4.0 Article

Polymorphism in the two-locus Levene model with nonepistatic directional selection

期刊

THEORETICAL POPULATION BIOLOGY
卷 76, 期 3, 页码 214-228

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2009.07.002

关键词

Selection; Migration; Recombination; Dominance; Linkage equilibrium; Population subdivision; Genotype-environment interaction

资金

  1. Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the Levene model with soft selection in two denies, the maintenance of polymorphism at two diallelic loci is studied. Selection is nonepistatic and dominance is intermediate. Thus, there is directional selection in every deme and at every locus. We assume that selection is in opposite directions in the two denies because otherwise no polymorphism is possible. If at one locus there is no dominance, then a complete analysis of the dynamical and equilibrium properties is performed In particular, a simple necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of an internal equilibrium and sufficient conditions for global asymptotic stability are obtained. These results are extended to deme-independent degree of dominance at one locus. A perturbation analysis establishes. Structural stability within the full parameter space. In the absence of genotype-environment interaction, which requires deme-independent dominance at both loci, nongeneric equilibrium behavior occurs. and the introduction of arbitrarily small genotype-environment interaction changes the equilibrium structure and may destroy stable polymorphism. The volume of the parameter space for which a (stable) two-locus polymorphism is maintained is computed numerically. It is investigated flow this volume depends on the strength of selection and on the dominance relations. If the favorable allele is (partially) dominant in its deme, more than 20% of all parameter combinations lead to a globally asymptotically stable, fully polymorphic equilibrium. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据