Genetica

, Volume 102, Issue 0, pp 569–580 | Cite as

Genetic measurement theory of epistatic effects

  • Günter P. Wagner
  • Manfred D. Laubichler
  • Homayoun Bagheri-Chaichian

Abstract

Epistasis is defined as the influence of the genotype at one locus on the effect of a mutation at another locus. As such it plays a crucial role in a variety of evolutionary phenomena such as speciation, population bottle necks, and the evolution of genetic architecture (i.e., the evolution of dominance, canalization, and genetic correlations). In mathematical population genetics, however, epistasis is often represented as a mere noise term in an additive model of gene effects. In this paper it is argued that epistasis needs to be scaled in a way that is more directly related to the mechanisms of evolutionary change. A review of general measurement theory shows that the scaling of a quantitative concept has to reflect the empirical relationships among the objects. To apply these ideas to epistatic mutation effects, it is proposed to scale A x A epistatic effects as the change in the magnitude of the additive effect of a mutation at one locus due to a mutation at a second locus. It is shown that the absolute change in the additive effect at locus A due to a substitution at locus B is always identical to the absolute change in B due to the substitution at A. The absolute A x A epistatic effects of A on B and of B on A are identical, even if the relative effects can be different. The proposed scaling of A x A epistasis leads to particularly simple equations for the decomposition of genotypic variance. The Kacser Burns model of metabolic flux is analyzed for the presence of epistatic effects on flux. It is shown that the non-linearity of the Kacser Burns model is not sufficient to cause A x A epistasis among the genes coding for enzymes. It is concluded that non-linearity of the genotype-phenotype map is not sufficient to cause epistasis. Finally, it is shown that there exist correlations among the additive and epistatic effects among pairs of loci, caused by the inherent symmetries of Mendelian genetic systems. For instance, it is shown that a mutation that has a larger than average additive effect will tend to decrease the additive effect of a second mutation, i.e., it will tend to have a negative (canalizing) interaction with a subsequent gene substitution. This is confirmed in a preliminary analysis of QTL-data for adult body weight in mice.

epistasis QTL canalization measurement theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asoh, H. & H. Mühlenbein, 1995. Estimating the heritability by decomposing the genetic variance, pp. 98-107. in Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN III., edited by Y. Davidor, H.P. Schwefel and R. Männer. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  2. Bryant, E.H., S.A. McCommas & L.M. Combs, 1986. The effect of an experimental bottleneck upon genetic variation in the house fly. Genetics 114: 1191-1211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson, H.L. & A.R. Templeton, 1984. Genetic revolutions in relation to speciation phenomena: The founding of new populations. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 97-131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheverud, J. & E. Routman, 1995. Epistasis and its contribution to genetic variance components. Genetics 130: 1455-1461.Google Scholar
  5. Cheverud, J.M. & E.J. Routman, 1996. Epistasis as a source of increased additive genetic variance at population bottlenecks. Evolution 50: 1042-1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheverud, J., E. Routman, F.M. Duarte, B. v. Swinderen, K. Cothran & C. Perel, 1996. Quantitative trait loci for murine growth. Genetics 142: 1305-1319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cockerham, C.C., 1954. An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariance among relatives when epistasis is present. Genetics 39: 859-882.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coyne, J.A., 1992. Genetics and speciation. Nature 355: 511-515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crow, J.F. & M. Kimura, 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Dean, A.M., D.E. Dykhuizen & D.L. Hartl, 1986. Fitness as a function of beta-galactose activity in Escherichia coli. Genet. Res., Camb. 48: 1-8.Google Scholar
  11. Dykhuizen, D.E., A.M. Dean & D.L. Hartl, 1987. Metabolic flux and fitness. Genetics 115: 25-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Falconer, D.S., 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longmans, London.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, R.A., 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian interitance. Trans. Roy. Sco. Edinburgh 52: 399-433.Google Scholar
  14. Gavrilets, S. & G. de Jong, 1993. Pleiotropic models of polygenic variation, stabilizing selection, and epistasis. Genetics 134: 609- 625.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gavrilets, S. & J. Gravner, 1997. Percolation on the fitness hypercobe and the evolution of reproductive isolation. J. Theor. Biol. 184: 51-64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodnight, C.J., 1987. On the effect of founder events on epistatic genetic variance. Evolution 41: 80-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodnight, C.J., 1988. Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42: 441-454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodnight, C.J., 1995. Epistasis and the increase in additive genetic variance: implications for phase 1 of Wright's shifting-balance process. Evolution 49: 502-511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodnight, C.J., J.M. Schwartz & L. Stevens, 1992. Contextual analysis of models of group selection, soft selection, hard selection and the evolution of altruism. American Naturalist 140: 743- 761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heinrich, R. & T.A. Rapoport, 1974. A linear steady-state treatment of enzymatic chains. Eur. J. Biochem. 42: 89-95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hölder, O., 1901. Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre vom Mass. Ber. Säch. Ges. Wiss., Math.Phys. Klasse 53: 1-64.Google Scholar
  22. Kacser, H. & J.A. Burns, 1973. The control of flux. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 27: 65-104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kempthorne, O., 1954. The correlations between relatives in a random mating population. Proc. Royal Soc. London, B. 143: 103- 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laubichler, M., 1997. Identifying Units of Selection: Conceptual and Methodological Issues. PhD Thesis, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  25. Luce, R.D. & C.L. Krumhansl, 1988. Measurement, scaling, and psychophysics, pp. 3-74 in Steven's Handbook of Experimental Psychology, edited by R.C. Atkinson, R.J. Herrenstein, G. Lindzey & R.D. Luce. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Mayo, O. & R. Bürger, 1997. The evolution of dominance: a theory whose time has passed? Biol. Rev. 72: 97-110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moreno, G., 1994. Genetic architecture, genetic behavior, and character evolution. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 25: 31-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Orr, H.A. & J.A. Coyne, 1989. The genetics of postzygotic isolation in the Drosophila virilis group. Genetics 121: 527-537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Scharloo, W., 1962. The influence of selection and temperature on a mutant character (ciD) in Drosophila melanogaster. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 14: 431-512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmalhausen, I.I., 1986. Factors of Evolution. The Theory of Stabilizing Selection. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  31. Stadler, P.F., 1996. Landscapes and their correlation functions. J. Math. Chem. 20: 1-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stadler, P.F. & G.P. Wagner, 1998. The algebraic theory of recombination spaces. Evol. Computation. 5: 241-275.Google Scholar
  33. Suppes, P. & J.L. Zinnes, 1963. Basic measurement theory, pp. 4-76 in Mathematical Psychology, edited by R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush and E. Galanter. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  34. Templeton, A.R., 1982. Genetic Architectures of Speciation, pp. 105-121 in Mechanisms of Speciation, edited by C. Baragozzi. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Templeton, A.R., 1987. The general relationship between average effect and average excess. Genet. Res., Camb. 49: 69-70.Google Scholar
  36. Waddington, C.H., 1957. The Strategy of the Genes. MacMillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
  37. Wagner, A., G.P. Wagner & P. Similion, 1994. Epistasis can facilitate the evolution of reproductive isolation by peak shifts: a two-locus two-allele model. Genetics 138: 533-545.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagner, G.P. & L. Altenberg, 1996. Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50: 967-976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wagner, G.P., G. Booth & H. Bagheri-Chaichian, 1997. A population genetic theory of canalization. Evolution 51: 329-347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinberger, E.D., 1991 Fourier and Taylor series on fitness landscapes. Biol. Cybern. 65: 321-330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Whitlock, M.C., P.C. Phillips, F.B.G. Moore & S.J. Tonsor, 1995. Multiple fitness peaks and epistasis. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 26: 601-629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu, C.-I. & M.F. Palopoli, 1994. Genetics of postmating reproductive isolation in animals. Annu. Rev. Genet. 27: 283-308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter P. Wagner
    • 1
  • Manfred D. Laubichler
    • 2
  • Homayoun Bagheri-Chaichian
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Computational Ecology and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Program in History of SciencePrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  3. 3.Center for Computational Ecology and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations