Genetic measurement theory of epistatic effects

Epistasis is defined as the influence of the genotype at one locus on the effect of a mutation at another locus. As such it plays a crucial role in a variety of evolutionary phenomena such as speciation, population bottle necks, and the evolution of genetic architecture (i.e., the evolution of dominance, canalization, and genetic correlations). In mathematical population genetics, however, epistasis is often represented as a mere noise term in an additive model of gene effects. In this paper it is argued that epistasis needs to be scaled in a way that is more directly related to the mechanisms of evolutionary change. A review of general measurement theory shows that the scaling of a quantitative concept has to reflect the empirical relationships among the objects. To apply these ideas to epistatic mutation effects, it is proposed to scale A x A epistatic effects as the change in the magnitude of the additive effect of a mutation at one locus due to a mutation at a second locus. It is shown that the absolute change in the additive effect at locus A due to a substitution at locus B is always identical to the absolute change in B due to the substitution at A. The absolute A x A epistatic effects of A on B and of B on A are identical, even if the relative effects can be different. The proposed scaling of A x A epistasis leads to particularly simple equations for the decomposition of genotypic variance. The Kacser Burns model of metabolic flux is analyzed for the presence of epistatic effects on flux. It is shown that the non-linearity of the Kacser Burns model is not sufficient to cause A x A epistasis among the genes coding for enzymes. It is concluded that non-linearity of the genotype-phenotype map is not sufficient to cause epistasis. Finally, it is shown that there exist correlations among the additive and epistatic effects among pairs of loci, caused by the inherent symmetries of Mendelian genetic systems. For instance, it is shown that a mutation that has a larger than average additive effect will tend to decrease the additive effect of a second mutation, i.e., it will tend to have a negative (canalizing) interaction with a subsequent gene substitution. This is confirmed in a preliminary analysis of QTL-data for adult body weight in mice.

[1]  S. Counce The Strategy of the Genes , 1958, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[2]  O. Kempthorne The correlations between relatives in random mating populations. , 1955, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[3]  L. Penrose,et al.  THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RELATIVES ON THE SUPPOSITION OF MENDELIAN INHERITANCE , 2022 .

[4]  J. Cheverud,et al.  Epistasis and its contribution to genetic variance components. , 1995, Genetics.

[5]  I. Schmalhausen,et al.  Factors of evolution , 1949 .

[6]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability , 2005 .

[7]  A. Templeton,et al.  Genetic Revolutions in Relation to Speciation Phenomena: The Founding of New Populations , 1984 .

[8]  S. Gavrilets,et al.  Pleiotropic models of polygenic variation, stabilizing selection, and epistasis. , 1993, Genetics.

[9]  D. Hartl,et al.  Fitness as a function of beta-galactosidase activity in Escherichia coli. , 1986, Genetical research.

[10]  D. Hartl,et al.  Metabolic flux and fitness. , 1987, Genetics.

[11]  E. D. Weinberger,et al.  Fourier and Taylor series on fitness landscapes , 1991, Biological Cybernetics.

[12]  Keith E. Mathias,et al.  In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature-PPSN III , 1994 .

[13]  Gabriel Moreno GENETIC ARCHITECTURE, GENETIC BEHAVIOR, AND CHARACTER EVOLUTION , 1994 .

[14]  I. Schmalhausen Factors of evolution : the theory of stabilizing selection , 1946 .

[15]  D. Hartl,et al.  Fitness as a function of β-galactosidase activity in Escherichia coli , 1986 .

[16]  H. Grüneberg,et al.  Introduction to quantitative genetics , 1960 .

[17]  Charles J. Goodnight,et al.  Contextual Analysis of Models of Group Selection, Soft Selection, Hard Selection, and the Evolution of Altruism , 1992, The American Naturalist.

[18]  C. Goodnight EPISTASIS AND THE INCREASE IN ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR PHASE 1 OF WRIGHT'S SHIFTING‐BALANCE PROCESS , 1995, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[19]  E. H. Bryant,et al.  The Effect of an Experimental Bottleneck upon Quantitative Genetic Variation in the Housefly. , 1986, Genetics.

[20]  Reinhart Heinrich,et al.  A linear steady-state treatment of enzymatic chains. General properties, control and effector strength. , 1974, European journal of biochemistry.

[21]  H. Kacser,et al.  The control of flux. , 1995, Biochemical Society transactions.

[22]  Peter F. Stadler,et al.  Algebraic Theory of Recombination Spaces , 1997, Evolutionary Computation.

[23]  Henry Byerly Fitness as a Function , 1986, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

[24]  C. Goodnight EPISTASIS AND THE EFFECT OF FOUNDER EVENTS ON THE ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[25]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Basic measurement theory , 1962 .

[26]  S. Stadlera,et al.  The Algebraic Theory of Recombination , 2000 .

[27]  M. Whitlock,et al.  MULTIPLE FITNESS PEAKS AND EPISTASIS , 1995 .

[28]  R. Bürger,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF DOMINANCE: A THEORY WHOSE TIME HAS PASSED? , 1997 .

[29]  A. Templeton Genetic architectures of speciation. , 1982, Progress in clinical and biological research.

[30]  P. Stadler Landscapes and their correlation functions , 1996 .

[31]  Jerry A. Coyne,et al.  Genetics and speciation , 1992, Nature.

[32]  J. Cheverud,et al.  EPISTASIS AS A SOURCE OF INCREASED ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE AT POPULATION BOTTLENECKS , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  Reinhard Männer,et al.  Parallel Problem Solving from Nature — PPSN III , 1994, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[34]  M. Kimura,et al.  An introduction to population genetics theory , 1971 .

[35]  C. Goodnight ON THE EFFECT OF FOUNDER EVENTS ON EPISTATIC GENETIC VARIANCE , 1987, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[36]  The correlations between relatives in a random mating diploid population , 1961 .

[37]  A. Templeton The general relationship between average effect and average excess. , 1987, Genetical research.

[38]  G. McVean,et al.  An introduction to population genetics , 2022 .

[39]  J. Gravner,et al.  Percolation on the fitness hypercube and the evolution of reproductive isolation. , 1997, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  J. Cheverud,et al.  Quantitative trait loci for murine growth. , 1996, Genetics.

[41]  W. Scharloo The Influence of Selection and Temperature On a Mutant Character (CiD) in Drosophila Melanogaster , 1962 .

[42]  R. Fisher XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. , 1919, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

[43]  L. Altenberg,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY , 1996, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[44]  C. Cockerham,et al.  An Extension of the Concept of Partitioning Hereditary Variance for Analysis of Covariances among Relatives When Epistasis Is Present. , 1954, Genetics.

[45]  G. Wagner,et al.  A POPULATION GENETIC THEORY OF CANALIZATION , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[46]  C. Wu,et al.  Genetics of postmating reproductive isolation in animals. , 1994, Annual review of genetics.

[47]  H. A. Orr,et al.  The genetics of postzygotic isolation in the Drosophila virilis group. , 1989, Genetics.

[48]  R. Luce,et al.  Measurement, scaling, and psychophysics. , 1988 .

[49]  Heinz Mühlenbein,et al.  Estimating the Heritability by Decomposing the Genetic Variance , 1994, PPSN.

[50]  G. Wagner,et al.  Epistasis can facilitate the evolution of reproductive isolation by peak shifts: a two-locus two-allele model. , 1994, Genetics.