘Arbitrary‘ population regulation, i.e., with a unique stable carrying capacity, is admitted.

- The amount and properties of variation maintained depend in a nearly threshold-like way on , the strength of frequency and density dependence relative to stabilizing selection.
- This critical value is independent of the number of loci and, apparently, also of the linkage map.

- If more than two loci contribute to the trait, then weak frequency dependence (< 1) can maintain significantly more genetic variance than pure stabilizing selection, but still not much. The more loci, the larger this effect.
- FDS of such strength does not induce a qualitative change in the equilibrium structure relative to pure stabilizing selection.
- Such FDS does not lead to disruptive selection, rather, stabilizing selection prevails.

- Strong FDS (> 1) causes a qualitative change in the genetic structure of a population by inducing highly polymorphic equilibria in positive linkage disequilibrium.
- In parallel, such FDS induces strong disruptive selection, the fitness differences between phenotypes maintained in the population being much larger than under pure stabilizing selection.

- Therefore, disruptive selection should be easy to detect empirically whenever FDS is strong enough to affect the equilibrium structure qualitatively.
- Its strength (the curvature of the fitness function at equilibrium) is s( – 1).

- The degree of polymorphism maintained by strong FDS depends on the number of loci and the distribution of their effects.
- Models based on popular symmetry assumptions, such as equal locus effects or symmetric selection, are often not representative (they maintain more polymorphism).
- Linkage becomes important only if tight. It produces clustering of the phenotypic distribution. Otherwise, the LE-approximation does a very good job.

- Include assortative mating to study the conditions leading to divergence within a population (work in progress K. Schneider).
- Determine the conditions under which sympatric speciation is induced by intraspecific competition.