Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:24:47.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Segregation variance after hybridization of isolated populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Montgomery Slatkin  and
Russell Lande
Montgomery Slatkin*
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
Russell Lande
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
*
* Corresponding author

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We develop a model to predict the increase in genetic variance of a quantitative character in a hybrid population produced by crossing two previously isolated populations of the same species. The increase in variance in the F2 hybrids, the ‘segregation variance’, is caused by differences in the average allelic effects at each locus and by linkage disequilibrium among loci. We focus on the case in which the character is additively based and the average value of the character does not differ in the two populations. In that case the predicted segregation variance depends strongly on what is assumed about the genetic basis of the character. If the genetic variance of the character in each population is attributable to loci with numerous alleles of small effect that are in moderate frequency, as in Lande's (1975) model, the segregation variance should increase linearly with time since the populations were isolated, at a rate determined by the inverse of the effective population size. If the genetic variance is attributable to loci with alleles in very low frequency, as in Turelli's (1984) house-of-cards model or in Barton's (1990) model of pleiotropic, deleterious alleles, then the segregation variance in the hybrid population increases at a much lower rate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 51 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

References

Barton, N., (1989). The divergence of a polygenic system subject to stabilizing selection, mutation and drift. Genetical Research 54, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barton, N., (1990). Pleiotropic models of quantitative variation. Genetics 124, 773–782.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, H. K., East, E. M., & Beinhard, E.G. (1913). Tobacco breeding in Connecticut. Bulletin. Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 176, 6–68.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G., & Keightley, P. D., (1988). Interrelations of mutation, population size, artificial and natural selection. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quantitative Genetics (ed. Weir, B. S., Eisen, E. J., Goodman, M. M., and Namkoong, G.), pp. 57–70. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Assoc.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A., (1973). The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. 2, 3rd edn.New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Lande, R., (1975). The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. Genetical Research 26, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R., (1976). Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution 30, 314–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R., (1981). The minimum number of genes contributing to quantitative variation between and within populations. Genetics 99, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turelli, M., (1984). Heritable genetic variation via mutationselection balance: Lerch's zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theoretical Population Biology 25, 138–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., (1968). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol. 1. Genetic and Biometric Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar