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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of heredity 2022-02, Vol.113 (1), p.48-53
Hauptverfasser: Fitzpatrick, Courtney L, Wade, Michael J
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