Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (9):498-504 (2001)
|Abstract||Although epistasis is at the center of the Fisher-Wright debate, biologists not involved in the controversy are often unaware that there are actually two different formal definitions of epistasis. We compare concepts of genetic independence in the two theoretical traditions of evolutionary genetics, population genetics and quantitative genetics, and show how independence of gene action (represented by the multiplicative model of population genetics) can be different from the absence of gene interaction (represented by the linear additive model of quantitative genetics). The two formulations converge with weak selection but not with strong selection or, for multiple loci, when the aggregated interaction terms are not negligible. As a result of the different formulations of gene interaction, the presence or absence of linkage disequilibrium,/D/, does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of fitness epistasis. Indeed, linkage disequilibrium is generated in ‘additive’ models in quantitative genetics whenever two (or more) loci experience simultaneous selection. As a research strategy, it is often practical, for theoretical or experimental reasons, to minimize gene interaction by assuming independence of gene action in regard to fitness, or by assuming linear additive effects of multiple loci on a phenotype. However, minimizing the role of epistasis in theoretical investigations hinders our understanding of the origins of diversity and the evolution of complex phenotypes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Massimo Pigliucci & Carl D. Schlichting (1997). On the Limits of Quantitative Genetics for the Study of Phenotypic Evolution. Acta Biotheoretica 45 (2):143-160.
Carl Schlichting & Massimo Pigliucci (1995). Gene Regulation, Quantitative Genetics and the Evolution of Reaction Norms. Evolutionary Ecology 9:154-168.
Willem de Winter (1997). The Beanbag Genetics Controversy: Towards a Synthesis of Opposing Views of Natural Selection. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (2):149-184.
Paul E. Griffiths & Karola Stotz (2006). Genes in the Postgenomic Era. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27 (6):499-521.
Roberta L. Millstein & Robert A. Skipper (2007). Population Genetics. In David L. Hull & Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Peter J. Taylor (2012). A Gene-Free Formulation of Classical Quantitative Genetics Used to Examine Results and Interpretations Under Three Standard Assumptions. Acta Biotheoretica 60 (4):357-378.
Massimo Pigliucci (2006). Genetic Variance–Covariance Matrices: A Critique of the Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics Research Program. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 21 (1):1-23.
Peter J. Beurton, Raphael Falk & Hans-Jörg Rheinberger (eds.) (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Jordan Bartol (2013). Re-Examining the Gene in Personalized Genomics. Science and Education 22 (10):2529-2546.
John Stewart (2002). Genetics, Biology and Multifactorial Diseases. Acta Biotheoretica 50 (4).
Paul Griffiths & James Tabery, Behavioral Genetics and Development: Historical and Conceptual Causes of Controversy.
Thomas Fogle (1990). Are Genes Units of Inheritance? Biology and Philosophy 5 (3):349-371.
Peter Godfrey-Smith (1992). Additivity and the Units of Selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:315 - 328.
Added to index2011-07-04
Total downloads54 ( #22,473 of 722,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)35 ( #3,228 of 722,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?