- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Peters, A. D.
- Articles by Keightley, P. D.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Peters, A. D.
- Articles by Keightley, P. D.
A Test for Epistasis Among Induced Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans
Andrew D. Petersa and Peter D. Keightleyaa Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom
Corresponding author: Andrew D. Peters, Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, W. Mains Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland., andyp{at}holyrood.ed.ac.uk (E-mail)
Communicating editor: L. PARTRIDGE
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
Synergistic epistasis, in which deleterious mutations tend to magnify each other's effects, is a necessary component of the mutational deterministic hypothesis for the maintenance of sexual production. We tested for epistasis for life-history traits in the soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans by inducing mutations in two genetic backgrounds: a wild-type strain and a set of genetically loaded lines that contain large numbers of independent mildly detrimental mutations. There was no significant difference between the effect of new mutations on the wild-type background and the genetically loaded background for four out of five fitness correlates. In these four cases, the maximum level of epistasis compatible with the data was very low. The fifth trait, late productivity, is not likely to be an important component of fitness. This suggests either that specific environmental conditions are required to cause epistasis or that synergistic epistasis is not a general phenomenon. We also suggest a new mechanism by which deleterious mutations may provide an advantage to sexual reproduction under low selection coefficients.
DELETERIOUS mutations are postulated to play an important part in a variety of evolutionary processes. In particular, the distribution of fitnesses in populations at mutation-selection equilibrium is an important component of models of the evolution of sex and recombination (reviews in ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In sexual populations, however, mean fitness at equilibrium depends not only on the rate of mutation, but on the degree of epistasis among mutations (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
It remains unclear, however, whether synergistic epistasis is common enough to make such models generally applicable. Deleterious mutations may also interact antagonistically, such that the proportional reduction in fitness due to a mutation decreases as the number of background mutations increases. In fact, individual pairs of loci that interact in both of these ways almost certainly exist, so the question is really one of the distribution of effects of epistasis across the entire genome. Experiments to detect such a statistical effect of epistasis among mutations have taken two basic forms. One recent approach depends upon the expected distribution of fitnesses among the sexually produced offspring of a pair of parents in haploid organisms (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Another approach is to determine directly whether or not the logarithm of fitness is an additive function of mutation number. This can be achieved by accumulating mutations in such a way that, although the actual number of mutations is not known, treatment groups are expected to be related linearly to mutation number (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Here, we present an experiment to test for epistasis among deleterious mutations in the hermaphroditic soil-living nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. We subjected worms from two genetic backgroundsan unmutagenized strain (the unloaded background) and a collection of lines that had been mutagenized in a previous experiment (the loaded background; ![]()
A/T transitions and should be located randomly throughout the genome; such mutations are expected to be similar in their fitness consequences to a random sample of spontaneous point mutations (![]()
![]()
![]()
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
Background lines and culture conditions:
In a previous experiment (![]()
220 G/C
A/T transitions, approximately 45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2961] of which are expected to cause deleterious amino-acid changes (![]()
These lines, which had been frozen at -85°, were thawed and maintained throughout the experiment at 20°, on 3.5-cm agar plates seeded with E. coli strain OP50, using standard techniques (![]()
Mutagenesis:
On the fifth generation after thawing, the unloaded background line was split into 24 sublines, and all lines (24 loaded-background lines and 24 unloaded-background sublines) were synchronized by immersing gravid adults in an alkaline-hypochlorite solution (![]()
![]()
![]()
Propagation of lines and inbreeding:
Three days after the mutagenesis, one L3 larva was chosen at random from among the offspring on each plate, to serve as the progenitor of a new line. The lines were then propagated by transferring one larval hermaphrodite to a fresh plate every generation. This design minimizes selection and generates homozygous offspring by sending each line through a bottleneck of one self-fertilizing individual every generation. Extra plates (one per unmutagenized line and two per mutagenized line) were set up each generation; offspring were chosen at random from these plates in the event that a worm failed to reproduce. If no backup plate had produced, plates from the previous generation were used, to a maximum of three previous generations. Transfers were continued until each line had gone through at least 10 transfers; because some mutagenized lines produced very slowly, the unmutagenized (00 and 10) lines were taken through 13 transfers while the mutagenized (01 and 11) lines were taken through 10 transfers.
Inference of rate of loss of mutations due to selection:
Mortality during this inbreeding phase presents an opportunity for selection to act. To estimate the number of mutations lost to selection, we performed computer simulations of an experiment identical in design to that presented here to determine what patterns of selection are consistent with observed mortality during inbreeding (![]()
![]()
![]()
i(1 - hsi) x
j(1 - sj), where vc is the mean observed viability for the unloaded-unmutagenized (00) lines (0.94), s is the mutation effect, h is the dominance coefficient, and i and j are indices of heterozygous and homozygous mutations, respectively. Highly deleterious mutations (s > 0.5) were assumed to be completely recessive (h = 0); for all other mutations, h = 0.2. Previous examinations of such simulations have shown that the results are insensitive to changes in h or differences in the distribution of sm (![]()
Trait assays:
After the inbreeding phase, each line was split into three replicate sublines; lines within each of the three sets of replicates were randomized and taken through three generations of larval transfers to remove effects of common environment. Lines were then synchronized by placing gravid adults onto plates for
3 hr and allowing them to lay eggs. These eggs were allowed to develop to the L4 larval stage; one larva was then chosen at random per replicate per line and moved to a new plate for measurements of daily productivity and longevity. Every day for 5 days, each worm was moved to a fresh plate; the eggs on each plate were allowed to hatch and the progeny counted, giving daily productivity over 5 days. The day of death of the assayed worm was also noted. If a worm was accidentally killed, an additional replicate of the appropriate lines was added to the next assay. The entire assay was repeated on the same sublines two more times, with the exception that in the second assay synchronization was carried out by immersing gravid adults in alkaline-hypochlorite solution (![]()
Fitness correlates:
Trait measurements were used to calculate five fitness correlates for each worm: total productivity; early productivity (days 12 of the reproductive period); late productivity (days 35 of the reproductive period); longevity; and relative fitness (w). Relative fitness is a measure of fitness appropriate for age-structured populations at equilibrium; it is defined as

where rc is the intrinsic rate of increase of the control (00) population, calculated by solving the equation
xe-rcxlxmx = 1. lx and mx are the proportion of individuals surviving to day x and the expected number of progeny produced by surviving individuals on day x, respectively (![]()
Analysis:
The effects of epistasis among mutations were estimated in three ways: by comparing the changes in mean and genetic variance of mutagenized individuals on the two different backgrounds; by estimating mutation rates and effects in the various background-by-treatment combinations using maximum likelihood; and by testing for an interaction between background and treatment in an analysis of variance on log-transformed trait values.
Changes in mean and variance: Least-squares means of untransformed trait values for each background-by-treatment combination were calculated using the MIXED procedure of SAS 6.1.2 (SAS INSTITUTE 1990). Factors included in the model were background-by-treatment combination (00, 01, 10, and 11), replicate, assay, line (nested within background-by-treatment), replicate*line, and replicate*assay. Line and replicate*line were treated as random effects; all other effects were treated as fixed.
Genetic variances in log-transformed trait values (V'G) were calculated separately for each background-by-treatment combination. To remove scaling effects (i.e., a reduction in variance as the trait mean approaches the absorbing state of zero), trait values X were transformed by ln(X + c), where c is 0 for longevity, 0.01 for w, and 1 for all other traits. The constant c was required to allow the inclusion of zeroes in the analysis; the standard value of c is 1 (![]()
To compare the two mutagenized groups (01 and 11) to their backgrounds (00 and 10), the proportional change in mean of untransformed trait values, 
=
, and the change in variance of transformed trait values,
V'G = V'G,i1 - V'G,i0, were calculated, where i = 0 for the unloaded background and i = 1 for the loaded background. Differences in these quantities between the two backgrounds may be construed as evidence of epistasis; significance of such differences was tested by bootstrapping the entire dataset 1000 times, resampling by background line (i.e., always drawing both mutagenized and unmutagenized lines from a given background line) to maintain the correlation structure within a background.
Maximum likelihood estimation of mutational parameters:
Maximum likelihood (ML) can be used to estimate the numbers of mutations induced by the EMS treatment and their average effects (![]()
2e. The distribution of the line means in the unloaded-unmutagenized treatment shows no significant deviation from normality in any trait when tested with a Shapiro/Wilk test (SAS INSTITUTE 1990). The loaded-unmutagenized (10) lines were assumed to have the same environmental variance and to contain an average of U10 mutations of effect s10, with the number of mutations given by a Poisson deviate. The unloaded-mutagenized (01) lines were assumed to contain U01 mutations (again Poisson distributed) with effects s01. The loaded-mutagenized (11) lines contained U11 mutations in addition to their load of U10 mutations, and these had separate effects s11 and s10. The covariance structure between the loaded-unmutagenized lines and loaded-mutagenized lines was incorporated by assuming a "two-generation" experiment as described by ![]()
Analysis of variance: Epistasis among mutations should also appear as an interaction between background and treatment on the log scale. Trait values were transformed as described above; mixed-model ANOVAs fitting the effects of background, treatment, background line, treatment line (nested within background line), assay, replicate, and the background*treatment interaction were run using the MIXED procedure of SAS 6.1.2 (SAS INSTITUTE 1990). Treatment line was treated as a random effect; all other effects were treated as fixed. Estimates of expected additive effects of background and treatment mutagenesis (the sum of the reduction in transformed trait values in the two single-mutagenesis groups 10 and 01) and deviation from additivity (the interaction effect: any deviation from additivity in the double-mutagenesis group 11) were calculated as contrasts within the MIXED procedure.
| RESULTS |
|---|
Selection during inbreeding:
Both mutagenized groups (01 and 11) showed increased mortality during the selfing phase (Fig 1). Mortality increased steeply at first, then decreased, a pattern that suggests purging of mutations as they are exposed in the homozygous state. Total mortality (proportion of plates failing to produce) over all generations was very similar between the two mutagenized groups (01 and 11, Table 1). Assuming that EMS mutagenesis produced a Poisson mean of 45 mildly deleterious and one near-lethal mutation per line (![]()
![]()
4.1 mildly deleterious mutations per line in our computer simulations (Table 1). If it is assumed that EMS mutagenesis induced less than or greater than 45 mutations per line, the proportion of mutation lost remains on the order of 89% (Table 1). There is no evidence that selection removed more mutations in double-mutagenized lines (group 11) than in single-mutagenized lines (group 01), although we cannot detect selection on the egg-to-hatching phase of the life cycle.
|
|
Changes in mean and variance:
Mutagenesis with EMS significantly decreased the mean of most traits on either genetic background (Fig 2, Table 2), with several notable exceptions. Mutagenesis did not significantly decrease mean late productivity on the unloaded background; there was a significant effect on the loaded background, but this may be due to one loaded-unmutagenized line that had very high late productivity (Fig 2C, Table 2C). Mutagenesis also has no significant effect on mean longevity on either background (Fig 2E, Table 2E). Genetic variance of ln(X + c)-transformed trait values (V'G) increased significantly with mutagenesis on both backgrounds for all traits, with the exception of longevity on the loaded background, in which V'G did not change significantly (Table 3).
|
|
|
We compared the proportional decrease in trait mean as a result of mutagenesis on the loaded background to that on the unloaded background and tested for a significant difference by bootstrapping by line (Table 2). The decrease due to mutagenesis tends to be greater on the loaded background than the unloaded background for all traits except longevity, although the difference is only significant for late productivity.
Comparisons of the change in V'G suggest that there is no difference between the two backgrounds in most cases (Table 3). Although mutagenesis increases the point estimate of V'G less on the loaded background than the unloaded background for most traits, this pattern is nonsignificant for all traits except longevity, which is marginally significant; the pattern is reversed (but still nonsignificant) in the case of w.
Estimates of mutational parameters:
A full model, in which EMS-induced mutation rates (U01 and U11) and effects (s01 and s11) were allowed to differ on the two genetic backgrounds, did not fit significantly better than a reduced model, in which mutation rates and effects on the two backgrounds were constrained to be equal, for any trait (Table 4). The changes in log likelihood are so small as to imply that models in which only one parameter was allowed to vary across backgrounds (i.e., U01 = U11 or s01 = s11) would also not fit significantly better than the reduced model. Thus, the maximum likelihood estimates of mutational parameters suggest that there is no significant effect of epistasis. The estimates for total productivity are consistent with previous estimates (![]()
![]()
2224% (Table 4).
|
It is notable that the estimated mutation rate is about twice as large, while the estimated effect is about half as large, on the loaded background than on the unloaded background (i.e., U11
2U01 and s11
s01/2) for both early productivity and relative fitness under the full model (Table 4). Although this difference is not significant (i.e., the full model does not fit significantly better than the reduced model), it does suggest the possibility that mutations that do not contribute to measured variation on the unloaded background are more likely to contribute to variation on the loaded background. We have suggested that a large proportion of deleterious mutations have effects that are too small to be detected under laboratory conditions (![]()
Analysis of variance:
We used analysis of variance to test for a significant interaction between background and treatment on ln(X + c)-transformed values of each trait. Table 5 shows least-squares mean values for all groups (Table 5A), as well as estimates of the additive effects of the background and treatment mutagen doses (A, the total expected reduction under a log-linear fitness function) and the background*treatment interaction effect (B, the total deviation from linearity) (Table 5B). A positive interaction effect corresponds to a larger difference on the loaded background and is evidence for synergistic epistasis. Although the estimate of this effect is positive for all traits except longevity, it is only marginally significant in the case of late productivity.
|
The case of late productivity is notable, because the linear effect A is nonsignificant while the interaction effect B is marginally significant, and the estimate of the interaction effect is more than twice as large as that of the linear effect (Table 5). This suggests strong synergistic epistasis: The expected total effect of two single mutagen doses is no decrease in late productivity, while a double dose causes a substantial decrease. However, late productivity is not particularly reliable as a fitness correlate. Nonetheless, this result points out a potential pattern in timing of reproduction as a response to mutagenesis. Mutations may act to both delay reproduction and decrease total productivity, causing the peak in reproduction to occur later, and be smaller, in mutagenized individuals. Since late productivity is lower than early productivity in control worms (Table 2), this causes a relatively small net change in late productivity as a result of a single mutagenesis. However, with the additional delay and decrease in productivity resulting from a second mutagenesis, late productivity drops substantially, leading to the large interaction term. Thus, a pattern that is associated with largely nonepistatic effects in traits that are closely related to fitness (early and total productivity) can cause epistasis in other traits (late productivity).
Effects of development rate:
It is possible that variation in development rate among loaded background lines could bias our results: If worms of different lines were at slightly different developmental stages when they were mutagenized, EMS mutagenesis may have had more effect on some lines than on others. We minimized this effect experimentally by selecting background lines that had fitnesses similar to that of wild-type lines and would therefore be expected to have similar rates of development; we also chose worms at the same larval stage (L4) for mutagenesis. However, the L4 larval stage of wild-type worms lasts
12.25 hr at 20° (![]()
3 hr, and worms were the same age at the beginning of that time, differences in susceptibility within the L4 stage should appear as a significant effect of timing on trait values. This analysis was performed on both raw means and means relative to the background line. For no trait was there a significant relationship between trait values and time (smallest P = 0.29, largest r2 = 0.056) for mutagenized worms on either background (Fig 3), suggesting that developmental stage at mutagenesis was unlikely to be an important source of variation in trait values.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
Summary of results and relation to theoretical parameters:
Overall, if there is a net effect of epistasis among deleterious mutations, it is too weak to be detected in this experiment, although the trend is toward synergistic epistasis. Comparisons of the change in mean and variance as a result of mutagenesis show no significant difference on the loaded vs. the unloaded background for any trait except late productivity, which is not expected to be closely related to fitness (Table 2 and Table 3). Similarly, only late productivity showed a marginally significant background*treatment interaction in an analysis of variance on ln(X + c)-transformed data (Table 5). Finally, a model in which mutation rates and effects were allowed to vary across the two backgrounds did not fit significantly better than one in which they were constrained to be equal, for any trait analyzed using maximum likelihood (Table 4).
Although none of these results showed significant effects of epistasis, we may still calculate the range of epistatic effects that is consistent with the data. We do so here by determining the 95% confidence intervals around the effect estimates from the ANOVA on ln(X + c)-transformed data (Table 5B). The effects of interest are the additive effect A, which is the reduction in fitness expected in the double-mutagenized (11) group if there were no interactions between the two sets of mutations, and the background*treatment interaction effect B, which is the net effect of epistasis on the double-mutagenized (11) group. Taking total productivity as an example, our estimate of the additive effect is A = 1.157 (95% CI 0.6711.643); our estimate of the net effect of epistasis is B = 0.230 (95% CI -0.2110.671) (Table 5B). We can also calculate the effect of epistasis scaled by the additive effect, B/A. Confidence intervals on this quantity can be estimated by bootstrapping with the resampling scheme described in MATERIALS AND METHODS. Using this approach, our estimate of the effect of epistasis relative to the additive effect is B/A = 0.199 (95% CI -0.2531.07).
Estimates of A and B can be used to calculate the average additive effect per mutation (
) and the average effect of epistasis per pair of mutations (ß), which are important parameters in some models of sex and recombination (![]()
= A/(U10 + U01). The number of pairs of mutations contributing to the interaction between background and treatment is U10 x U01, so the mean epistasis per pair of mutations is ß = B/U10U01. The degree of epistasis is the epistatic coefficient scaled by the additive coefficient, ß/
. These values apply to homozygous mutations; following ![]()
het =
h, ßhet = ßh2, and (ß/
)het = (ß/
)h.
The predicted number of deleterious amino-acid- altering mutations induced by each mutagen treatment is 45 (![]()
![]()
= 0.013 (95% CI 0.0070.018), ß = 1.1 x 10-4 (95% CI -1.0 x 10-4 -3.3 x 10-4), and degree of epistasis ß/
= 0.0088 (95% CI -0.0110.048) (Table 6). Relaxing the assumption that each mutagen dose produced 45 deleterious mutations can cause estimates of
, ß, and ß/
to vary across several orders of magnitude, but if this number varies from 45 by a factor of
2 in either direction (between 20 and 80), the estimate of ß/
remains on the order of 10-2 or below (Table 6). The maximum degree of epistasis consistent with the data under this range of mutation numbers is ß/
= 0.11 (the upper confidence limit for U10 = U01 = 20, Table 6).
|
The above calculation depends upon a large number of assumptions that are almost certainly violated. Most important of these assumptions are, first, that the only epistatic interactions are those between mutations induced by separate mutagen doses. The linear effect A is calculated as the sum of the difference in trait values between the two singly mutagenized groups (10 and 01) and the unloaded-unmutagenized group (00). In fact, this sum also includes any epistatic interactions (1) among mutations already present in the unloaded background line (i.e., within group 00); (2) among mutations induced by each single mutagenesis (i.e., within group 10 or 01); and (3) between these sets of mutations (i.e., between groups 00 and 10/01). If this hidden epistasis is synergistic, then the calculated value of A will be larger than the actual linear effect, so
will be overestimated, and ß/
underestimated. Note that this does not bias our estimate of ß. A second assumption is that mutations have equal effects; in fact, we have suggested that EMS-induced mutations in C. elegans have a bimodal distribution of effects, such that the effects of
97% of deleterious mutations are unmeasurably small (![]()
, ß, and ß/
.
It is also possible that epistasis among mutations appears only in particular environmental circumstances, such as strong intraspecific competition (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
C. elegans is a primarily selfing hermaphrodite and produces obligately outcrossing male offspring at a frequency of
0.1% under laboratory conditions (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Comparison with previous work:
![]()
n + ßn2/2), where n is the number of mutations. Previous estimates of ß (![]()
![]()
![]()
n + ßn2); thus, for comparison with CHARLESWORTH's (1990) model, ß from such analyses should be multiplied by 2. Our estimates of ß are measured per pair of mutations, giving the underlying fitness model

so no such correction is required. Making this change where appropriate places our point estimate of ß = 1.1 x 10-4 approximately two orders of magnitude below those from other species, which range from 0.0074 in E. coli (![]()
![]()
![]()
= 0.0088 is also lower than estimates from other species, which range from 0.039 in Aspergillus to 0.090 in FMDV and 0.14 in E. coli. ![]()
= 0.27 for D. melanogaster and ß = 0.0011 and ß/
= 0.11 for D. pseudoobscura, although these are indirect estimates and are not tested statistically. It is important to note that, as for the present result, in all cases where the epistasis effect has been tested statistically, it has been found to be nonsignificant (![]()
![]()
![]()
Significance for mutational hypotheses of sex and recombination:
The mutational deterministic hypothesis for the maintenance of sexual reproduction (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
*sex) relative to that of asexual populations (
*asex). Whether or not a given degree of epistasis can provide an advantage to sex, however, depends upon the mutation rate. ![]()
het, ßhet, and the genomic deleterious mutation rate U. We may use these formulae with our estimates of ß and
, assume that the dominance coefficient h = 0.25, and solve numerically for the value of U*, the mutation rate per genome per generation that gives
*sex > 2
*asex (i.e., the point at which the sexuals overcome the twofold cost of sex).
This calculation also requires an assumption about the origin of the asexual lineage. It has been shown that an asexual population is expected to come into mutation-selection balance with mean fitness
*asex = e-U (![]()
![]()
- 2
) (![]()
*asex = e-U (![]()
![]()
If it is assumed that clonal populations begin with zero mutations (or with the same distribution as the sexual population; i = 0), then the mutation rate per genome per generation must be U
2.8 to maintain sexual reproduction under our point estimates of ß and
, largely independent of the assumed number of mutations in each treatment (Table 6). In contrast, if clonal populations originate from within the distribution of sexual populations (i =
- 2
), mutation rates as low as U =
0.8 can provide an advantage to sexual reproduction, and the advantage to sex actually increases as the degree of epistasis ß/
decreases (Table 6). This counterintuitive pattern is not due to epistasis per se: It is a consequence of very weak selection against individual mutationswhich can result from low
or from low ß. When selection against mutations is weak, sexual populations come into equilibrium with large numbers of mutationsand clones originating from within those populations carry large numbers of mutations (i >> 0). Those clones come into mutation-selection balance with very low fitness and are therefore easily outcompeted by the sexual population. This is a deterministic advantage to sexual reproduction that is based on deleterious mutations, but not dependent upon epistasis among mutations; to our knowledge it has not been pointed out previously. This mechanism has some similarities to Muller's ratchet (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
For considerations of selection for recombination or for the frequency of sex within a sexual population, the situation appears to be at least slightly less complex. In this case, epistasis must be weak relative to the strength of selection for increased recombination to be favored, because strong synergistic epistasis causes an immediate reduction in fitness among recombinant offspring (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
We have shown that the net effect of epistasis on fitness is likely to be very low in C. elegans. These results add to the emerging picture that epistasis between deleterious mutations is very weak across a broad phylogenetic range (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We thank J. Elrick for technical assistance, E. Davies for valuable advice, and B. Charlesworth for helpful discussions. S. A. West, C. M. Lively, B. Charlesworth, S. P. Otto, M. Whitlock, A. Kondrashov, and two anonymous reviewers gave useful comments on previous versions of the manuscript. A.D.P. is funded by a grant from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; P.D.K. is funded by the Royal Society of London.
Manuscript received May 5, 2000; Accepted for publication August 22, 2000.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
ANDERSON, P., 1995 Mutagenesis, pp. 3158 in Caenorhabditis elegans: Modern Biological Analysis of an Organism, edited by H. F. EPSTEIN and D. C. SHAKES. Academic Press, London.
BARNES, T. M., Y. KOHARA, A. COULSON, and S. HEKIMI, 1995 Meiotic recombination, noncoding DNA and genomic organization in Caenorhabditis elegans.. Genetics 141:159-179[Abstract].
BARTON, N. H., 1995 A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genet. Res. 65:123-144[Medline].
BARTON, N. H. and B. CHARLESWORTH, 1998 Why sex and recombination? Science 281:1986-1990
BATAILLON, T., 2000 Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: Whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497-501.
BELL, G., 1982 The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. University of California Press, Berkeley.
CHARLESWORTH, B., 1980 The cost of sex in relation to the mating scheme. J. Theor. Biol. 84:655-671[Medline].
CHARLESWORTH, B., 1990 Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet. Res. 55:199-221[Medline].
CHARLESWORTH, B., 1994 Evolution in Age-Structured Populations, Ed. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
CHARLESWORTH, B., 1998 The effect of synergistic epistasis on the inbreeding load. Genet. Res. 71:85-89[Medline].
CHARLESWORTH, B. and N. H. BARTON, 1996 Recombination load associated with selection for increased recombination. Genet. Res. 67:27-41[Medline].
CROW, J. F., 1970 Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection, pp. 128177 in Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics, edited by K. KOJIMA. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
DAVIES, E. K., A. D. PETERS, and P. D. KEIGHTLEY, 1999 High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans.. Science 285:1748-1751
DE VISSER, J. A. G. M. and R. F. HOEKSTRA, 1998 Synergistic epistasis between loci affecting fitness: evidence in plants and fungi. Genet. Res. 71:39-49.
DE VISSER, J. A. G. M., R. F. HOEKSTRA, and H. VAN DEN ENDE, 1996 The effect of sex and deleterious mutations on fitness in Chlamydomonas.. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 263:193-200.
DE VISSER, J. A. G. M., R. F. HOEKSTRA, and H. VAN DEN ENDE, 1997a An experimental test for synergistic epistasis and its application in Chlamydomonas.. Genetics 145:815-819[Abstract].
DE VISSER, J. A. G. M., R. F. HOEKSTRA, and H. VAN DEN ENDE, 1997b Test of interaction between genetic markers that affect fitness in Aspergillus niger.. Evolution 51:1499-1505.
DRAKE, J. W., B. CHARLESWORTH, D. CHARLESWORTH, and J. F. CROW, 1998 Rates of spontaneous mutation. Genetics 148:1667-1686
ELENA, S. F., 1999 Little evidence for synergism among deleterious mutations in a nonsegmented RNA virus. J. Mol. Evol. 49:703-707[Medline].
ELENA, S. F. and R. E. LENSKI, 1997 Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature 390:395-398[Medline].
ESHEL, I. and M. W. FELDMAN, 1970 On the evolutionary effect of recombination. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1:88-100[Medline].
EYRE-WALKER, A. and P. D. KEIGHTLEY, 1999 High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids. Nature 397:344-347[Medline].
FELDMAN, M. W., F. B. CHRISTIANSEN, and L. D. BROOKS, 1980 Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 77:4838-4841
FELDMAN, M. W., S. P. OTTO, and F. B. CHRISTIANSEN, 1997 Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. Annu. Rev. Genet. 30:261-295[Medline].
FELSENSTEIN, J., 1965 The effect of linkage on directional selection. Genetics 52:349-363
FISHER, R. A., 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
GARCIA-DORADO, A., C. LOPEZ-FANJUL, and A. CABALLERO, 1999 Properties of spontaneous mutations affecting quantitative traits. Genet. Res. 74:341-350[Medline].
HAIGH, J., 1978 The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population: Muller's ratchet. Theor. Popul. Biol. 14:251-267[Medline].
HODGKIN, J., H. R. HORVITZ, and S. BRENNER, 1979 Nondisjunction mutants of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.. Genetics 91:67-94
HOWARD, R. S., 1994 Selection against deleterious mutations and the maintenance of biparental sex. Theor. Popul. Biol. 45:313-323[Medline].
HOWARD, R. S. and C. M. LIVELY, 1994 Parasitism, mutation accumulation and the maintenance of sex. Nature 367:554-557[Medline].
HOWARD, R. S. and C. M. LIVELY, 1998 The maintenance of sex by parasitism and mutation accumulation under epistatic fitness functions. Evolution 52:604-610.
JOHNSON, T., 1999 The approach to mutation-selection balance in an infinite asexual population, and the evolution of mutation rates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 266:2389-2397[Medline].
KEIGHTLEY, P. D., 1996 Nature of deleterious mutation load in Drosophila.. Genetics 144:1993-1999[Abstract].



