Possible consequences of genes of major effect: Transient changes in the G-matrix
Understanding the process of evolutionary divergence requires knowledge of the strength, form, and targets of selection, as well as the genetic architecture of the divergent traits. Quantitative genetic approaches to understanding multivariate selection and genetic response to selection have proven to be powerful tools in this endeavor, particularly with respect to short-term evolution. However, the application of quantitative genetic theory over periods of substantial phenotypic change is controversial because it requires that the requisite genetic parameters remain constant over the period of time in question. We show herein how attempts to determine the stability of key genetic parameters may be misled by the ‘many genes of small effect’ type of genetic architecture generally assumed in quantitative genetics. The presence of genes of major effect (GOMEs) can alter the genetic variance-covariance matrix dramatically for brief periods of time, significantly alter the rate and trajectory of multivariate evolution, and thereby mislead attempts to reconstruct or predict long term evolution.
Key wordsgenes of major effect G-matrix constancy QTL analysis quantitative genetics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Arnold, S.J., 1994. Multivariate inheritance and evolution: a review of concepts, pp. 17–48 in Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioral Evolution, edited by C.R.B. Boake. Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Bradshaw, H.D., K.G. Otto, B.E. Frewen, J.K. McKay & D.W. Schemske, 1998. Quantitative trait loci affecting differences in floral morphology between two species of monkeyflower (Mimulus). Genetics 367–382.Google Scholar
- Carriére, Y., J.P. Deland, D.A. Roff & C. Vincent, ai]1994. Life history costs associated with the evolution of insecticide resistance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258: 35-40.1994. Life history costs associated with the evolution of insecticide resistance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258: 35–40.Google Scholar
- de Vicente, M.C. & S.D. Tanksley, 1993. QTL analysis of trans-gressive segregation in an interspecific tomato cross. Genetics 134: 585–596.Google Scholar
- Endler, J.A., 1986. Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Falconer, D.S. & T. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman, New York.Google Scholar
- Fisher, R.A., 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- Kingsolver, J.G., H.E. Hoekstra, J.M. Hoekstra, D. Berrigan, S.N. Vignieri, C.E. Hill, A. Hoang, P. Gibert & P. Beerli. 2001. The strength of phenotypic selection in natural populations. Am. Nat.Google Scholar
- Lynch, M. & B. Walsh, 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar