Mitochondrial bioenergetics plays a key role in multiple basic cellular processes, such as energy production, nucleotide biosynthesis, and iron metabolism. It is an essential system for animals' life and death (apoptosis) and it is required for embryo development. This, in conjunction with its being subjected to adaptive processes in multiple species and its gene products being involved in the formation of reproductive barriers in animals, raises the possibility that mitochondrial bioenergetics could be a candidate genetic mechanism of speciation. Here, we (...) discuss genetic and biochemical evidence for the possible involvement of this unique system, encoded by two genomes (the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes), that differ by an order of magnitude in their mutation rates in processes leading to speciation events. (shrink)

A founder event occurs when a new population is established from a small number of individuals drawn from a large ancestral population. Mayr proposed that genetic drift in an isolated founder population could alter the selective forces in an epistatic system, an observation supported by recent studies. Carson argued that a period of relaxed selection could occur when a founder population is in an open ecological niche, allowing rapid population growth after the founder event. Selectable genetic variation can actually increase (...) during this founder‐flush phase due to recombination, enhanced survival of advantageous mutations, and the conversion of non‐additive genetic variance into additive variance in an epistatic system, another empirically confirmed prediction. Templeton combined the theories of Mayr and Carson with population genetic models to predict the conditions under which founder events can contribute to speciation, and these predictions are strongly confirmed by the empirical literature. Much of the criticism of founder speciation is based upon equating founder speciation to an adaptive peak shift opposed by selection. However, Mayr, Carson and Templeton all modeled a positive interaction of selection and drift, and Templeton showed that founder speciation is incompatible with peak‐shift conditions. Although rare, founder speciation can have a disproportionate importance in adaptive innovation and radiation, and examples are given to show that “rare” does not mean “unimportant” in evolution. Founder speciation also interacts with other speciation mechanisms such that a speciation event is not a one‐dimensional process due to either selection alone or drift alone. BioEssays 30:470–479, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

The ArgumentMany associations have recently been discovered between phenotypic variation and genetic loci, causing some to advocate what Robert Sinsheimer has called “a new eugenics” that would treat genetic “defects” in individuals prone to a disease. The first premise of this vision is that genetic association studies reveal the biological cause of the phenotypic variation. Once the responsible genes are known, the second premise is that we should focus upon changing “nature” rather than “nurture” by correcting the “defective” genes.The first (...) premise is flawed because associations between genetic markers and phenotypes can be spurious, as shown by an example. Moreover, it is shown that using non-causative but associated genetic markers one at a time (the normal practice) can lead to incorrect predictions of disease risk for many individuals. Going from association to causation is a non-trivial step scientifically that has rarely been done in much of the human genetic research.Even when a particular locus does contribute to the phenotypic variation of interest, the first premise remains flawed because phenotypes in general arise from complex interactions among genes and between genes and environments as shown for genes associations with coronary artery disease (CAD). The ability of current molecular genetic tools to “fix” defective genotypes is extremely limited, but even if the technological problems could be overcome, the studies on CAD reveal no obvious “defective” gene to fix because the genetic effects are so context dependent (upon both other genes and environmental factors). Contrary to the second premise of the new eugenics, the more we learn about how different genotypes show variable responses to environments, themoreimportant the environment becomes for individual treatment.The paradigm of a “defective gene” may work for classical Mendelian genetic diseases that are due to loss-of-function mutations. However, such mutations affect only a small portion of humanity. When the focus is changed to common disease and behavioral phenotypes, the “defective gene” paradigm is biologically meaningless and often harmful when applied to individuals. Thus, even when genes clearly do influence common phenotypic variation, the premises of the “new eugenics” are biologically indefensible. (shrink)