University of Sussex
Browse

File(s) not publicly available

A resolution of the mutation load paradox in humans

journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-08, 12:10 authored by Yann Lesecque, Peter D Keightley, Adam Eyre-WalkerAdam Eyre-Walker
Current information on the rate of mutation and the fraction of sites in the genome that are subject to selection suggests that each human has received, on average, at least two new harmful mutations from it’s parents. These mutations were subsequently removed by natural selection through reduced survival or fertility. It has been argued that the mutation load, the proportional reduction in population mean fitness relative to the fitness of an idealized mutation-free individual, allows a theoretical prediction of the proportion of individuals in the population that fail to reproduce as a consequence of these harmful mutations. Application of this theory to humans implies that at least 88% of individuals should fail to reproduce, and that each female would need to have more than 16 offspring to maintain population size. This prediction is clearly at odds with the low reproductive excess of human populations. Here, we derive expressions for the fraction of individuals that fail to reproduce as a consequence of recurrent deleterious mutation (f) for a model in which selection occurs via differences in relative fitness, such as would occur through competition between individuals. We show that f is much smaller than the value predicted by comparing fitness to that of a mutation-free genotype. Under the relative fitness model, we show that f depends jointly on U and the selective effects of new deleterious mutations, and that a species could tolerate 10s or even 100s of new deleterious mutations per genome each generation

History

Publication status

  • Published

Journal

Genetics

ISSN

1943-2631

Publisher

The Genetics Society of America

Volume

112

Page range

140343

Department affiliated with

  • Evolution, Behaviour and Environment Publications

Full text available

  • No

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2012-08-06

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC