When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not?
Abstract We use population genetics to model the evolution of a gene with an indirect effect owing to paternal care and with a second pleiotropic, direct effect on offspring viability. We use the model to illustrate how the common empirical practice of considering offspring viability as a component...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of heredity 2022-02, Vol.113 (1), p.48-53 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 53 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 48 |
container_title | The Journal of heredity |
container_volume | 113 |
creator | Fitzpatrick, Courtney L Wade, Michael J |
description | Abstract
We use population genetics to model the evolution of a gene with an indirect effect owing to paternal care and with a second pleiotropic, direct effect on offspring viability. We use the model to illustrate how the common empirical practice of considering offspring viability as a component of parent fitness can confound a gene’s direct and indirect fitness effects. We investigate when this confounding results in a distorted picture of overall evolution and when it does not. We find that the practice has no effect on mean fitness, W, but it does have an effect on the dynamics of gene frequency change, ∆q. We also find that, for some regions of parameter space associated with fitness trade-offs, the distortion is not only quantitative but also qualitative, obscuring the direction of gene frequency change. Because it affects the evolutionary dynamics, it also affects the expected amount of genetic variation at mutation-selection balance, an important consideration in molecular evolution. We discuss empirical techniques for separating direct from indirect effects and how field studies measuring the value of male paternal care might be improved by using them. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/jhered/esab055 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8851674</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/jhered/esab055</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2605230410</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-aeea8d63d8fd39010f52a8389d0f80b8d0443b49d271bea07b223acdb45ad9653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1P3DAQhq2qqCy01x6Rj-0hMP7KOhcQQnxJIHoo7dGaxBPWKOssdlKJf0_QLhROnHx4n3nG9svYdwH7Aip1cL-gRP6AMtZgzCc2E7o0xVwp9ZnNAKQshAG1zXZyvgcAYSr4wraVtmYKyxm7_bugyEPmN22bVynEO_4nYB26MDzyszBEypkjvybMYyLet_wXDpQidv_T6PmLJQw89sPRV7bVYpfp2-bcZbdnp79PLoqrm_PLk-OrotFSDwUSofWl8rb1qgIBrZFola08tBZq60FrVevKy7moCWFeS6mw8bU26KvSqF12uPauxnpJvqE4JOzc9I4lpkfXY3DvkxgW7q7_56w1opzrSfBjI0j9w0h5cMuQG-o6jNSP2ckSjFSgBUzo_hptUp9zovZ1jQD33IVbd-E2XUwDe28v94q_fP4E_FwD_bj6SPYE_AiWZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2605230410</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L ; Wade, Michael J</creator><contributor>Hughes, Kim</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L ; Wade, Michael J ; Hughes, Kim</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
We use population genetics to model the evolution of a gene with an indirect effect owing to paternal care and with a second pleiotropic, direct effect on offspring viability. We use the model to illustrate how the common empirical practice of considering offspring viability as a component of parent fitness can confound a gene’s direct and indirect fitness effects. We investigate when this confounding results in a distorted picture of overall evolution and when it does not. We find that the practice has no effect on mean fitness, W, but it does have an effect on the dynamics of gene frequency change, ∆q. We also find that, for some regions of parameter space associated with fitness trade-offs, the distortion is not only quantitative but also qualitative, obscuring the direction of gene frequency change. Because it affects the evolutionary dynamics, it also affects the expected amount of genetic variation at mutation-selection balance, an important consideration in molecular evolution. We discuss empirical techniques for separating direct from indirect effects and how field studies measuring the value of male paternal care might be improved by using them.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1503</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1465-7333</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esab055</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34850026</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Biological Evolution ; Evolution, Molecular ; Gene Frequency ; Genetic Fitness ; Genetics, Population ; Humans ; Male ; Selection, Genetic ; Symposium</subject><ispartof>The Journal of heredity, 2022-02, Vol.113 (1), p.48-53</ispartof><rights>The American Genetic Association. 2021. 2021</rights><rights>The American Genetic Association. 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-aeea8d63d8fd39010f52a8389d0f80b8d0443b49d271bea07b223acdb45ad9653</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-aeea8d63d8fd39010f52a8389d0f80b8d0443b49d271bea07b223acdb45ad9653</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34850026$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Hughes, Kim</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wade, Michael J</creatorcontrib><title>When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not?</title><title>The Journal of heredity</title><addtitle>J Hered</addtitle><description>Abstract
We use population genetics to model the evolution of a gene with an indirect effect owing to paternal care and with a second pleiotropic, direct effect on offspring viability. We use the model to illustrate how the common empirical practice of considering offspring viability as a component of parent fitness can confound a gene’s direct and indirect fitness effects. We investigate when this confounding results in a distorted picture of overall evolution and when it does not. We find that the practice has no effect on mean fitness, W, but it does have an effect on the dynamics of gene frequency change, ∆q. We also find that, for some regions of parameter space associated with fitness trade-offs, the distortion is not only quantitative but also qualitative, obscuring the direction of gene frequency change. Because it affects the evolutionary dynamics, it also affects the expected amount of genetic variation at mutation-selection balance, an important consideration in molecular evolution. We discuss empirical techniques for separating direct from indirect effects and how field studies measuring the value of male paternal care might be improved by using them.</description><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Evolution, Molecular</subject><subject>Gene Frequency</subject><subject>Genetic Fitness</subject><subject>Genetics, Population</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Selection, Genetic</subject><subject>Symposium</subject><issn>0022-1503</issn><issn>1465-7333</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1P3DAQhq2qqCy01x6Rj-0hMP7KOhcQQnxJIHoo7dGaxBPWKOssdlKJf0_QLhROnHx4n3nG9svYdwH7Aip1cL-gRP6AMtZgzCc2E7o0xVwp9ZnNAKQshAG1zXZyvgcAYSr4wraVtmYKyxm7_bugyEPmN22bVynEO_4nYB26MDzyszBEypkjvybMYyLet_wXDpQidv_T6PmLJQw89sPRV7bVYpfp2-bcZbdnp79PLoqrm_PLk-OrotFSDwUSofWl8rb1qgIBrZFola08tBZq60FrVevKy7moCWFeS6mw8bU26KvSqF12uPauxnpJvqE4JOzc9I4lpkfXY3DvkxgW7q7_56w1opzrSfBjI0j9w0h5cMuQG-o6jNSP2ckSjFSgBUzo_hptUp9zovZ1jQD33IVbd-E2XUwDe28v94q_fP4E_FwD_bj6SPYE_AiWZQ</recordid><startdate>20220217</startdate><enddate>20220217</enddate><creator>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L</creator><creator>Wade, Michael J</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220217</creationdate><title>When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not?</title><author>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L ; Wade, Michael J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-aeea8d63d8fd39010f52a8389d0f80b8d0443b49d271bea07b223acdb45ad9653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Evolution, Molecular</topic><topic>Gene Frequency</topic><topic>Genetic Fitness</topic><topic>Genetics, Population</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Selection, Genetic</topic><topic>Symposium</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wade, Michael J</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Journal of heredity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fitzpatrick, Courtney L</au><au>Wade, Michael J</au><au>Hughes, Kim</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not?</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of heredity</jtitle><addtitle>J Hered</addtitle><date>2022-02-17</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>113</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>48</spage><epage>53</epage><pages>48-53</pages><issn>0022-1503</issn><eissn>1465-7333</eissn><abstract>Abstract
We use population genetics to model the evolution of a gene with an indirect effect owing to paternal care and with a second pleiotropic, direct effect on offspring viability. We use the model to illustrate how the common empirical practice of considering offspring viability as a component of parent fitness can confound a gene’s direct and indirect fitness effects. We investigate when this confounding results in a distorted picture of overall evolution and when it does not. We find that the practice has no effect on mean fitness, W, but it does have an effect on the dynamics of gene frequency change, ∆q. We also find that, for some regions of parameter space associated with fitness trade-offs, the distortion is not only quantitative but also qualitative, obscuring the direction of gene frequency change. Because it affects the evolutionary dynamics, it also affects the expected amount of genetic variation at mutation-selection balance, an important consideration in molecular evolution. We discuss empirical techniques for separating direct from indirect effects and how field studies measuring the value of male paternal care might be improved by using them.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>34850026</pmid><doi>10.1093/jhered/esab055</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-1503 |
ispartof | The Journal of heredity, 2022-02, Vol.113 (1), p.48-53 |
issn | 0022-1503 1465-7333 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8851674 |
source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Biological Evolution Evolution, Molecular Gene Frequency Genetic Fitness Genetics, Population Humans Male Selection, Genetic Symposium |
title | When is Offspring Viability Fitness a Measure of Paternal Fitness and When is it not? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T13%3A25%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=When%20is%20Offspring%20Viability%20Fitness%20a%20Measure%20of%20Paternal%20Fitness%20and%20When%20is%20it%20not?&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20heredity&rft.au=Fitzpatrick,%20Courtney%20L&rft.date=2022-02-17&rft.volume=113&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=48&rft.epage=53&rft.pages=48-53&rft.issn=0022-1503&rft.eissn=1465-7333&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/jhered/esab055&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2605230410%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2605230410&rft_id=info:pmid/34850026&rft_oup_id=10.1093/jhered/esab055&rfr_iscdi=true |