Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1995 Sep;141(1):431–437. doi: 10.1093/genetics/141.1.431

Muller's Ratchet, Epistasis and Mutation Effects

D Butcher 1
PMCID: PMC1206738  PMID: 8536988

Abstract

In this study, computer simulation is used to show that despite synergistic epistasis for fitness, Muller's ratchet can lead to lethal fitness loss in a population of asexuals through the accumulation of deleterious mutations. This result contradicts previous work that indicated that epistasis will halt the ratchet. The present results show that epistasis will not halt the ratchet provided that rather than a single deleterious mutation effect, there is a distribution of deleterious mutation effects with sufficient density near zero. In addition to epistasis and mutation distribution, the ability of Muller's ratchet to lead to the extinction of an asexual population under epistasis for fitness depends strongly on the expected number of offspring that survive to reproductive age. This strong dependence is not present in the nonepistatic model and suggests that interpreting the population growth parameter as fecundity is inadequate. Because a continuous distribution of mutation effects is used in this model, an emphasis is placed on the dynamics of the mutation effect distribution rather than on the dynamics of the number of least mutation loaded individuals. This perspective suggests that current models of gene interaction are too simple to apply directly to long-term prediction for populations undergoing the ratchet.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (731.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Felsenstein J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics. 1974 Oct;78(2):737–756. doi: 10.1093/genetics/78.2.737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Kondrashov A. S. Muller's ratchet under epistatic selection. Genetics. 1994 Apr;136(4):1469–1473. doi: 10.1093/genetics/136.4.1469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Lynch M., Bürger R., Butcher D., Gabriel W. The mutational meltdown in asexual populations. J Hered. 1993 Sep-Oct;84(5):339–344. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Mackay T. F., Lyman R. F., Jackson M. S. Effects of P element insertions on quantitative traits in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1992 Feb;130(2):315–332. doi: 10.1093/genetics/130.2.315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mukai T. The Genetic Structure of Natural Populations of DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. VII Synergistic Interaction of Spontaneous Mutant Polygenes Controlling Viability. Genetics. 1969 Mar;61(3):749–761. doi: 10.1093/genetics/61.3.749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Simmons M. J., Crow J. F. Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:49–78. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.11.120177.000405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES