Structure of the G-matrix in relation to phenotypic contributions to fitness

A mathematical framework for evo-devo dynamics

Natural selection acts on phenotypes constructed over development, which raises the question of how development affects evolution. Classic evolutionary theory indicates that development affects evolution by modulating the genetic covariation upon which selection acts, thus affecting genetic constraints. However, whether genetic constraints are relative, thus diverting adaptation from the direction of steepest fitness ascent, or absolute, thus blocking adaptation in certain directions, remains uncertain. This limits understanding of long-term evolution of developmentally constructed phenotypes. Here we formulate a general, tractable mathematical framework that integrates age progression, explicit development (i.e., the construction of the phenotype across life subject to developmental constraints), and evolutionary dynamics, thus describing the evolutionary and developmental (evo-devo) dynamics. The framework yields simple equations that can be arranged in a layered structure that we call the evo-devo process, whereby five core elementary components generate all equations including those mechanistically describing genetic covariation and the evo-devo dynamics. The framework recovers evolutionary dynamic equations in gradient form and describes the evolution of genetic covariation from the evolution of genotype, phenotype, environment, and mutational covariation. This shows that genotypic and phenotypic evolution must be followed simultaneously to yield a dynamically sufficient description of long-term phenotypic evolution in gradient form, such that evolution described as the climbing of a fitness landscape occurs in "geno-phenotype" space. Genetic constraints in geno-phenotype space are necessarily absolute because the phenotype is related to the genotype by development. Thus, the long-term evolutionary dynamics of developed phenotypes is strongly non-standard: (1) evolutionary equilibria are either absent or infinite in number and depend on genetic covariation and hence on development; (2) developmental constraints determine the admissible evolutionary path and hence which evolutionary equilibria are admissible; and (3) evolutionary outcomes occur at admissible evolutionary equilibria, which do not generally occur at fitness landscape peaks in geno-phenotype space, but at peaks in the admissible evolutionary path where "total genotypic selection" vanishes if exogenous plastic response vanishes and mutational variation exists in all directions of genotype space. Hence, selection and development jointly define the evolutionary outcomes if absolute mutational constraints and exogenous plastic response are absent, rather than the outcomes being defined only by selection. Moreover, our framework provides formulas for the sensitivities of a recurrence and an alternative method to dynamic optimization (i.e., dynamic programming or optimal control) to identify evolutionary outcomes in models with developmentally dynamic traits. These results show that development has major evolutionary effects.

Using inbreeding to test the contribution of non-additive genetic effects to additive genetic variance: a case study in Drosophila serrata

Additive genetic variance, V_A, is the key parameter for predicting adaptive and neutral phenotypic evolution. Changes in demography (e.g. increased close-relative inbreeding) can alter V_A, but how they do so depends on the (typically unknown) gene action and allele frequencies across many loci. For example, V_A increases proportionally with the inbreeding coefficient when allelic effects are additive, but smaller (or larger) increases can occur when allele frequencies are unequal at causal loci with dominance effects. Here, we describe an experimental approach to assess the potential for dominance effects to deflate V_A under inbreeding. Applying a powerful paired pedigree design in Drosophila serrata, we measured 11 wing traits on half-sibling families bred via either random or sibling mating, differing only in homozygosity (not allele frequency). Despite close inbreeding and substantial power to detect small V_A, we detected no deviation from the expected additive effect of inbreeding on genetic (co)variances. Our results suggest the average dominance coefficient is very small relative to the additive effect, or that allele frequencies are relatively equal at loci affecting wing traits. We outline the further opportunities for this paired pedigree approach to reveal the characteristics of V_A, providing insight into historical selection and future evolutionary potential.

How development affects evolution

Natural selection acts on developmentally constructed phenotypes, but how does development affect evolution? This question prompts a simultaneous consideration of development and evolution. However, there has been a lack of general mathematical frameworks mechanistically integrating the two, which may have inhibited progress on the question. Here, we use a new mathematical framework that mechanistically integrates development into evolution to analyse how development affects evolution. We show that, while selection pushes genotypic and phenotypic evolution up the fitness landscape, development determines the admissible evolutionary pathway, such that evolutionary outcomes occur at path peaks rather than landscape peaks. Changes in development can generate path peaks, triggering genotypic or phenotypic diversification, even on constant, single-peak landscapes. Phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, extra-genetic inheritance, and developmental bias alter the evolutionary path and hence the outcome. Thus, extra-genetic inheritance can have permanent evolutionary effects by changing the developmental constraints, even if extra-genetically acquired elements are not transmitted to future generations. Selective development, whereby phenotype construction points in the adaptive direction, may induce adaptive or maladaptive evolution depending on the developmental constraints. Moreover, developmental propagation of phenotypic effects over age enables the evolution of negative senescence. Overall, we find that development plays a major evolutionary role.