A maximum principle for the mutation-selection equilibrium of nucleotide sequences

  • Tini GarskeEmail author
  • Uwe Grimm


We study the equilibriumbehaviour of a deterministic four-statemutation-selection model as a model for the evolution of a population of nucleotide sequences in sequence space. The mutation model is the Kimura 3ST mutation scheme, and the selection scheme is assumed to be invariant under permutation of sites. Considering the evolution process both forward and backward in time, we use the ancestral distribution as the stationary state of the backward process to derive an expression for the mutational loss (as the difference between ancestral and population mean fitness), and we prove a maximum principle that determines the population mean fitness in mutation-selection balance.


Mutation Rate Maximum Principle Sequence Space Mutational Distance Mutation Scheme 
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.


  1. Baake, E. (1995). Diploid models on sequence space. J. Biol. Syst. 3, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baake, E., M. Baake, A. Bovier and M. Klein (2003). A simplified maximum principle for models of biological evolution (in preparation).Google Scholar
  3. Baake, E., M. Baake and H. Wagner (1997). Ising quantum chain is equivalent to a model of biological evolution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 559–562; Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1782 (Erratum).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baake, E. and H. Wagner (2001). Mutation-selection models solved exactly with methods of statistical mechanics. Genet. Res. 78, 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baxter, R. J. (1982). Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics, London: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bürger, R. (2000). The Mathematical Theory of Selection, Recombination, and Mutation, Chichester: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Charlesworth, B. (1990). Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Gen. Res. Cambridge 55, 199–221.Google Scholar
  8. Crow, J. F. and M. Kimura (1970). An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory, New York: Harper & Row.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Eigen, M. (1971). Selforganization of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules. Naturwissenschaften 58, 465–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eigen, M., J. McCaskill and P. Schuster (1989). The molecular quasi-species. Adv. Chem. Phys. 75, 149–263.Google Scholar
  11. Ewens, W. J. (1979). Mathematical Population Genetics, Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ewens, W. J. and G. R. Grant (2001). Statistical Methods in Bioinformatics, New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the dominance ratio. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh 42, 321–341.Google Scholar
  14. Gerland, U. and T. Hwa (2002). On the selection and evolution of regulatory DNA motifs. J. Mol. Evol. 55, 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haldane, J. B. S. (1928). A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. part v: selection and mutation. Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 23, 838–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamming, R. W. (1950). Error detecting and error correcting codes. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 26, 147–160.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Hartl, D. L. and A. G. Clark (1997). Principles of Population Genetics, 3rd edn., Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  18. Hermisson, J., O. Redner, H. Wagner and E. Baake (2002). Mutation selection balance: ancestry, load, and maximum principle. Theor. Popul. Biol. 62, 9–46.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hermisson, J., H. Wagner and M. Baake (2001). Four-state quantum chain as a model of sequence evolution. J. Stat. Phys. 102, 315–343.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Jukes, T. H. and C. R. Cantor (1969). Evolution of protein molecules, in Mammalian Protein Metabolism, H. N. Munro (Ed.), New York: Academic Press, pp. 21–132.Google Scholar
  21. Kimura, M. (1969). The number of heterozygous nucleotide sites maintained in a finite population due to steady flux of mutations. Genetics 61, 893–903.Google Scholar
  22. Kimura, M. (1980). A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kimura, M. (1981). Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 454–458.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohmoto, M., M. den Nijs and L. P. Kadanoff (1981). Hamiltonian studies of the d = 2 Ashkin-Teller model. Phys. Rev. B 24, 5229–5241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leuthäusser, I. (1986). An exact correspondence between Eigen’s evolution model and a two-dimensional Ising system. J. Chem. Phys. 84, 1884–1885.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leuthäusser, I. (1987). Statistical mechanics of Eigen’s evolution model. J. Stat. Phys. 48, 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Li, W. H. and D. Graur (1990). Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution, Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  28. O’Brien, P. (1985). A genetic model with mutation and selection. Math. Biosci. 73, 239–251.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Ohta, T. and M. Kimura (1973). A model of mutation appropriate to estimate the number of electrophoretically detectable alleles in a finite population. Gen. Res. 22, 201–204.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rumschitzky, D. S. (1987). Spectral properties of Eigen’s evolutionmatrices. J. Math. Biol. 24, 667–680.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell and D. M. Hillis (1996). Phylogenetic inference, in Molecular Systematics, D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz and B. K. Mable (Eds), Sunderland: Sinauer, pp. 407–514.Google Scholar
  32. Tarazona, P. (1992). Error thresholds for molecular quasispecies as phase transitions: from simple landscapes to spin-glass models. Phys. Rev. A 45, 6038–6050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Lint, J. H. (1982). Introduction to Coding Theory, Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. von Hippel, P. H. and O. G. Berg (1986). On the specificity of DNA-protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83, 1608–1612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiehe, T. (1997). Model dependency of error thresholds: the role of fitness functions and contrasts between finite and infinite sites models. Gene. Res. Cambridge 69, 127–136.Google Scholar
  36. Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Mathematics Department, Faculty of Mathematics and ComputingThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations