- THIS ARTICLE
- Full Text (Rapid PDF)
-
All Versions of this Article:
genetics.105.045252v1
171/3/1377 most recent - 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 Kim, Y.
- Articles by Orr, H. A.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Kim, Y.
- Articles by Orr, H. A.
doi:10.1534/genetics.105.045252
A more recent version of this article appeared on November 1, 2005.
REGULAR RESEARCH PAPERS |
Adaptation in sexuals vs. asexuals: clonal interference and the Fisher-Muller model
Yuseob Kim 1* and H. Allen Orr 1
1 University of Rochester
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ykim{at}mail.rochester.edu.
Submitted on May 5, 2005
Revised on June 7, 2005
Accepted on 14 July 2005
Fisher and Muller's theory that recombination speeds adaptation by eliminating competition among beneficial mutations has proved a popular explanation for the advantage of sex. Recent theoretical studies have attempted to quantify the speed of adaptation under the Fisher-Muller model, partly in an attempt to understand the role of "clonal interference" in microbial experimental evolution. We re-examine adaptation in sexuals versus asexuals using a model of DNA sequence evolution. In this model, a modest number of sites can mutate to beneficial alleles and the fitness effects of these mutations are unequal. We study 1) transition probabilities to different beneficial mutations; 2) waiting times to the first and the last substitutions of beneficial mutations; and 3) trajectories of mean fitness through time. We find that some of these statistics are surprisingly similar between sexuals and asexuals. These results highlight the importance of the choice of substitution model in assessing the Fisher-Muller advantage of sex.
Key Words: adaptation, advantage of sex, beneficial mutation, clonal interference
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S.-C. Park and J. Krug Clonal interference in large populations PNAS, November 13, 2007; 104(46): 18135 - 18140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J. Beisel, D. R. Rokyta, H. A. Wichman, and P. Joyce Testing the Extreme Value Domain of Attraction for Distributions of Beneficial Fitness Effects Genetics, August 1, 2007; 176(4): 2441 - 2449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Desai and D. S. Fisher Beneficial Mutation Selection Balance and the Effect of Linkage on Positive Selection Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1759 - 1798. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Bollback and J. P. Huelsenbeck Clonal Interference Is Alleviated by High Mutation Rates in Large Populations Mol. Biol. Evol., June 1, 2007; 24(6): 1397 - 1406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kopp and J. Hermisson Adaptation of a Quantitative Trait to a Moving Optimum Genetics, May 1, 2007; 176(1): 715 - 719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. F. Crow H. J. Muller and the "competition hoax". Genetics, June 1, 2006; 173(2): 511 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|