4.5 Article

Epistasis, inbreeding depression, and the evolution of self-fertilization

Journal

EVOLUTION
Volume 74, Issue 7, Pages 1301-1320

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.13961

Keywords

Epistasis; evolutionary quantitative genetics; inbreeding depression; multilocus population genetics; pollen discounting; self-fertilization

Funding

  1. French Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-13-ADAP-0011, ANR-14-CE02-0001]
  2. TUM University Foundation Fellowship
  3. Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung foundation
  4. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-13-ADAP-0011] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Inbreeding depression resulting from partially recessive deleterious alleles is thought to be the main genetic factor preventing self-fertilizing mutants from spreading in outcrossing hermaphroditic populations. However, deleterious alleles may also generate an advantage to selfers in terms of more efficient purging, while the effects of epistasis among those alleles on inbreeding depression and mating system evolution remain little explored. In this article, we use a general model of selection to disentangle the effects of different forms of epistasis (additive-by-additive, additive-by-dominance, and dominance-by-dominance) on inbreeding depression and on the strength of selection for selfing. Models with fixed epistasis across loci, and models of stabilizing selection acting on quantitative traits (generating distributions of epistasis) are considered as special cases. Besides its effects on inbreeding depression, epistasis may increase the purging advantage associated with selfing (when it is negative on average), while the variance in epistasis favors selfing through the generation of linkage disequilibria that increase mean fitness. Approximations for the strengths of these effects are derived, and compared with individual-based simulation results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available