- THIS ARTICLE
- 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 Pearce, G. P.
- Articles by Spencer, H. G.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Pearce, G. P.
- Articles by Spencer, H. G.
Genetics, Vol 130, 899-907, Copyright © 1992
INVESTIGATIONS |
Population Genetic Models of Genomic Imprinting
G. P. Pearce and H. G. Spencer
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
The phenomenon of genomic imprinting has recently excited much interest among experimental biologists. The population genetic consequences of imprinting, however, have remained largely unexplored. Several population genetic models are presented and the following conclusions drawn: (i) systems with genomic imprinting need not behave similarly to otherwise identical systems without imprinting; (ii) nevertheless, many of the models investigated can be shown to be formally equivalent to models without imprinting; (iii) consequently, imprinting often cannot be discovered by following allele frequency changes or examining equilibrium values; (iv) the formal equivalences fail to preserve some well known properties. For example, for populations incorporating genomic imprinting, parameter values exist that cause these populations to behave like populations without imprinting, but with heterozygote advantage, even though no such advantage is present in these imprinting populations. We call this last phenomenon ``pseudoheterosis.'' The imprinting systems that fail to be formally equivalent to nonimprinting systems are those in which males and females are not equivalent, i.e., two-sex viability systems and sex-chromosome inactivation.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  M. M. Patten and D. Haig Reciprocally Imprinted Genes and the Response to Selection on One Sex Genetics, July 1, 2008; 179(3): 1389 - 1394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hager, J. M. Cheverud, and J. B. Wolf Maternal Effects as the Cause of Parent-of-Origin Effects That Mimic Genomic Imprinting Genetics, March 1, 2008; 178(3): 1755 - 1762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Van Cleve and M. W. Feldman Sex-Specific Viability, Sex Linkage and Dominance in Genomic Imprinting Genetics, June 1, 2007; 176(2): 1101 - 1118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. G. Spencer, T. Dorn, and T. LoFaro Population Models of Genomic Imprinting. II. Maternal and Fertility Selection Genetics, August 1, 2006; 173(4): 2391 - 2398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Ubeda and D. Haig On the Evolutionary Stability of Mendelian Segregation Genetics, July 1, 2005; 170(3): 1345 - 1357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Ubeda and D. Haig Sex-Specific Meiotic Drive and Selection at an Imprinted Locus Genetics, August 1, 2004; 167(4): 2083 - 2095. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. G. Spencer The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Genomic Imprinting Genetics, May 1, 2002; 161(1): 411 - 417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. E. Anderson and H. G. Spencer Population Models of Genomic Imprinting. I. Differential Viability in the Sexes and the Analogy With Genetic Dominance Genetics, December 1, 1999; 153(4): 1949 - 1958. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. G. Spencer, M. W. Feldman, and A. G. Clark Genetic Conflicts, Multiple Paternity and the Evolution of Genomic Imprinting Genetics, February 1, 1998; 148(2): 893 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|