- 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 Wilke, C. O.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Wilke, C. O.
Probability of Fixation of an Advantageous Mutant in a Viral Quasispecies
Claus O. Wilkeaa Digital Life Laboratory, Caltech, Pasadena, California 91125
Corresponding author: Claus O. Wilke, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125., wilke{at}caltech.edu (E-mail)
Communicating editor: M. W. FELDMAN
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
The probability that an advantageous mutant rises to fixation in a viral quasispecies is investigated in the framework of multitype branching processes. Whether fixation is possible depends on the overall growth rate of the quasispecies that will form if invasion is successful rather than on the individual fitness of the invading mutant. The exact fixation probability can be calculated only if the fitnesses of all potential members of the invading quasispecies are known. Quasispecies fixation has two important characteristics: First, a sequence with negative selection coefficient has a positive fixation probability as long as it has the potential to grow into a quasispecies with an overall growth rate that exceeds that of the established quasispecies. Second, the fixation probabilities of sequences with identical fitnesses can nevertheless vary over many orders of magnitudes. Two approximations for the probability of fixation are introduced. Both approximations require only partial knowledge about the potential members of the invading quasispecies. The performance of these two approximations is compared to the exact fixation probability on a network of RNA sequences with identical secondary structure.
ONE of the most remarkable aspects of the dynamics of RNA viruses is the high rate at which mutant variants are produced. At mutation rates close to one substitution per genome per generation (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The problem of the fixation of an advantageous mutant is an old one, with a long history of investigations in classical population genetics, reaching back to Haldane and Fisher (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Quasispecies theory in its original formulation by ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, we derive a general expression for the probability of fixation in an arbitrary fitness landscape. Then, we discuss the special case of fixation on a neutral network, that is, the case in which all sequences of the invading quasispecies have the same fitness, and derive two approximations for the fixation probability that can be evaluated without the knowledge of the full-fitness landscape. To give a concrete example, we apply both the exact expression and the approximations to a known network of >50,000 RNA sequences. For this neutral network, we also discuss how the fixation probability changes if multiple sequences invade at the same time.
| THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK |
|---|
For a population evolving under high mutational pressure, we have to understand fixation in the sense that a mutant is fixed once it has become a common ancestor of the whole population. The more traditional definition of fixation, which is to regard a mutation as fixed if all sequences in the population carry it, is not applicable: The mutational pressure constantly creates new deleterious mutants, which may not carry a particular mutation although their ancestors did so. If we understand fixation as the process by which a mutant becomes a common ancestor of the whole population, then the probability that a mutant is fixed is given by the probability that the cascade of further mutated offspring of the invading mutant does not come to a halt. We can calculate this probability from the theory of multitype branching processes.
The general setting to which our theory applies is as follows. Consider a viral quasispecies in mutation-selection balance, with an average fitness
w
. If generations are discrete and nonoverlapping, and the population size N is constant, then the probability that a virion i produces k offspring in one generation is given by Wright-Fisher sampling,
![]() |
(1) |
with
, where wi is the fitness of virion i.
Assume that a rare mutation leads to the emergence of a virion with the potential to form a new quasispecies and to replace the already established one in the process. This new quasispecies (in the following also called the invading quasispecies) may consist of sequences of type 1, 2, ... , n, with replication rates wi. Let the probability that a sequence j produces an erroneous copy i be given by Qij. As long as the total abundance of the invading quasispecies is small compared to the established quasispecies, we can assume that
w
is not affected by the presence of the invading quasispecies. Then, the probability that a single sequence of type i generates (k1, ... , kn) offspring of types 1, ... , n can be expressed as
![]() |
(2) |
(see Appendix), with
. The matrix elements Mij give the expected number of offspring of type j from sequences of type i in one generation. In the following, we assume that the population size is so large that we can approximate P(k1, ... , kn|i) by its limit for an infinitely large population. This limit is a multivariate Poisson distribution:
![]() |
(3) |
By using the theory of branching processes and by assuming an infinite population size in Equation 3, we restrict the applicability of our theory to certain scenarios. We can apply our theory only to those types of fixation events that increase the average fitness of the population. The situation of genetic drift, whereby a neutral or deleterious mutant is fixed because of stochastic fluctuations in a small population (![]()
![]()
Let xi be the probability that the offspring cascade spawned by a sequence i goes extinct after a finite number of generations. From the theory of multitype branching processes (![]()
![]() |
(4) |
After inserting Equation 3 into Equation 4, we obtain
. With the convention
we can rewrite this expression as
![]() |
(5) |
Since the probability of fixation
i of a sequence i is given by the probability that the offspring cascade spawned by i does not go extinct, we have
. The vector of fixation probabilities satisfies therefore
. With Equation 5, we find
![]() |
(6) |
This equation has exactly one solution with 0 <
i < 1 for all i if the spectral radius
M of M > 1 (![]()
i = 0 for all i.
To compare Equation 6 to the result of ![]()
![]() |
(7) |
With
, this simplifies to
![]() |
(8) |
If si > 0 and all off-diagonal elements of M are 0, then Equation 8 reduces to Haldane's result
i = 2si; that is, the fixation probability of a sequence is twice its selective advantage. If the off-diagonal elements are nonzero, then the fixation probability is increased, because the invading sequence gets support from its mutational neighbors. In particular, even if some si < 0, the corresponding
i are positive as long as
M > 1. This means that in quasispecies fixation, sequences that by themselves reproduce too slowly to outcompete the currently established quasispecies can nevertheless found a new quasispecies that grows fast enough to overtake the population.
For simplicity, we have considered only discrete, nonoverlapping generations. Generalization to continuous time is straightforward (see, e.g., ![]()
![]()
is again determined by an equation of the form
. However, the generating function f(z) is in general not given by Equation 5. Its functional form depends on the details of the continuous-time process that is being modeled. For example, if reproduction occurs through binary fission, f(z) will be quadratic in the variables z1, ... , zn.
| FIXATION ON A NEUTRAL NETWORK |
|---|
Exact expressions and estimates:
So far, we have made no assumptions about the structure and fitness distribution of the invading quasispecies. This has led to a general equation for the vector of fixation probabilities
, but not much further analysis is possible without a concrete model for the fitness landscape of the invading quasispecies (we do not have to make any further assumptions about the established quasispecies, since it enters the equations only through its average fitness
w
). The concrete fitness landscape we study is that of a neutral network (![]()
![]()
. All sequences that are not part of the neutral network are assumed to have a vanishing replication rate. Mutations occur as random substitutions of single bases, and we allow for at most one substitution per replication event, similar to the approach of ![]()
![]()
We denote the sequence length by L and the number of different bases by
(
= 4 for RNA/DNA). For the matrix M, we have to take into account only the sequences belonging to the neutral network. It is useful to introduce the connection graph G = (Gij). The elements Gij are 1 if and only if two sequences i and j are exactly one mutation apart. In all other cases, Gij = 0. We can express M in terms of G as
![]() |
(9) |
where
, and 1 is the identity matrix. We restrict our analysis to primitive connection graphs, in which case the spectral radius
G of G is given by the unique positive eigenvalue of largest modulus of G (![]()
G may exist if G is not primitive. Irreducible undirected connection graphs of the kind we are considering here are primitive if they contain at least one cycle of odd length.)
The spectral radius of M is given in terms of the spectral radius of the connection graph
G as
![]() |
(10) |
This implies that fixation can occur as long as s is not smaller than -ß
G.
In an experimental setting, we cannot expect to have knowledge of the complete connection graph G. Therefore, it is important to have approximations for the fixation probability
i. We consider two alternative methods. Both are based on replacing the matrix M in Equation 6 by a suitable diagonal matrix. This replacement leads to a decoupling of the equations for different
i.
The quantity that is easiest to obtain experimentally is the growth rate of the invading quasispecies relative to the established quasispecies, when initially both are present in large and equal amounts. From the definition of M, we see that this relative growth rate corresponds to the spectral radius
M of M. If we assume that every mutant present in the invading quasispecies has an expectation of
M offspring per generation, then we can replace M in Equation 6 with a matrix that has entries
M on the diagonal, while all off-diagonal elements are zero. Then, Equation 6 simplifies to
for all i. Clearly, this approximation will overestimate the
i for some mutants (mostly those that produce on average <
M offspring) and underestimate it for others (mostly those that produce on average >
M offspring). In the following, we refer to this estimate as the deterministic growth estimate, because it is based on the assumption that the invading quasispecies grows according to the deterministic equations from the outset.
The alternative method of estimating
i is as follows. It is reasonable to assume that the first couple of replication cycles mostly determine fixation or extinction for an invading sequence. During these initial generations, the subpopulation descending from the invading sequence cannot explore the full neutral network if the network is large. Therefore, the major contribution to the fixation probability comes from the connection matrix of the local genetic neighborhood of the invading sequence, and sequences farther away on the neutral network are relatively unimportant. The idea behind the second approximation is therefore to calculate the fixation probability on the basis of a small area of genotype space surrounding the invading sequence. In the simplest case, we consider only the invading sequence and its immediate mutational neighbors. Assume sequence i has
i neutral neighbors, i.e.,
. Then the total expected number of offspring of sequence i is
. Under the assumption that all offspring of i have the same expected number of further offspring, the probability of fixation satisfies the equation
We call the solution to this equation the neutrality estimate. As in the case of the deterministic growth estimate, it will overestimate the true fixation probability for some sequences and underestimate it for others.
Fixation on an RNA neutral network:
We compared the two estimates to the exact fixation probabilities on a neutral network of RNA sequences. The network of 51,028 sequences of length L = 18 was found through exhaustive enumeration by ![]()
G = 15.7. To calculate fixation probabilities on this neutral network, we have to make an assumption about the average fitness
w
of the established quasispecies. We assume
, in which case the relative growth rate of the invading quasispecies (at macroscopic concentration) with respect to the established quasispecies follows from Equation 10 as
M =
, independent of the mutation rate.
Fig 1 displays the exact fixation probabilities (obtained numerically from Equation 6) and the two estimates as functions of the mutation rate. We have shown the average fixation probability
the minimum probability
, and the maximum probability
. Since we chose
w
such that
M is independent of µ, the deterministic growth estimate is independent of µ. We observe that the deterministic growth estimate lies consistently above the average
, but below the maximum
max. The neutrality estimate underestimates the smallest fixation probabilities and overestimates the largest ones. Its average lies slightly below
for small mutation rates and above
for large mutation rates. A more detailed plot of the fixation probabilities at a fixed mutation rate of µ = 0.5 is given in Fig 2. There, we display the fixation probability vs. the neutrality (number of neutral neighbors) of the invading sequence. The spread in the fixation probabilities is remarkable. For sequences with a given neutrality, the fixation probabilities vary over up to seven orders of magnitude. This demonstrates the important influence of not only the nearest neighbors but also the wider genetic neighborhood on the fate of a single sequence in quasispecies evolution. The neutrality estimate substantially underestimates the fixation probabilities of those sequences that have only few immediate neutral neighbors, but are otherwise located in a region of the genotype space where the density of neutral sequences is high. In principle, we could improve the neutrality estimate by taking into account all neutral sequences up to some distance d, but in practice this method becomes quickly as unwieldy as calculating the exact fixation probabilities.
|
|
Multiple invading sequences:
The above considerations address only the case of a single invading sequence. The generalization to more than one invading sequence is straightforward. Assume that a set S of N sequences, with S = {i1, ... , iN}, invades an established quasispecies. The probability that this invasion is successful is given by 1 -
i
S(1 -
i), where
i are the fixation probabilities of the individual sequences. The probability of successful invasion of N sequences can be used as an indicator for the population size at which the deterministic quasispecies equations capture the relevant dynamics of a finite population. The fluctuations distinguishing the stochastic process of a finite population from the deterministic description can be neglected if the invasion probability is close to one. In Fig 3, the fixation probability on the same neutral network of RNA sequences that we have used before is displayed against the size of the invading population. The individual data points are averaged over 1000 independent trials, where for each trial the N starting sequences were chosen at random. As before,
w
is chosen such that
is the average number of offspring of the invading quasispecies in the deterministic limit.
|
Fig 3 shows that the population need not cover the relevant sequence space to behave as predicted by the deterministic equations. On a neutral network of >50,000 sequences, a population of
1000 behaves deterministically at an advantage in growth rate of only 1%. It is important to note that this advantage has been calculated under the assumption of an infinite population and that sufficiently small populations will grow substantially slower (![]()
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
The exact expression for the probability of fixation in the quasispecies context is easy to evaluate numerically if the fitnesses of all relevant sequences are known. However, these data are normally not available for experimental systems, and approximations must be used. What is most easily available experimentally is the relative rate of growth of the two quasispecies at macroscopic concentrations, which is the basis of the deterministic growth estimate. Since this estimate gives only a single number, independently of the sequence actually seeding the invading quasispecies, it does not reflect local variations in the density of viable sequences around the invading sequence. The neutrality estimate does not suffer from this shortcoming. However, it requires the knowledge of the fitnesses of the immediate neighbors of the invading sequence. Although experimentally tedious, these fitnesses can be measured in principle. For example, ![]()
The predictive power of both the deterministic growth estimate and the neutrality estimate depends strongly on the distribution of neutral sequences in sequence space. For example, both estimates become exact for the case of a uniform neutral lattice, in which all sequences have exactly the same neutrality. Furthermore, we expect the neutrality estimate to perform particularly well in networks in which a sequence's neutrality is strongly correlated to the neutralities of its immediate and more distant neutral neighbors. The deterministic growth estimate, on the other hand, will yield the best results if the neutral network does not decompose into areas that are substantially more densely or less densely connected than other areas. However, to what extent these conditions are met in natural systems is questionable. As we have seen in this article, the connection graph of a comparatively simple neutral networkconsisting of RNA sequences that are only 18 bp longis already so heterogeneous that both estimates fail to give an accurate prediction of the fixation probability for a substantial fraction of sequences on that network. It is reasonable to assume that the distribution of high-fitness sequences in sequence space for an RNA virus that consists of several thousand bases is at least as heterogeneous as the one in our toy RNA network, probably more so.
In this work, we have considered only the fate of a single invading quasispecies. However, while an invading quasispecies is moving toward fixation or extinction, another mutant, one that belongs to a quasispecies of even higher mean fitness, may appear. The fixation probability of the first invader will then be modulated by the dynamics of the second one and vice versa, an effect commonly referred to as "clonal interference" (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The approach we have followed in this work cannot be directly generalized to include clonal interference, because the assumption of a constant background average fitness
w
is not justified in the context of two (or more) competing branching processes. A second problem that we have to solve in a theory of quasispecies clonal interference is the identification of advantageous mutants. Throughout this article, we have used the definition that an advantageous mutant is one that can grow into a quasispecies with higher average fitness than that of the currently established quasispecies. To use this definition in the context of clonal interference, we need to have a priori knowledge about how to best subdivide the sequence space into independent quasispecies. Only with this knowledge can we decide whether a particular new mutant is part of the parent quasispecies or rather the founding member of a new quasispecies. A possible way to study clonal interference in future work will be to consider a particular fitness landscapefor example, a set of intertwined neutral networks at different fitness levelsfor which the a priori separation into distinct quasispecies is possible. For such a landscape, numerical studies of clonal interference will be straightforward, and an analytic description should be possible as well. For landscapes that are a priori unknown, even the numerical investigation of clonal interference will remain difficult until a workable method for the identification of advantageous mutants has been found.
Recently, ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
2 test, they were not in agreement according to a nonparametric test based on how often the data points fell above or below the predicted value.)
The probability of fixation of advantageous mutants is obviously of tremendous importance for disease dynamics and vaccines. For example, live vaccinces of attenuated poliovirus can contain small amounts of virulent poliovirus variants (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
I thank C. Adami for extensive discussions and encouragement and E. C. Holmes for commenting on an earlier version of this manuscript. Moreover, I thank M. Huynen for providing the neutral network data from ![]()
Manuscript received June 3, 2002; Accepted for publication November 1, 2002.
| APPENDIX |
|---|
We consider a model with discrete, nonoverlapping generations and a constant population size N. Under the assumption that the reproductive success of a sequence i is proportional to its fitness wi, the probability that a randomly chosen sequence in the next generation is offspring of sequence i is given by
, where
w
is the average fitness in the population. Since there are N sequences in the population, the probability that k of them are offspring of sequence i is binomial,
Now consider a sequence of type r in the offspring generation. For the probability that the parent of sequence r is a particular sequence i of the previous generation, we find
, because only a fraction Qri of the total offspring of i will be of type r. Following the previous argument, we find for the probability that sequence i leaves kr offspring of type r:
We can extend the above argument to sequences of two types, r and s. The probability that sequence i leaves kr offspring sequences of type r and ks offspring sequences of type s is the probability that kr offspring are of type r,
krr, times the probability that ks offspring are of type s,
kss, times the probability that the remaining offspring either are of different types or have different parent sequences, (1 -
r -
s)N-kr-ks, times the number of possible ways in which kr and ks sequences can be chosen out of the total of N sequences in the population. This latter number is a multinomial coefficient, N!/[kr!ks!(N - kr - ks)!]. Putting everything together, we find
![]() |
(A1) |
By repeating this argument for n different sequence types, and with the definition Mij := N
j = wiQji/
w
, we arrive at Equation 3.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
BARTON, N. H., 1995 Linkage and the limits to natural selection. Genetics 140:821-841.[Abstract]
BIEBRICHER, C. K. and R. LUCE, 1993 Sequence analysis of RNA species synthesized by Qß replicase without template. Biochemistry 32:4848-4854.[Medline]
BORNBERG-BAUER, E., 1997 How are model protein structures distributed in sequence space? Biophys. J. 73:2393-2403.
BURCH, C. L. and L. CHAO, 2000 Evolvability of an RNA virus is determined by its mutational neighbourhood. Nature 406:625-628.[Medline]
BÜRGER, R. and W. J. EWENS, 1995 Fixation probabilities of additive alleles in diploid populations. J. Math. Biol. 33:557-575.
CHUMAKOV, K. M., L. B. POWERS, K. E. NOONAN, I. B. RONINSON, and I. S. LEVENBOOK, 1991 Correlation between amount of virus with altered nucleotide sequence and the monkey test for acceptability of oral poliovirus vaccine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88:199-203.
DE LA TORRE, J. C. and J. J. HOLLAND, 1990 RNA virus quasispecies populations can suppress vastly superior mutant progeny. J. Virol. 64:6278-6281.
DE VISSER, J. A. G. M., C. W. ZEYL, P. J. GERRISH, J. L. BLANCHARD, and R. E. LENSKI, 1999 Diminishing returns from mutation supply rate in asexual populations. Science 283:404-406.
DEMETRIUS, L., P. SCHUSTER, and K. SIGMUND, 1985 Polynucleotide evolution and branching processes. Bull. Math. Biol. 47:239-262.[Medline]
DOMINGO, E., 2002 Quasispecies theory in virology. J. Virol. 76:463-465.
DOMINGO, E. and J. J. HOLLAND, 1997 RNA virus mutations and fitness for survival. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 51:151-178.[Medline]
DOMINGO, E., R. A. FLAVELL, and C. WEISSMANN, 1976 In vitro site directed mutagenesis: generation and properties of an infectious extracistronic mutant of bacteriophage Qß.. Gene 1:3-25.[Medline]
DOMINGO, E., D. SABO, T. TANIGUCHI, and C. WEISSMANN, 1978 Nucleotide sequence heterogeneity of an RNA phage population. Cell 13:735-744.[Medline]
DOMINGO, E., C. K. BIEBRICHER, M. EIGEN and J. J. HOLLAND, 2001 Quasispecies and RNA Virus Evolution: Principles and Consequences. Landes Bioscience, Georgetown, TX.
DRAKE, J. W., 1993 Rates of spontaneous mutation among RNA viruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90:4171-4175.
DRAKE, J. W. and J. J. HOLLAND, 1999 Mutation rates among RNA viruses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:13910-13913.
EIGEN, M., and P. SCHUSTER, 1979 The Hypercycle: A Principle of Natural Self-Organization. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
ELENA, S. F. and R. E. LENSKI, 1997 Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature 390:395-398.[Medline]
EWENS, W. J., 1967 The probability of fixation of a mutant: the two-locus case. Evolution 21:532-540.
FISHER, R. A., 1922 On the dominance ratio. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 42:321-341.
FISHER, R. A., 1930 The distribution of gene ratios for rare mutations. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 50:204-219.
GERRISH, P. J. and R. E. LENSKI, 1998 The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102(103):127-144.
HALDANE, J. B. S., 1927 A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part V: selection and mutation. Proc. Camp. Philos. Soc. 23:838-844.
HARRIS, T. E., 1963 The Theory of Branching Processes. Springer, Berlin.
HERMISSON, J., O. REDNER, H. WAGNER, and E. BAAKE, 2002 Mutation-selection balance: ancestry, load, and maximum principle. Theor. Popul. Biol. 62:9-46.[Medline]
HOFBAUER, J., and K. SIGMUND, 1988 The Theory of Evolution and Dynamical Systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
HOLLAND, J., K. SPINDLER, F. HORODYSKI, E. GRABAU, and S. NICHOL et al., 1982 Rapid evolution of RNA genomes. Science 215:1577-1585.
HOLMES, E. C. and A. MOYA, 2002 Is the quasispecies concept relevant to RNA viruses? J. Virol. 76:460-462.
HUYNEN, M. A., P. F. STADLER, and W. FONTANA, 1996 Smoothness within ruggedness: the role of neutrality in adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:397-401.
JENKINS, G. M., M. WOROBEY, C. H. WOELK, and E. C. HOLMES, 2001 Evidence for the non-quasispecies evolution of RNA viruses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:987-994.
KIMURA, M., 1957 Some problems of stochastic processes in genetics. Ann. Math. Stat. 28:882-901.
KIMURA, M., 1964 Diffusion models in population genetics. J. Appl. Prob. 1:177-232.
KIMURA, M., 1970 The length of time required for a selectively neutral mutant to reach fixation through random frequency drift in a finite population. Genet. Res. 15:131-133.[Medline]
KIMURA, M. and J. L. KING, 1979 Fixation of a deleterious allele at one of two "duplicate" loci by mutation pressure and random drift. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76:2858-2861.
KRAKAUER, D. C. and J. B. PLOTKIN, 2002 Redundancy, antiredundancy, and the robustness of genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1405-1409.
MIRALLES, R., P. J. GERRISH, A. MOYA, and S. F. ELENA, 1999 Clonal interference and the evolution of RNA viruses. Science 285:1745-1747.
MIRALLES, R., A. MOYA, and S. F. ELENA, 2000 Diminishing returns of population size in the rate of RNA virus adaptation. J. Virol. 74:3566-3571.
NOWAK, M. A., 1992 What is a quasispecies? TREE 7:118-121.
OTTO, S. P. and N. H. BARTON, 1997 The evolution of recombination: removing the limits to natural selection. Genetics 147:879-906.[Abstract]
POLLAK, E., 2000 Fixation probabilities when the population size undergoes cyclic fluctuations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 57:51-58.[Medline]
SCHUSTER, P. and J. SWETINA, 1988 Stationary mutant distributions and evolutionary optimization. Bull. Math. Biol. 50:635-660.[Medline]
STEINHAUER, D. A., J. C. DE LA TORRE, E. MEIER, and J. J. HOLLAND, 1989 Extreme heterogeneity in populations of vesicular stomatitis virus. J. Virol. 63:2072-2080.
TENG, M. N., M. B. A. OLDSTONE, and J. C. DE LA TORRE, 1996 Suppression of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virusinduced growth hormone deficiency syndrome by disease-negative virus variants. Virology 223:113-119.[Medline]
VAN NIMWEGEN, E., J. P. CRUTCHFIELD, and M. HUYNEN, 1999 Neutral evolution of mutational robustness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:9716-9720.
VARGA, R. S., 2000 Matrix Iterative Analysis, Ed. 2. Springer-Verlag, New York.
WILKE, C. O., 2001a Adaptive evolution on neutral networks. Bull. Math. Biol. 63:715-730.[Medline]
WILKE, C. O., 2001b Selection for fitness versus selection for robustness in RNA secondary structure folding. Evolution 55:2412-2420.[Medline]
WILKE, C. O., J. L. WANG, C. OFRIA, R. E. LENSKI, and C. ADAMI, 2001 Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rate leads to survival of the flattest. Nature 412:331-333.[Medline]
| NOTE ADDED IN PROOF |
|---|
After acceptance of this manuscript, I became aware of a recent paper by T. JOHNSON and N. H. BARTON (2002, The effect of deleterious alleles on adaptation in asexual populations. Genetics 162: 395411). Using the theory of multitype branching processes, Johnson and Barton studied in this article the probability of fixation of a mutant that suffers additional deleterious mutations while going to fixation.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
Z. Patwa and L. M. Wahl Fixation Probability for Lytic Viruses: The Attachment-Lysis Model Genetics, September 1, 2008; 180(1): 459 - 470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. E. Hubbarde, G. Wild, and L. M. Wahl Fixation Probabilities When Generation Times Are Variable: The Burst Death Model Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1703 - 1712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. R. Bailey, A. R. Sedaghat, T. Kieffer, T. Brennan, P. K. Lee, M. Wind-Rotolo, C. M. Haggerty, A. R. Kamireddi, Y. Liu, J. Lee, et al. Residual Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Viremia in Some Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy Is Dominated by a Small Number of Invariant Clones Rarely Found in Circulating CD4+ T Cells. J. Virol., July 1, 2006; 80(13): 6441 - 6457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. O. Wilke The Speed of Adaptation in Large Asexual Populations Genetics, August 1, 2004; 167(4): 2045 - 2053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
- 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 Wilke, C. O.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Wilke, C. O.















