Population Consequences of Mutagenesis and Antimutagenesis

  • James F. Crow
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 39)

Abstract

Although the progress in basic understanding of mutagenesis and in techniques for precise measurement of mutation rates in test systems has been enormous, there has been very little progress in applying this information to estimates of germline mutation in humans, and even less in translating such estimates into quantitative assessments of the impact on future generations. This doesn’t mean that new information about the mutation process, and antimutagens in particular, is not useful. Lowering the human mutation rate would be good, even if we can’t say how good.

Some simple population kinetics of a change of mutation are discussed, and it is shown that future environmental changes can be ignored if we assume that the impact of a disease on human welfare is changed by the environment in the same proportion as its effect on fitness.

Since the human mutation rate appears to be much higher in males than in females, it would be especially important to find ways of reducing the male rate. The role of transposable elements in determining human spontaneous mutation rates is unknown, but unless data from experimental organisms are grossly misleading, this role may be substantial.

It is sometimes argued that such responses as error-prone repair systems may be an evolutionary strategy to allow the population to try a larger repertoire of mutations in times of environmental change. They may also be a survival strategy. I suggest that, although such an evolutionary strategy may possibly be adopted in asexual organisms with a very high reproductive rate, it is very unlikely in Mendelian species with limited reproduction such as most higher animals. The amount of existing variability in a large population is so great relative to that which arises in a few generations by mutation that segregation and recombination of existing alleles would appear to be a better way of coping with changing environment.

As the human age of reproduction has increased in the recent evolutionary past, it is possible that the compensatory adjustment of mutation rates has not been fast enough to keep up. Perhaps evolution of mutation rates is more determined by selection to reduce somatic mutation than by selection to reduce germinal mutation. Regardless of the answer to the question of the optimum mutation rate for long-time evolution, in my view, the optimum mutation rate from the standpoint of human welfare for the foreseeable future is zero.

Keywords

Toxicity Ethyl Recombination Germinal Caffeine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aquadro, C.F., S.F. Deese, M.M. Bland, C.H. Langley, and C.C. Laurie-Ahlberg (1986) Molecular population genetics of the alcohol dehydrogenase gene region of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics (in press).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auerbach, C., and J.M. Robson (1946) Chemical production of mutations. Nature 157:302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chao, L., and E.C. Cox (1983) Competition between high and low mutating strains of Escherichia coli. Evolution 37:123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clayton, G.A., and A. Robertson (1955) Mutation and quantitative variation. Am. Natur. 89:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox, E.C., and T.C. Gibson (1974) Selection for high mutation rates in chemostats. Genetics 77:169–184.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crow, J.F. (1957) Genetics of insect resistance to chemicals. Ann. Rev. Entom. 2:227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crow, J.F. (1979) Minor viability mutants in Drosophila. Genetics 92s:165–172.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crow, J.F., and C. Denniston (1981) The mutation component of genetic damage. Science 212:888–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crow, J.F., and C. Denniston (1985) Mutation in human populations. Adv. Hum Genet. 15:59–123.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crow, J.F., and members of the NIH Genetics Study Section (1968) Chemical risk to future generations. Scientist and Citizen June-July, pp. 113–117.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engels, W.R. (1983) The P family of transposable elements in Drosophlla. Ann. Rev. Genet. 17:315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haldane, J.B.S. (1937) The effect of variation on fitness. Am. Natur. 71:337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haldane, J.B.S. (1949) The rate of mutation of human genes. Hereditas 1949(Suppl.):267–273.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leigh, E. (1973) The evolution of mutation rates. Genetics 73s:1–18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, W.H., and M. Nei (1972) Total number of individuals affected by a single deleterious mutation in a finite population. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 24:667–679.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukai, T., H. Tachida, and M. Ichinose (1980) Selection for viability at loci controlling protein polymorphisms in Drosophila melanogaster is very weak at most. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 77:4857–4860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muller, H.J. (1927) Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science 66:84–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller, H.J. (1950) Our load of mutations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2:111–176.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Academy of Sciences (1983) Identifying and Estimating the Genetic Impact of Chemical Mutagens, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neel, J.V. (1942) A study of a case of high mutation rate in Drosophlla melanogaster. Genetics 27:519–536.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Novick, A., and L. Szilard (1950) Experiments with the chemostat on spontaneous mutations of bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA 36: 708–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubin, G.M., and A.C. Spradling (1982) Genetic transformation of Drosophila with transposable element vectors. Science 218:348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shapiro, J. A. (1983) Mobile Genetic Elements, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson, J.N., and R.C. Woodruff (1978) Mutator genes—Pacemakers of evolution. Nature 274:317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vogel, F. (1977) A probable sex difference in some mutation rates. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 29:312–319.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vogel, F., and A.G. Motulsky (1979) Human Genetics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winter, R.M., and M.E. Pembry (1982) Does unequal crossing over contribute to the mutation rate in Duchenne muscular dystrophy? Am. J. Med. Genet. 12:437–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • James F. Crow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations