No abstract

We critically review the two major theories of adaptive evolution developed early in this century, Wright's shifting balance theory and Fisher's large population size theory, in light of novel findings from field observations, laboratory experiments, and theoretical research conducted over the past 15 years. Ecological studies of metapopulations have established that the processes of local extinction and colonization of demes are relatively common in natural populations of many species and theoretical population genetic models have shown that these ecological processes have genetic consequences within and among local demes. Within demes, random genetic drift converts nonadditive genetic variance into additive genetic variance, increasing, rather than limiting, the potential for adaptation to local environments. For this reason, the genetic differences that arise by drift among demes, can be augmented by local selection. The resulting adaptive differences in gene combinations potentially contribute to the genetic origin of new species. These and other recent findings were not discussed by either Wright or Fisher. For example, although Wright emphasized epistatic genetic variance, he did not discuss the conversion process. Similarly, Fisher did not discuss how the average additive effect of a gene varies among demes across a metapopulation whenever there is epistasis. We discuss the implications of such recent findings for the Wright-Fisher controversy and identify some critical open questions that require additional empirical and theoretical study.

Given the complexity of host-microbiota symbioses, scientists and philosophers are asking questions at new biological levels of hierarchical organization—what is a holobiont and hologenome? When should this vocabulary be applied? Are these concepts a null hypothesis for host-microbe systems or limited to a certain spectrum of symbiotic interactions such as host-microbial coevolution? Critical discourse is necessary in this nascent area, but productive discourse requires that skeptics and proponents use the same lexicon.

Models of founder events have focused on the reduction in the genetic variation following a founder event. However, recent work (Bryant et al., 1986; Goodnight, 1987) suggests that when there is epistatic genetic variance in a population, the total genetic variance within demes may actually increase following a founder event. Since the additive genetic variance is a statistical property of a population and can change with the level of inbreeding, some of the epistatic genetic variance may be converted to additive genetic variance during a founder event. The model presented here demonstrates that some of the additive-by-additive epistatic genetic variance is converted to additive genetic variance following a founder event. Furthermore, the amount of epistasis converted to additive genetic variance is a function of the recombination rate and the propagule size. For a single founder event of two individuals, as much as 75% of the epistatic variance in the ancestral population may become additive genetic variance following the founder event. For founder events involving two individuals with free recombination, the relative contribution of epistasis to the additive genetic variance following a founder event is equal to its proportion of the total genetic variance prior to the founder event. Traits closely related to fitness are expected to have relatively little additive genetic variance but may have substantial nonadditive genetic variance. Founder events may be important in the evolution of fitness traits, not because they lead to a reduction in the genetic variance, but rather because they lead to an increase in the additive genetic variance.

Abstract. -Models of founder events have focused on the reduction in the genetic variation following a founder event. However, recent work (Bryant et al., 1986;Goodnight, 1987) suggests that when there is epistatic genetic variance in a population, the total genetic variance within demes may actually increase following a founder event. Since the additive genetic variance is a statistical property of a population and can change with the level of inbreeding, some of the epistatic genetic variance may be converted to additive genetic variance during a founder event. The model presented here demonstrates that some of the additive-by-additive epistatic genetic variance is converted to additive genetic variance following a founder event. Furthermore, the amount ofepistasis converted to additive genetic variance is a function of the recombination rate and the propagule size. For a single founder event of two individuals, as much as 75% of the epistatic variance in the ancestral population may become additive genetic variance following the founder event. For founder events involving two individuals with free recombination, the relative contribution of epistasis to the additive genetic variance following a founder event is equal to its proportion of the total genetic variance prior to the founder event. Traits closely related to fitness are expected to have relatively little additive genetic variance but may have substantial nonadditive genetic variance. Founder events may be important in the evolution of fitness traits, not because they lead to a reduction in the genetic variance, but rather because they lead to an increase in the additive genetic variance.