Back

Fly wing evolutionary rate is a near-isometric function of mutational variation

Houle, D.; Bolstad, G. H.; Hansen, T. F.

2020-08-28 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2020.08.27.268938 bioRxiv
Show abstract

If there is abundant mutational and standing genetic variation, most expect that the rate of evolution would be driven primarily by natural selection, and potentially be independent of current variability or variation. Contrary to this expectation, we (H17: Houle et al. 2017 Nature 548:447) found surprisingly strong scaling relationships with slopes near one between mutational variance, standing genetic variance and macro-evolutionary rate in Drosophilid wing traits. Jiang and Zhang (J&Z20: 2020 Evolution https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14076) have challenged these results and our interpretation of them. J&Z20 showed that the method used in H17 to estimate the scaling relationship between variation at different biological levels is uninformative. Using an alternative method, they estimated that the scaling relationship has a slope substantially less than one, and propose a variant of our neutral subset hypothesis to explain this. Here we use simulations to confirm J&Z20s finding that the H17 method for estimating scaling of variances is uninformative. The simulations also show their alternative method for estimating scaling is likely to be seriously biased towards lower scaling relationships. We propose and verify an alternative approach to calculating scaling relationships based on independently estimated variance matrices, which we call the Q method. Simulations and reanalyses of the Drosophilid data set using the Q method suggests that our original estimates of the scaling relationship were close to the true value. We propose an analytical version of the neutral subset model, and show that it can indeed explain any scaling slope by varying assumptions about the pattern of pleiotropy. We continue to regard neutral subset models as implausible for wing shape in Drosophilids due to the likelihood that wing shape is subject to direct selection. Hybrid models in which pleiotropy reduces the available genetic and mutational variation, and a combination of selection and drift controls the change in species means seem more biologically promising.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.4%
2
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
17.7%
3
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.6%
4
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.1%
6
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.8%
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 22%
3.4%
9
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.6%
11
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.6%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
13
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
14
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.6%
15
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
16
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
17
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
18
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
19
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
20
Virus Evolution
140 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 32%
0.7%