Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 50, Issue 6, pp 635–660 | Cite as

Stationary mutant distributions and evolutionary optimization

  • Peter Schuster
  • Jörg Swetina


Molecular evolution is modelled by erroneous replication of binary sequences. We show how the selection of two species of equal or almost equal selective value is influenced by its nearest neighbours in sequence space. In the case of perfect neutrality and sufficiently small error rates we find that the Hamming distance between the species determines selection. As the error rate increases the fitness parameters of neighbouring species become more and more important. In the case of almost neutral sequences we observe a critical replication accuracy at which a drastic change in the “quasispecies”, in the stationary mutant distribution occurs. Thus, in frequently mutating populations fitness turns out to be an ensemble property rather than an attribute of the individual.

In addition we investigate the time dependence of the mean excess production as a function of initial conditions. Although it is optimized under most conditions, cases can be found which are characterized by decrease or non-monotonous change in mean excess productions.


Sequence Space Excess Production Evolutionary Optimization Fitness Landscape Error Threshold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, P. W. 1958. “Absence of Diffusion in Certain Random Lattices.”Phys. Rev. 109, 1492–1505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Demetrius, L. 1974. “Demographic Parameters and Natural Selection.” Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.71, 4645–4647; (1983). “Statistical Mechanics and Population Biology.”J. stat. Phys. 30, 729–773.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. —, P. Schuster and K. Sigmund. 1985. Polynucleotide Evolution and Branching Processes.Bull. math. Biol. 47, 239–262.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Domingo, E., P. Ahlquist and J. J. Holland (Eds.) In press.RNA-Genetics, Vols I and II. Baton Rouge: CRC-Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eigen, M. 1971. “Selforganization of Matter and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecues”Naturwissenshcaften 58, 465–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — 1985. “Macromolecular Evolution: Dynamical Ordering in Sequence Space.”Ber. Bunsenges. phys. Chem.,89, 658–667.Google Scholar
  7. — and P. Schuster. 1979.The Hypercycle—a Principle of Natural Self-Organization. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Eigen, M., J. McCaskill and P. Schuster. In press. “Dynamics of Darwinian Molecular Systems.”J. phys. Chem. Google Scholar
  9. Ewens, W. J. 1979. “Mathematical Population Genetics.” InBiomathematics, Vol. 9. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Feinberg, M. 1977. “Mathematical Aspects of Mass Action Kinetics.” InChemical Reaction Theory: A Review, N. Amundsen and L. Lapidus (Eds), pp. 1–78. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, B. L. 1978 (Eds) “Some Principles Governing Selection in Self-Reproducing Macromolecular Systems.”J. math. Biol. 6, 169–75.Google Scholar
  12. —, R. H. Enns and S. S. Ragnekar. 1976. On the Theory of Selection of coupled Macromolecular Systems.”Bull. math. Biol. 38, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. — and K. H. Leung, 1981. “Stochastic Analysis of a Nonlinear Model for Selection of Biological Macromolecules.”Bull. math. Biol. 43, 665–680.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Kato, T. 1966. “Perturbation Theory for Linear OperatorsGrundl. Math. Wiss. 132.Google Scholar
  15. Kimura, M. 1983.The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Leuthäusser, I. 1986. “An Exact Correspondence Between Eigens Evolution Model and a Two-Dimensional Ising Model.”J. chem. Phys. 84, 1884.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCaskill, J. 1984. “A Localization Threshold for Macromolecular Quasispecies from Continuously Distributed Replication Rates.”J. chem. Phys. 80, 5194–5202.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. — 1984. “A Stochastic Theory of Molecular Evolution.”Biol. Cybernetics,50, 63–73.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rumschitzky, D. 1987. “Spectral Properties of Eigen Evolution Matrices.”J. math. Biol.,24, 667–680.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Schuster, P. 1986. “Dynamics of Molecular Evolution.”Physica,16D, 100–119.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. — and K. Sigmund. 1985. “Dynamics of Evolutionary Optimization.”Ber. Bunsenges. phys. Chem.,89, 668–682.Google Scholar
  22. Stein, D. L. and P. W. Anderson. 1984. A Model for the Origin of Biological Catalysis.Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 81, 1751–1753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Swetina, J. and P. Schuster. 1982. Selfreplication with Errors. A Model for Polynucleotide Replication.Biophys. Chem. 16, 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thompson, C. J. and J. L. McBride. 1974. “On Eigens Theory of the Selforganization of Molecules and the Evolution of Biological Macromolecules.”Math. Biosci.,21, 127–142.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Schuster
    • 1
  • Jörg Swetina
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für theoretische Chemie und Strahlenchemie der Universität WienWienAustria

Personalised recommendations