Frequency-dependent selection (FDS) remains a common heuristic explanation for the maintenance of genetic variation in natural populations. The pairwise-interaction model (PIM) is a well-studied general model of frequency-dependent selection, which assumes that a genotype's fitness is a function of within-population intergenotypic interactions. Previous theoretical work indicated that this type of model is able to sustain large numbers of alleles at a single locus when it incorporates recurrent mutation. These studies, however, have ignored the impact of the distribution of fitness effects of new mutations on the dynamics and end results of polymorphism construction. We suggest that a natural way to model mutation would be to assume mutant fitness is related to the fitness of the parental allele, i.e., the existing allele from which the mutant arose. Here we examine the numbers and distributions of fitnesses and alleles produced by construction under the PIM with mutation from parental alleles and the impacts on such measures due to different methods of generating mutant fitnesses. We find that, in comparison with previous results, generating mutants from existing alleles lowers the average number of alleles likely to be observed in a system subject to FDS, but produces polymorphisms that are highly stable and have realistic allele-frequency distributions.
IT has been nearly 50 years since molecular techniques first revealed the ubiquity of genetic variation in nature (Hubby and Lewontin 1966). Neutral theories of the maintenance of variation (Ohta 1973;Kimura 1984) remain the dominant framework underlying most population-genetic models, but we now know that most, if not all, genetic variation is subject to some degree of natural selection (Hahn 2008). Despite a rich theoretical and empirical literature on the subject, however, pinning down the mechanisms that allow selective maintenance of genetic variation remains a stubborn challenge (Leffler et al. 2012).Early theoretical work in this area focused on the maintenance of diallelic polymorphisms (e.g., Levene 1953;Li 1955;Lewontin 1958;Haldane and Jayakar 1963;Hedrick 1986), largely for mathematical convenience. Unfortunately, the results of diallelic approaches quite often do not scale up to the multiallelic case in intuitive or analytically tractable ways (Gillespie 1977;Lewontin et al. 1978;Karlin 1981;Clark and Feldman 1986;Matessi and Schneider 2009;Muirhead and Wakeley 2009;Nagylaki 2009;Schneider 2009;Waxman 2009). Empirical studies confirm that nonneutral polymorphisms with more than two alleles are very common (Keith 1983;Keith et al. 1985;Bradley et al. 1993;Moriyama and Powell 1996;Hahn 2008). MHC loci, to name one extreme example, can have hundreds of alleles (for a review, see Garrigan and Hedrick 2003).The standard approach to modeling the maintenance of selected polymorphism-what we call the "parameter-space approach"-has been to generate large numbers of fitness sets, either randomly (Lewontin et al. 1978;Clark and Feldman 1986; Asmusse...