Advertisement

Genetica

, Volume 123, Issue 1–2, pp 3–13 | Cite as

Theories of adaptation: what they do and don’t say

  • H. Allen OrrEmail author
Article

Abstract

Theoretical work on adaptation has lagged behind experimental. But two classes of adaptation model have been partly explored. One is phenotypic and the other DNA sequence based. I briefly consider an example of each – Fisher’s geometric model and Gillespie’s mutational landscape model, respectively – reviewing recent results. Despite their fundamental differences, these models give rise to several strikingly similar results. I consider possible reasons for this congruence. I also emphasize what predictions do and, as important, do not follow from these models.

Keywords

adaptation adaptive landscape experimental evolution Fisher’s model mutational landscape QTL analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton, N. 1998The geometry of natural selectionNature395751752Google Scholar
  2. Barton, N.H. 2001The role of hybridization in evolutionMol. Ecol.10551568Google Scholar
  3. Barton, N.H., Keightley, P.D. 2002Understanding quantitative genetic variationNature Rev. Genet.31121Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, H.D., Otto, K.G., Frewen, B.E., McKay, J.K., Schemske, D.W. 1998Quantitative trait loci affecting differences in floral morphology between two species of Monkeyflower (Mimulus)Genetics149367382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bull, J.J., Badgett, M.R., Wichman, H.A., Huelsenbeck, J.P., Hillis, D.M., Gulati, A., Ho, C., Molineux, I.J. 1997Exceptional convergent evolution in a virusGenetics14714971507Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, R.A. 1930The Genetical Theory of Natural SelectionOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher, R.A. 2000The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: a Complete Variorum EditionOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerrish, P. 2001The rhythm of microbial adaptationNature413299302Google Scholar
  9. Gerrish, P.J., Lenski, R.E. 1998The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual populationGenetica102/103127144Google Scholar
  10. Gillespie, J. 1984Molecular evolution over the mutational landscapeEvolution3811161129Google Scholar
  11. Gillespie, J.H. 1991The Causes of Molecular EvolutionOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Gillespie, J.H., 2002. Why k=4Nus is silly in Evolutionary Genetics, edited by R.S. Singh. Vol. III.Google Scholar
  13. Gumbel, E.J. 1958Statistics of ExtremesColumbia University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartl, D., Taubes, C.H. 1998Compensatory nearly neutral mutations: selection without adaptationJ. Theor. Biol.182303309Google Scholar
  15. Kauffman, S.A. 1993The Origins of OrderOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimura, M. 1983The Neutral Theory of Molecular EvolutionCambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Leadbetter, M.R., Lindgren, G., Rootzen, H. 1980Extremes and Related Properties of Random Sequences and ProcessesSpringer-VerlagNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Long, A.D., Lyman, R.F., Morgan, A.H., Langley, C.H., Mackay, T.F. 2000Both naturally occurring insertions of transposable elements and intermediate frequency polymorphisms at the achaete-scute complex are associated with variation in bristle number in Drosophila melanogasterGenetics15412551269Google Scholar
  19. Maynard Smith, J. 1962The limitations of molecular evolutionGood, I.J. eds. The Scientist Speculates: an Anthology of Partly-baked IdeasBasic Books, Inc., New York252256Google Scholar
  20. Maynard Smith, J. 1970Natural selection and the concept of a protein spaceNature225563564Google Scholar
  21. Orr, H.A. 1998aThe population genetics of adaptation: the distribution of factors fixed during adaptive evolutionEvolution52935949Google Scholar
  22. Orr, H.A. 1998bTesting natural selection versus genetic drift in phenotypic evolution using quantitative trait locus dataGenetics14920992104Google Scholar
  23. Orr, H.A. 1999The evolutionary genetics of adaptation: a simulation studyGenet. Res.74207214Google Scholar
  24. Orr, H.A. 2000Adaptation and the cost of complexityEvolution541320Google Scholar
  25. Orr, H.A. 2001The ‘sizes’ of mutations fixed in phenotypic evolution: a response to Clarke and ArthurEvol. Dev.3121123Google Scholar
  26. Orr, H.A. 2002The population genetics of adaptation: the adaptation of DNA sequencesEvolution5613171330Google Scholar
  27. Orr, H.A. 2003aThe distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutationsGenetics16315191526Google Scholar
  28. Orr, H.A. 2003bA minimum on the mean number of steps taken in adaptive walksJ. Theor. Biol.220241247Google Scholar
  29. Poon, A., Otto, S.P. 2000Compensating for our load of mutations: freezing the meltdown of small populationsEvolution5414671479Google Scholar
  30. Smith, N.G.C., Eyre-Walker, A. 2002Adaptive protein evolution in DrosophilaNature41510221024Google Scholar
  31. Welch, J.J., Waxman, D. 2003Modularity and the cost of complexityEvolution5717231734Google Scholar
  32. Wichman, H.A., Badgett, M.R., Scott, L.A., Boulianne, C.M., Bull, J.J. 1999Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptationScience285422424Google Scholar
  33. Zeng, Z.-B., Liu, J., Stam, L.F., Kao, C.-H., Mercer, J.M., Laurie, C.C. 2000Genetic architecture of a morphological shape difference between two Drosophila speciesGenetics154299310Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations