Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations

Abstract

Sex and recombination are widespread, but explaining these phenomena has been one of the most difficult problems in evolutionary biology. Recombination is advantageous when different individuals in a population carry different advantageous alleles1,2. By bringing together advantageous alleles onto the same chromosome, recombination speeds up the process of adaptation1,3,4,5 and opposes the fixation of harmful mutations by means of Muller's ratchet4,5. Nevertheless, adaptive substitutions favour sex and recombination only if the rate of adaptive mutation is high1,6, and Muller's ratchet operates only in small or asexual populations7. Here, by tracking the fate of modifier alleles that alter the frequency of sex and recombination, we show that background selection against deleterious mutant alleles provides a stochastic advantage to sex and recombination that increases with population size. The advantage arises because, with low levels of recombination, selection at other loci severely reduces the effective population size and genetic variance in fitness at a focal locus8 (the Hill–Robertson effect), making a population less able to respond to selection and to rid itself of deleterious mutations. Sex and recombination reveal the hidden genetic variance in fitness by combining chromosomes of intermediate fitness to create chromosomes that are relatively free of (or are loaded with) deleterious mutations. This increase in genetic variance within finite populations improves the response to selection and generates a substantial advantage to sex and recombination that is fairly insensitive to the form of epistatic interactions between deleterious alleles. The mechanism supported by our results offers a robust and broadly applicable explanation for the evolutionary advantage of recombination and can explain the spread of costly sex.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Effect of model parameters on flux of modifiers of recombination.
Figure 2: Effect of model parameters on flux of modifiers of sex.
Figure 3: Effect of background selection on effective population size.
Figure 4: The long-term evolution of recombination allowing recurrent mutation at modifier loci.

References

  1. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1930)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Felsenstein, J. & Yokoyama, S. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. II. Individual selection for recombination. Genetics 83, 845–859 (1976)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Morgan, T. H. Heredity and Sex (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 1913)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Muller, H. J. Some genetic aspects of sex. Am. Nat. 66, 118–138 (1932)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Felsenstein, J. The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78, 737–756 (1974)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Barton, N. H. & Otto, S. P. Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169, 2353–2370 (2005)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lynch, M., Conery, J. & Bürger, R. Mutational meltdowns in sexual populations. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 49, 1067–1080 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. The effects of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 8, 269–294 (1966)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bell, G. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Felsenstein, J. The effect of linkage on directional selection. Genetics 52, 349–363 (1965)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bürger, R. Evolution of genetic variability and the advantage of sex and recombination in changing environments. Genetics 153, 1055–1069 (1999)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Otto, S. P. & Barton, N. H. Selection for recombination in small populations. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 55, 1921–1931 (2001)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin, G., Otto, S. P. & Lenormand, T. Selection for recombination in structured populations. Genetics 172, 593–609 (2006)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Iles, M. M., Walters, K. & Cannings, C. Recombination can evolve in large finite populations given selection on sufficient loci. Genetics 165, 333–337 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bierne, N. & Eyre-Walker, A. The genomic rate of adaptive amino acid substitution in Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 21, 1350–1360 (2004)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437, 69–87 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barton, N. H. A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genet. Res. 65, 123–144 (1995)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Otto, S. P. & Feldman, M. W. Deleterious mutations, variable epistatic interactions, and the evolution of recombination. Theor. Popul. Biol. 51, 134–147 (1997)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Otto, S. P. & Nuismer, S. Species interactions and the evolution of sex. Science 304, 1018–1020 (2004)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rice, W. R. Experimental tests of the adaptive significance of sexual recombination. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 241–251 (2002)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keightley, P. D. & Eyre-Walker, A. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sex. Science 290, 331–333 (2000)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Denver, D. R., Morris, K., Lynch, M. & Thomas, W. K. High mutation rate and predominance of insertions in the Caenorhabditis elegans nuclear genome. Nature 430, 679–682 (2004)

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Halligan, D. L. & Keightley, P. D. Ubiquitous selective constraints in the Drosophila genome revealed by a genome-wide interspecies comparison. Genome Res. 16, 875–884 (2006)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kondrashov, A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. I. The advantage of recombination. Genet. Res. 44, 199–217 (1984)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Charlesworth, B. Mutation selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet. Res. 55, 199–221 (1990)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pálsson, S. Selection on a modifier of recombination rate due to linked deleterious mutations. J. Hered. 93, 22–26 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103, 3–19 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Caballero, A. & Keightley, P. D. A pleiotropic nonadditive model of variation in quantitative traits. Genetics 138, 883–900 (1994)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Santiago, E. & Caballero, A. Effective size and polymorphism of linked neutral loci in populations under directional selection. Genetics 149, 2105–2117 (1998)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kimura, M. Diffusion models in population genetics. J. Appl. Probab. 1, 177–232 (1964)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Santiago and A. Caballero for advice on predicting effective population size; N. Barton, A. Blachford, C. Haag, W. Hill, D. Roze and M. Whitlock for comments on the manuscript; and M. Blaxter for Linux cluster computing time. S.P.O. was supported by a NSERC grant (Canada).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter D. Keightley.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Data

This file contains supplementary Figures 1 and 2, and supplementary Tables 1–3. (PDF 946 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keightley, P., Otto, S. Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations. Nature 443, 89–92 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05049

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05049

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing