Mutation and the evolution of recombination

Under the classical view, selection depends more or less directly on mutation: standing genetic variance is maintained by a balance between selection and mutation, and adaptation is fuelled by new favourable mutations. Recombination is favoured if it breaks negative associations among selected alleles, which interfere with adaptation. Such associations may be generated by negative epistasis, or by random drift (leading to the Hill–Robertson effect). Both deterministic and stochastic explanations depend primarily on the genomic mutation rate, U. This may be large enough to explain high recombination rates in some organisms, but seems unlikely to be so in general. Random drift is a more general source of negative linkage disequilibria, and can cause selection for recombination even in large populations, through the chance loss of new favourable mutations. The rate of species-wide substitutions is much too low to drive this mechanism, but local fluctuations in selection, combined with gene flow, may suffice. These arguments are illustrated by comparing the interaction between good and bad mutations at unlinked loci under the infinitesimal model.

[1]  M. Bulmer The Mathematical Theory of Quantitative Genetics , 1981 .

[2]  A. Kondrashov Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction , 1988, Nature.

[3]  N. Moran,et al.  Intraspecific variation in symbiont genomes: bottlenecks and the aphid-buchnera association. , 2001, Genetics.

[4]  M. Aguadé,et al.  Reduced variation in the yellow-achaete-scute region in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. , 1989, Genetics.

[5]  M. Kimura Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level , 1968, Nature.

[6]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Reduced Effectiveness of Selection Caused by a Lack of Recombination , 2009, Current Biology.

[7]  G. Coop,et al.  No effect of recombination on the efficacy of natural selection in primates. , 2008, Genome research.

[8]  R. Lewontin,et al.  The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change , 2022 .

[9]  M. Feldman,et al.  Genetic Modification and Modifier Polymorphisms , 1976 .

[10]  E. Szathmáry,et al.  Do deleterious mutations act synergistically? Metabolic control theory provides a partial answer. , 1993, Genetics.

[11]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Why sex and recombination? , 1998, Science.

[12]  S. Pääbo,et al.  A neutral explanation for the correlation of diversity with recombination rates in humans. , 2003, American journal of human genetics.

[13]  R. Ben-Shlomo,et al.  The Evolutionary Significance of Genetic Diversity: Ecological, Demographic and Life History Correlates , 1984 .

[14]  P. Keightley,et al.  Estimating the rate of adaptive molecular evolution in the presence of slightly deleterious mutations and population size change. , 2009, Molecular biology and evolution.

[15]  J. Sved Possible Rates of Gene Substitution in Evolution , 1968, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Laurence Loewe,et al.  Inferring the distribution of mutational effects on fitness in Drosophila , 2006, Biology Letters.

[17]  M. Nachman,et al.  Variation in recombination rate across the genome: evidence and implications. , 2002, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[18]  F B Christiansen,et al.  Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. , 1980, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  H. Muller Some Genetic Aspects of Sex , 1932, The American Naturalist.

[20]  P. Keightley,et al.  Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations , 2006, Nature.

[21]  J. Gillespie Genetic drift in an infinite population. The pseudohitchhiking model. , 2000, Genetics.

[22]  N. Barton Linkage and the limits to natural selection. , 1995, Genetics.

[23]  A. Weismann Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems , 2009 .

[24]  J. Felsenstein The evolutionary advantage of recombination. , 1974, Genetics.

[25]  N L Kaplan,et al.  Deleterious background selection with recombination. , 1995, Genetics.

[26]  T. Jukes Non-Darwinian Evolution , 2001 .

[27]  H. Kacser,et al.  Dominance, pleiotropy and metabolic structure. , 1987, Genetics.

[28]  W. J. Dickinson,et al.  A genome-wide view of the spectrum of spontaneous mutations in yeast , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  J. Wakeley Coalescent Theory: An Introduction , 2008 .

[30]  N L Kaplan,et al.  The coalescent process in models with selection and recombination. , 1988, Genetics.

[31]  George C. Williams,et al.  Sex and evolution. , 1975, Monographs in population biology.

[32]  Deborah Charlesworth,et al.  Effects of inbreeding on the genetic diversity of populations. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[33]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  The effect of recombination on background selection. , 1996, Genetical research.

[34]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Direct estimation of per nucleotide and genomic deleterious mutation rates in Drosophila , 2008, Nature.

[35]  A. Kondrashov Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. , 1984, Genetical research.

[36]  V. B. Kaiser,et al.  Molecular evolution under low recombination , 2009 .

[37]  D. Roze,et al.  The Hill–Robertson Effect and the Evolution of Recombination , 2006, Genetics.

[38]  C. Wilke,et al.  The traveling-wave approach to asexual evolution: Muller's ratchet and speed of adaptation. , 2007, Theoretical population biology.

[39]  A. Kondrashov Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? , 1995, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  G. McVean,et al.  The effects of Hill-Robertson interference between weakly selected mutations on patterns of molecular evolution and variation. , 2000, Genetics.

[41]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Background Selection in Single Genes May Explain Patterns of Codon Bias , 2007, Genetics.

[42]  L. Loewe Quantifying the genomic decay paradox due to Muller's ratchet in human mitochondrial DNA. , 2006, Genetical research.

[43]  J. Haldane,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection. Part VII. Selection intensity as a function of mortality rate , 1931, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[44]  A. Kondrashov,et al.  Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. , 1993, The Journal of heredity.

[45]  S. Otto,et al.  Evolution of sex: Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[46]  Peter Donnelly,et al.  The Influence of Recombination on Human Genetic Diversity , 2006, PLoS genetics.

[47]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[48]  W. Provine,et al.  The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics , 1972 .

[49]  J. Hey,et al.  Reduced natural selection associated with low recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. , 1993, Molecular biology and evolution.

[50]  N. Barton,et al.  The effect of selection on genealogies. , 2004, Genetics.

[51]  A. Agrawal Evolution of Sex: Why Do Organisms Shuffle Their Genotypes? , 2006, Current Biology.

[52]  T. Johnson,et al.  The effect of deleterious alleles on adaptation in asexual populations. , 2002, Genetics.

[53]  J. Peck A ruby in the rubbish: beneficial mutations, deleterious mutations and the evolution of sex. , 1994, Genetics.

[54]  W. Stephan,et al.  Molecular genetic variation in the centromeric region of the X chromosome in three Drosophila ananassae populations. I. Contrasts between the vermilion and forked loci. , 1989, Genetics.

[55]  J. Gillespie IS THE POPULATION SIZE OF A SPECIES RELEVANT TO ITS EVOLUTION? , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[56]  A. Agrawal,et al.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction , 2001, Nature.

[57]  S. Otto,et al.  Selection for Recombination in Structured Populations , 2006, Genetics.

[58]  Guy Sella,et al.  Pervasive Hitchhiking at Coding and Regulatory Sites in Humans , 2009, PLoS genetics.

[59]  B Charlesworth Directional selection and the evolution of sex and recombination. , 1993, Genetical research.

[60]  B. Sheldon,et al.  Lifetime Reproductive Success and Heritability in Nature , 2000, The American Naturalist.

[61]  M. Lynch,et al.  The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. , 2000, Science.

[62]  A. Kondrashov Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. III. Mating preference and some general remarks. , 1988, Journal of theoretical biology.

[63]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Unravelling the Evolutionary Advantage of Sex : a Commentary on ' Mutation–selection Balance and the Evolutionary Advantage of Sex and Recombination ' , 2022 .

[64]  A. Betancourt,et al.  Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[65]  Thomas Wiehe,et al.  The Effect of Strongly Selected Substitutions on Neutral Polymorphism: Analytical Results Based on Diffusion Theory , 1992 .

[66]  J. B. S. Haldane,et al.  The cost of natural selection , 1957, Journal of Genetics.

[67]  Marian Thomson,et al.  Analysis of the genome sequences of three Drosophila melanogaster spontaneous mutation accumulation lines. , 2009, Genome research.

[68]  N. Barton,et al.  A general model for the evolution of recombination. , 1995, Genetical research.

[69]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  The pattern of neutral molecular variation under the background selection model. , 1995, Genetics.

[70]  R. Bürger,et al.  Evolution of genetic variability and the advantage of sex and recombination in changing environments. , 1999, Genetics.

[71]  D. Halligan,et al.  Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison. , 2006, Genome research.

[72]  D. Presgraves,et al.  Recombination Enhances Protein Adaptation in Drosophila melanogaster , 2005, Current Biology.

[73]  D. Petrov,et al.  Genomewide Spatial Correspondence Between Nonsynonymous Divergence and Neutral Polymorphism Reveals Extensive Adaptation in Drosophila , 2007, Genetics.

[74]  D. Richards,et al.  Reduced adaptation of a non-recombining neo-Y chromosome , 2002 .

[75]  C. Cannings,et al.  Recombination can evolve in large finite populations given selection on sufficient loci. , 2003, Genetics.

[76]  M. Lercher,et al.  Explorer Evidence for Widespread Degradation of Gene Control Regions in Hominid Genomes , 2015 .

[77]  Alan Robertson,et al.  Inbreeding in artificial selection programmes. , 1961, Genetical research.

[78]  W. Bodmer,et al.  The number of balanced polymorphisms that can be maintained in a natural population. , 1967, Genetics.

[79]  N. Barton,et al.  Evolution of Recombination Due to Random Drift , 2005, Genetics.

[80]  J. Crow,et al.  Efficiency of truncation selection. , 1979, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[81]  W. Hamilton,et al.  NARROW ROADS OF GENE LAND , 2005 .

[82]  N L Kaplan,et al.  The coalescent process in models with selection. , 1988, Genetics.

[83]  D. Waxman,et al.  Sex and adaptation in a changing environment. , 1999, Genetics.

[84]  N. Barton The reduction in fixation probability caused by substitutions at linked loci , 1994 .

[85]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  The evolution of sex and recombination in a varying environment. , 1993, The Journal of heredity.

[86]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Genetic recombination and molecular evolution. , 2009, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[87]  W. G. Hill,et al.  Measuring Selection in Natural Populations , 1977 .

[88]  M W Feldman,et al.  An evolutionary reduction principle for genetic modifiers. , 1986, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[89]  S. Otto,et al.  The evolution of recombination in a heterogeneous environment. , 2000, Genetics.

[90]  F B Christiansen,et al.  Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. , 1996, Annual review of genetics.

[91]  C. Aquadro,et al.  Levels of naturally occurring DNA polymorphism correlate with recombination rates in D. melanogaster , 1992, Nature.

[92]  T. F. Hansen The Evolution of Genetic Architecture , 2006 .

[93]  J. M. Smith,et al.  The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene. , 1974, Genetical research.

[94]  Adam Eyre-Walker,et al.  Adaptive protein evolution in Drosophila , 2002, Nature.

[95]  A. Burt PERSPECTIVE: SEX, RECOMBINATION, AND THE EFFICACY OF SELECTION—WAS WEISMANN RIGHT? , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[96]  M W Feldman,et al.  Deleterious mutations, variable epistatic interactions, and the evolution of recombination. , 1997, Theoretical population biology.

[97]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Recombination load associated with selection for increased recombination. , 1996, Genetical research.

[98]  J. Haldane,et al.  A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection , 1926, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[99]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  The effects of deleterious mutations on evolution in non-recombining genomes. , 2009, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[100]  M. Kimura,et al.  The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. , 1966, Genetics.