Hannes Svardal - The role of environmental variance as adaptive response to fluctuating selection
1. Pourquoi suis-je i¸i?
c
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 1 / 18
2. Does fluctuating selection favour an increase in
environmental or in genetic variance?
Hannes Svardal, Claus Rueffler, and Joachim Hermisson
Institute of Mathematics, University of Vienna
1. Juni 2010
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 2 / 18
3. Observations
Quantitative traits show considerable amounts of phenotypic variation
Variation could be adaptive (favoured by selection) or a constraint
(mutation selection balance)
We are looking at adaptive sources of phenotypic variation
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 3 / 18
4. Sources of phenotypic variance in a quantitative trait
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
random GxE interaction
genetic Gaussian discrete phenotypic
polymorphism noise morphs plasticity
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 4 / 18
5. Sources of phenotypic variance in a quantitative trait
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
random GxE interaction
genetic Gaussian discrete phenotypic
polymorphism noise morphs plasticity
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 4 / 18
6. Genetic polymorphism VS environmental decanalisation
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
genetic Gaussian
polymorphism noise
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 5 / 18
7. Genetic polymorphism VS environmental decanalisation
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
genetic Gaussian
polymorphism noise
genetic contribu- degree of canali-
genetically controlled via
tion to a trait sation of the trait
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 5 / 18
8. Genetic polymorphism VS environmental decanalisation
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
genetic Gaussian
polymorphism noise
genetic contribu- degree of canali-
genetically controlled via
tion to a trait sation of the trait
frequency depen- as bet-hedging
why adaptive?
dent selection strategy
if both are adaptive:
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 5 / 18
9. Genetic polymorphism VS environmental decanalisation
phenotypic variance
genetic environmental
genetic Gaussian
polymorphism noise
genetic contribu- degree of canali-
genetically controlled via
tion to a trait sation of the trait
frequency depen- as bet-hedging
why adaptive?
dent selection strategy
if both are adaptive:
what
? evolves? ?
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 5 / 18
10. Genetics
Clonal reproduction
Phenotype is a quantitative trait x
Phenotype is determined by genetic component µx and random
2
environmental effects (Gaussian noise with variance σx )
Amount of environmental canalisation genetically controlled:
σx heritable
Probability that a genotype (µx , σx ) produces a phenotype x:
probability
σx heritable canalisation
µx x
heritable genetic component
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 6 / 18
11. a lot of noise
canalised
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 7 / 18
12. The question
Most models treat fully canalised genotypes (µx , σx ) = (x, 0)
x
We compare selection for genetic polymorphisms in µx to selection for
increased σx :
σx1 σx2
σx
VS
µx1 µx2 x µx x
In models where both – genetic polymorphism and environmental
decanalisation – are adaptive: What does evolve?
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 8 / 18
13. The Lottery model (Chesson and Warner 1981): Temporal
variation in selective optimum
Ecological assumptions:
discrete generations
maximum population size K
generation overlap γ
⇒ ∼ (1 − γ)K adults die each year, no selection on adults
Selection on juveniles:
selective optimum θ changes from year to year
2
(but has stationary distribution with mean µθ , variance σθ )
2
Gaussian selection of strength 1/σs on distance |x − θ|
surviving juveniles randomly compete to fill up the population size
back to K
(equivalent to the seed bank model)
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 9 / 18
14. Model ingredients
occurrence probability external environment:
σθ optima distribution with
2
mean µθ and variance σθ
optimal phenotype θ
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 10 / 18
15. Model ingredients
p special case 1−p
occurrence probability
σθ
optimal phenotype θ θ1 µθ θ2
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 10 / 18
16. Model ingredients
occurrence probability external environment:
σθ optima distribution with
2
mean µθ and variance σθ
optimal phenotype θ
heritable
frequency
genotypic values:
σx µx and σx determine gene-
tic contribution and noise
µx phenotype x
level
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 10 / 18
17. Model ingredients
occurrence probability external environment:
σθ optima distribution with
2
mean µθ and variance σθ
θt optimal phenotype θ
heritable
frequency
genotypic values:
σx µx and σx determine gene-
tic contribution and noise
µx x phenotype x
level
survival
σs selection: depends on diffe-
rence optimum⇔phenotype
0 |x − θt |
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 10 / 18
18. The two possibilities independently
selected if
2
σθ
decanalisation (σx > 0) 2 2
σθ > σs
2
σs noise
2
γσθ
genetic polymporphism 2 2
γσθ > σs
(disruptive selection in µx ) 2 genetic p.
σs
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 11 / 18
19. The two possibilities independently
selected if
2
σθ
decanalisation (σx > 0) 2 2
σθ > σs
2
σs noise
2
γσθ
genetic polymporphism 2 2
γσθ > σs
(disruptive selection in µx ) 2 genetic p.
σs
Now: analysis of evolution in the 2D genotype-space“ (µx , σx ):
”
σx
µθ µx
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 11 / 18
20. Adaptive dynamics of the genotypic values µx , σx
Growth rate of mutant (µxm , σxm ) in resident population (µxr , σxr ):
λ(µxm , σxm , µxr , σxr ) =
(θ−µxr )2 (θ−µxm )2
2 2
σs + σxr exp −
2 2
2(σs +σxr ) 2 2
2(σs +σxm )
1 − (1 − γ) 1 −
2 2
σs + σxm
Invasion fitness of mutant m = (µxm , σxm ):
w(m, r) = ln(λ(m, r|θ))h(θ)dθ
⇒ Calculate zeros of selection gradient w and investigate stability
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 12 / 18
21. Results
2 2 2
Noise will evolve to its optimum: σx = σθ − σs
Additional genetic polymorphism (branching) are selected if:
√4
γ>
gθ +4+ 8˜2 +gθ
µ3θ 2
µ3θ ... skewness of optima distribution
˜
gθ ... kurtosis of optima distribution
optima distribution sufficiently asymmetric
optima distribution has fatter tails than Gaussian (extremes more likely)
⇒ If noise can evolve, genetic polymorphisms are only selected if the
optima distribution is sufficiently different from Gaussian
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 13 / 18
22. Examples of optima distributions
optima distribution example branching branching in
sum of small
never -
effects
number of
4λ
predation γ> √
1+4λ+ 1+8λ
µx , σx
events
? γ > 2/5 σx
p 1−p
occurence of 2p(1−p)
γ> 1−2p(1−p) µx , σx
thunderstorm
µθ
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 14 / 18
23. Two possible optima
evolutionary convergence if asymmetric:
to optimal noise level further genetic branching
σx
σx
µθ µx µθ µx
θ1 θ2
p = 0.8 1 − p = 0.2
If genetic polymorphism evolve, mostly both, µx AND σx , diverge
between the populations (cf. Doebeli and Ispolatov 2010)
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 15 / 18
24. Simulation Results: Two possible optima
γ=
0.5 general observations:
↑ γ stabilises (lhs)
↑ σs stabilises
↑ p destabilises
conclusion:
γ= polymorphism often
0.75 unstable
γ=
parametres: p = 0.8, σs = 0.1,
0.95
∗
µθ = −0.3, σx = 0.39, γ = 0.47
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 16 / 18
25. Conclusion
Under temporally fluctuating selection noise evolves easier than
genetic polymorphisms
Genetic branching at optimal noise level if
optima distribution sufficiently asymmetric
optima distribution has fatter tails than Gaussian
Polymorphism of divergent genotypes often unstable
In sexual populations: selection for increased genetic variance
Predictions about the heritability of traits under different forms of
fluctuating selection could be made
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 17 / 18
26. Thanks for your attention!
Hannes Svardal (Vienna) environmental vs. genetic variance 1. Juni 2010 18 / 18