Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To an evolutionary geneticist, the most important prop- ground containing deleterious alleles can be considered to be
erty of a new mutation is its effect on fitness. Stress is a a stressful genetic context relative to a mutation-free back-
reduction in fitness that can also alter the selection on ground. For genetic and environmental stresses, we would
new mutations. Although the effects of environmental like to know how stress alters selection on new mutations.
and genetic stresses are typically studied separately, it is We will conclude that genetic and environmental stresses
useful to consider them from the same perspective. Here are conceptually similar and that there is little evidence that
we evaluate the common perception that stress increases either type of stress typically increases selection.
selection. We consider various conceptual paradigms for In this contribution, we will use s to refer to the selection
thinking about selection and stress, and then review the coefficient against a deleterious allele. More precisely s is
empirical data. We reject the notion that stress typically the proportional reduction in fitness caused by the pre-
increases selection. Instead, we find that different types sence of that allele. The studies we collate are mixed
of stresses affect selection differently, though the under- between haploid and diploid organisms. In the latter,
lying mechanisms are, as yet, unclear in most cases. the effects of the allele are measured in the homozygous
or heterozygous state, depending on the study. We will use
Selection and stress s to refer to the effects of these mutations however they are
The effects of stress on selection matter for a wide variety of expressed in a given study.
reasons. Stress may change the direction of selection on Most non-neutral mutations are deleterious [6], but
some mutations, with obvious ramifications for the evol- stress can change the fraction of mutations that are dele-
utionary fates of those alleles. More typically, stress will terious, neutral, and beneficial ( pdel, pneu, and pben, respect-
alter the strength of selection. If selection becomes stron- ively). This is an issue of major importance but one for
ger (and therefore more effective) in stressful conditions, which the data are quite limited (but see [7,8]). Many
then the ability of organisms to adapt to changing environ- studies that we consider examine the aggregate effects
ments or to new environments is greater than we might of multiple unknown mutations, for example, by examining
expect from studies typically conducted under benign con- the fitness of lines exposed to mutagenesis. Data from such
ditions. If stressful environments increase selection, then studies can be used to ask how stress changes mean
predictions of mutation load, inbreeding depression, or the selection over all mutations, DE[s], and, in some cases,
genetic variance in fitness may be skewed. An unfit genetic the variance in selection, DV[s], but not the finer-scale
background can be considered a genetic stress. The effects issues stated above (i.e. Dpben, Dpneu). Even studies that
of genetic stress on mutations at other loci (i.e. epistasis) examine selection on individual mutations typically have
make large differences to the predictions of various evol- limited power to distinguish between changes in the abun-
utionary processes, such as the evolution of sex [1,2] and dance in each class ( pdel, pneu, and pben) versus the changes
the evolution of inbreeding depression [3]. If we can predict in the average effect size in each class. This is because of
changes in the nature of selection as a function of measure- the difficulty of statistically differentiating among weakly
able properties of the environment and previous deleterious, neutral, and weakly beneficial effects. Thus,
mutations, we could make evolutionary genetics a more for our review, we will focus on how stress changes the
predictive science. mean and variance (DE[s] and DV[s]), while recognizing
Following other authors [4,5], we define a ‘stressful’ that measures of stress-induced changes in the proportion
context (genetic or environmental) as one in which the of beneficial mutations (Dpben) are a critical issue for future
absolute fitness of the wild-type is reduced relative its studies. If pben ! pdel in benign and stressful environ-
absolute fitness in some other reference context. Changes ments, then DE[s] and DV[s] can be thought of as resulting
in the environment such as a reduction in food abundance, primarily from changes in the magnitude of selection
an increase in natural enemies, or exposure to extreme against deleterious alleles.
temperatures or problematic chemicals (e.g. salt, heavy
metals) are stressful for most organisms. A genetic back- Why might stress increase the strength of selection?
Numerous authors have remarked on the conventional
Corresponding author: Agrawal, A.F. (a.agrawal@utoronto.ca). wisdom that selection is stronger under stress [9–12].
450 0169-5347/$ – see front matter ! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.003 Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (2010) 450–458
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
There are several reasons that may lead us to expect that been eliminated or reduced to low frequency by selection,
fitness differences may increase in more stressful contexts. but a similar process would not have removed the worst
First, organisms may have margins of safety in physiologi- alleles in the novel environment. As a result, we might
cal functions with excess capacity for these functions under expect that standing genetic variation for fitness would be
normal conditions. A typical individual may therefore not greater in a novel environment [17,18].
be affected by minor genetic problems (i.e., mutations) The logic in the previous paragraph applies only to
under otherwise good conditions, but under worse con- standing genetic variation, but not to the effects of new
ditions genetic problems may further stress its capacity. mutations. Our focus in this contribution is on the effects of
Second, biological organisms are buffered from assault stress on new mutations, so we will not discuss this further
by various physiological responses and/or repair systems except to note that this creates a potential bias in inves-
(e.g. healing by regeneration or repair, immune response, tigating the effects of new mutations because of unavoid-
heat-shock chaperones, DNA repair systems). Some able selection in some experimental protocols. There is
mutations may affect these genetic or somatic repair mech- good reason to expect the patterns for standing variation
anisms. Such mutations affecting repair functions on their to differ from those for new mutations, so we must be
own may show little fitness effects but, if the organism is particularly alert to the nature of the genetic variation
subjected to a further environmental or genetic problem, being studied when reading the literature.
the effects of that problem may be more manifest in the
absence of repair. If these systems are not fully functioning Stress should have variable effects on selection
(e.g. repair capacity is reduced with age), the consequences We have outlined above some reasons underlying the
of a subsequent injury can be severe. By extension, a stress common intuition that stress increases selection, but we
that compromises such buffering systems will result in have also noted that these scenarios are not universal.
stronger selection against any additional mutation. This There are other conceptual frameworks that lead one to
scenario seems plausible for some situations, but it seems believe that stresses may increase or decrease selection.
unlikely that all (or even most) stresses result in comprom- One such framework is the ‘fitness-as-flux’ perspective in
ised buffering systems. which fitness is viewed as being proportional to the flux
Third, some stressful environments affect the ecological through some pathway. Theoretical analyses of metabolic
relationships between individuals in a way that can pathways and biological networks show that a genetic
exacerbate the fitness differences between those individ- stress (the first mutation) can increase or decrease selec-
uals. If a deleterious mutation affects the rate at which an tion on a subsequent mutation (i.e. negative or positive
organism gathers resources, relatively healthy individuals epistasis) depending on the structure of the network and
can gather resources or grow faster than the less healthy, the relative positions of the two mutations within these
leaving few resources behind. This idea has been discussed pathways [19–22]. Depending on the position of the initial
explicitly in the context of the effect of density on the mutation within the pathway, average selection on sub-
variance in fitness in plant populations [13,14]. The ‘dom- sequent mutations could be stronger or weaker than in the
inance and suppression’ model of plant growth postulates absence of the genetic stress (i.e. the initial mutation). That
that small differences in initial size become exaggerated is, it is difficult to make a universal prediction about the
over time as larger plants deprive smaller ones of access to sign of average epistasis between a focal mutation and
light and nutrients. A similar situation happens in a subsequent mutations.
typical fly culture. As eggs hatch and the larvae develop, An environmental stress may alter which pathways in a
food is consumed and waste products produced. High- network are the most important in determining fitness,
quality individuals with elevated growth rates reduce thereby making selection stronger on some genes but
the availability of food and contaminate the medium, weaker on others. The net effect of stress on new mutations
making the environment a harsher place for slower-devel- may depend on the mutational target size of each affected
oping individuals [15,16]. Under this ecological model, step. That is, do the pathways that experience increased
limiting resources coupled with scramble competition selection under stress involve more genes than the path-
and/or degradation of the shared environment means that ways that are most strongly selected under benign con-
slightly more fit individuals have access to many more ditions?
resources and so effectively experience better environ- Perhaps the best-known framework for thinking about
ments than slightly less fit individuals. As a result, rea- selection is the fitness landscape metaphor [23–25], which
lized fitness may differ far more in high-density conditions provides a map between phenotype and fitness (Figure 1).
than in low-density conditions. By this mechanism, less fit From the landscape perspective, we expect heterogeneous
individuals experience a worse environment than more fit responses to stress. An environmental change may cause
individuals as a result of the changes in the environment the landscape to change in three (non-mutually exclusive)
caused by competition. ways: (i) change in the location of the optimum; (ii) change
Finally, previous selection in benign environments (in in the height of the optimum; and (iii) change in the shape
nature or during experimental protocols) will reduce the (curvature) around the optimum. In contrast to the intui-
frequency of alleles that are particularly bad in the benign tion that selection increases mean selection, Martin and
environment. Stressful environments are often also novel Lenormand [5] showed that there is no change in the
environments, which have not often been experienced average selection against new mutations (DE[s] = 0) if
during the evolutionary history of the population. If so, environmental stress causes a change in the location of
the worst alleles in the normal, benign environment have the optimum. However, other forms of change in the land-
451
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
Figure 1. Fitness landscapes and stress. In each panel, fitness is shown as function of the phenotype. Mutations are envisioned as deviations (arrows) from the reference
genotype (point). (a) In the benign environment, the population has the optimal phenotype and has high fitness. In the remaining panels, environmental stress is
represented as a change in the landscape (red dashed line) that results in a reduction in absolute fitness; these figures represent only a sample of an infinite number of
ways stress could be represented in the landscape framework. In (b), stress is envisioned as a small shift in the optimum. This is the scenario emphasized by Martin &
Lenormand [5] in their landmark study using landscapes to predict changes in selection under stress. In (c), there is a larger shift in the optimum. In (d–f), stress is an
environmental change that reduces the maximal fitness but does not change the optimum. In (d), fitness of all phenotypes is reduced by a constant proportion. In (e) the
surface is shrunken to maintain a similar shape. In (f), the surface has been flattened. Using a three-dimensional version of each of these scenarios, we calculated the
mean and variance of selection (E[s] and V[s]) on new mutations that were assumed to be normally distributed perturbations to the reference phenotype. A three-
dimensional version was selected because two very different recent approaches have suggested that the effective number of dimensions is quite small [24,69]. For each
stressful environment, we have calculated the ratio of the mean and variance in the stressful environment relative to that in the benign environment; RM = E[sstress]/
E[sbenign] and RV = V[sstress]/V[sbenign]. Some types of stress cause little or no change in mean selection (b, d) where as others cause substantial increases (e) or decreases
(c, f). Similarly, different types of stresses can increase (b, c, e) or decrease (f) the variance or have no affect at all (d).
scape can have positive or negative effects on the mean of s This latter concept may be useful beyond the landscape
(Figure 1). model and apply to environmental or genetic stresses. The
The landscape model can also be used to examine the effects of a new mutation are ‘random’ with respect to
effects of genetic stress. Martin et al. [26] showed that the whichever aspect of organismal function is being strained
landscape model predicts that epistasis will be common but by a genetic or environmental stress. As a result, there may
that positive and negative interactions occur, so the aver- be no effect of stress on average even though the stress will
age epistasis is close to zero. In this model, mutations are certainly interact with the effects of some mutations. If we
represented as random vectors that displace the carrier are considering a subset of mutations that are non-random
from the position of the wild-type in phenotypic space, thus with respect to the stress then it will be easier to make
altering its fitness. The direction of the second mutation is predictions. For example, genes involved in osmoregula-
random with respect to the direction of the first, so their tion will be under strong selection under salt stress. Sim-
fitness effects when combined can be greater or less than ilarly, selection will be stronger on a mutation if it affects
expected based on their individual effects. the same part of a metabolic pathway that already harbors
452
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
a mutation [21,27]. Another example is dominance. Two we reviewed the literature on the effects of environmental
mutant alleles at the same locus clearly affect the same or genetic stress on the strength of selection.
function and thus tend to have synergistic effects on fit- We have compiled the results of many studies that
ness. In contrast to the very mixed data about average compare the fitness effects of mutations in benign and
epistasis (see below), there is strong evidence that deleter- more stressful contexts. First, let us examine the effects
ious alleles tend to be recessive [28–30]. of deleterious mutations as a function of the quality of the
environment. We have divided studies on this topic into
Empirical tests of stress on mean selection two groups. The first group of 31 studies (presented in
Based on many divergent predictions about how stressful Table 1) examines environmental stressors such as sub-
contexts might affect the strength and pattern of selection, optimal temperature, chemical toxins, or low food quality.
Table 1. Studies measuring selection using a non-density form of stress. The percentage changes in mean selection are intended as
heuristics. In most cases, they are calculated from mean fitness estimates of mutants and wild-types reported in the original articles
(ignoring measurement error) because estimates of average s were typically not provided. Where appropriate, growth rate
estimates were converted to fitness based on the equation W = ert and using t = ln(2)/rwild-type to scale to generation time. An
asterisk (*) indicates that stress was shown to reduce fitness. A double asterisk (**) indicates a statistically significant effect of stress
on selection. ‘MA’ denotes a mutation accumulation experiment; ‘MCN’ denotes a middle class neighborhood experiment. 1 In this
study, selection was significantly stronger in 45 of 216 cases, whereas it was significantly weaker in only 14 cases. 2 Negligible effect
of mutations in the benign environment. 3 Mutations selected on basis of having fitness effect in standard conditions (YPD). 4
Temperature effect is more pronounced in C. elegans than in C. briggsae.
Organism Mutant type Fitness measure Stress Change in Source
selection with stress
E. coli 65 lines created by Growth rate Acid * Stronger [31]
mutagenesis (non- competitive) (+9%)
High osmolarity * Weaker
(–9%)
Dithiothreitol* (reducing agent) Weaker**
(–23%)
Trimethoprim* (antibiotic) Weaker**
(–59%)
Chloramphenicol* (antibiotic) Weaker**
(–41%)
Cold temperature * Weaker**
(–39%)
Standard media* Weaker
(relative to enhanced medium) (–3%)
E. coli 26 insertion mutations Growth rate relative New food source Stronger** [50]
to competitor (maltose rather than glucose) (NA)
Low temperature Stronger
E. coli 216 lines each containing Growth rate relative Intracellular parasite * Stronger**,1 [41]
1, 2 or 3 insertions to competitor (+77%)
S. cerevisae Mutation accumulation Maximum growth rate Low temperature * Weaker [52]
(haploid) via mis-match repair (non-competitive) (–7%)
High temperature * Stronger
(+74%)
Reduced food quality* Weaker
(minimal media) (–24%)
Reduced food quality* Stronger
(YGP) (+7%)
S. cerevisae Mutation accumulation Maximum growth rate Reduced food quality* Weaker
(diploid) via mis-match repair (non-competitive) (minimal media) (–31%)
S. cerevisae Mutation accumulation Growth rate High temperature * Stronger2 [53]
(diploid) via mis-match repair (non-competitive) (+7358%)
S. cerevisae 526 single deletion lines and Growth rate High temperature * Stronger [9]
(haploid) 263 double deletion lines 3 (+2%)
Reduced food quality* Weaker**
(minimal media) (–39%)
Caffeine * Weaker**
(-20%)
Salinity * Weaker**
(–53%)
R. raphanistrum Two populations that Total seeds produced Field (relative to Stronger [54]
accumulated mutations greenhouse) (+183%)
via MCN design for
9–10 generations
453
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
Table 1 (Continued )
Organism Mutant type Fitness measure Stress Change in Source
selection with stress
C. elegans 73 lines tested after 163 and Intrinsic rate of increase Low temperature* Stronger** [55]
214 generations of MA (+75%)
C. elegans 68 lines tested after "200 Lifetime reproduction Low temperature * Mixed [56]
generations of MA for each (–16%, +27%)
of two progenitor strains
C. briggsae As above Lifetime reproduction Low temperature 4 Stronger
(+3%, +30%)
D. melanogaster Single tumor-inducing Survival to third instar Temperature Stronger [57]
mutation (+117% for cold,
+95% for hot)
D. melanogaster Two MA lines compared Competitive Food quality * Stronger** [10]
with control line productivity assay (NA)
(fecundity, survival
assay)
D. melanogaster 30–38 lines tested after 27–35 Viability relative Low temperature Stronger [58]
generations of MA for each of to competitor (+300%, +28%)
two progenitor strains
Ethanol Stronger
(+270%, +22%)
D. melanogaster EMS mutagenesis Productivity Food quality Weaker [59]
(fecundity and viability) (–22%)
relative to competitor
D. melanogaster 20 visible mutations Egg-to-adult viability Food quality * Stronger [42]
(+28%)
D. melanogaster 8 visible mutations Egg-to-adult viability Bacterial infection Stronger** [60]
(13%)
These studies present a similar environmental challenge of eight studies found increased selection at high density
to all individuals in the stressed treatment within a study. (Table 2). We conjecture that this increased frequency of
As a result, these studies emphasize the intrinsic mech- stronger selection with high density may result from the
anisms of interaction between the mutation and the ecological interactions described above, but this should be
environment, with fewer effects caused by ecological com- tested explicitly in future studies. With the set of available
petitive interactions between individuals. The second studies, it is not possible to rigorously statistically isolate
group of eight studies (reported in Table 2) used high any one factor as being a good predictor of whether stress
density as the environmental stressor. For this group of will increase or decrease selection because taxa, mutation
studies, the ecological mechanism of density-dependent type, stressor and type of fitness assay are largely con-
competition should be stronger because at high density founded.
those individuals that can first access resources may do Another source of related data comes from studies of
disproportionately well and leave their slower companions inbreeding depression, which is a measure of the strength
in a different, resource-depleted environment. of selection against inbred genotypes relative to outbred
For the non-density stressors, we find that mean selec- genotypes. Armbruster and Reed [32] reported that 74%
tion is weaker in the stressful environment in 13 out of 31 (39 of 53) of the cases that they reviewed showed higher
studies (Table 1), including several of the largest studies inbreeding depression under stress. However, there are
[9,31]. This offers no support for the hypothesis that stress several reasons why inbreeding depression does not
increases the strength of selection against new mutations necessarily provide a good measure of how stress alters
on average. Moreover, the pattern of change in mean s is selection against new mutations. First, inbreeding depres-
highly heterogeneous; several studies report strong sion is dependent upon standing variation. It is therefore
increases in selection with stress whereas others report expected to show a stronger relationship with stress if
large decreases in selection. There is a tendency in the data stressful environments are also novel environments.
for single-celled organisms to show weaker selection under Indeed, many of the studies examined by Armbruster
stressful conditions, and the opposite for multicellular and Reed [32] involve stressful environments that are also
organisms. However, the available data are insufficient novel environments. Second, inbreeding depression is
to make a strong claim on this issue. more strongly dependent upon the degree of dominance
Although there is little consistency in the interaction h than on the strength of selection s. Changes in h rather
between mutation and non-density environmental stres- than s may underlie stress-induced changes in inbreeding
ses, there is some evidence that ecological interactions depression. Third, inbreeding depression may be partly
between individuals of different genotypes usually due to genes involving overdominance rather than due to
increase the strength of selection against deleterious partially recessive deleterious mutations, and such alleles
mutations. In studies conducted at varying density, seven are not typical of new mutations. Similar to what we
454
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
Table 2. Tests of selection that used increased density as a stress. The study by Lewontin and Matsuo [61] used Drosophila busckii,
all of the remainder used D. melanogaster. An asterisk indicates statistically significant effect of stress. 1 See [62] for comments on
estimation. 2 Relative viability of mutants declines with density in 3 of 4 cases.
Mutant type Fitness measure Change in selection with stress Reference
(percent increase in selection)
Single tumor-inducing mutation Survival to third instar Stronger* [57]
(+10131%)
Two MA lines compared with control line Competitive productivity assay Stronger* [10]
(fecundity, survival assay) (NA)
30–38 lines tested after 27–35 generations Viability relative to competitor Mixed [58]
of MA for each of two progenitor strains (–66%, +113%)
Population that accumulated mutations Productivity relative to competitor Stronger1 [63]
via MCN design for 30 generations (+1102%)
EMS mutagenesis Productivity relative to competitor Stronger [59]
(+20%)
4 visible mutations (unclear if tested on Larval viability Stronger2 [61]
common background) (NA)
One visible mutation (e, unclear if tested Egg-to-adult viability Stronger* [64]
on common background) (+1380%)
discuss here for new mutations, almost all of the studies ally linked genes compared with unlinked genes [45]. To
examined by Armbruster and Reed [32] that clearly our knowledge, no one has quantitatively tested a large
manipulated the competitive context find stronger number of random mutations against a series of different
inbreeding under competitive conditions (e.g. [33–37], mutant backgrounds to determine if some particular
but see [38]). mutant backgrounds tend to increase selection on average
As with environmental stress, the effects of genetic stress and others tend to reduce it. In a qualitative assay, Tong
on new mutations are highly heterogeneous. Sanjuan and et al. [46] tested each of 132 gene deletions against a set of
Elena [39] reviewed the literature on epistasis. They found 1007 other deletions. There was high variability among the
that some studies found significantly positive average epis- 132 focal genes in the frequency with which they had
tasis, some studies found significantly negative average strong negative interactions with other mutations. More-
epistasis, and most found no significant epistasis. With over, it is easy to imagine that mutations affecting buffer-
the possible exception of viruses, average epistasis is usually ing systems such as Hsp90 [47] would be likely to
close to zero even if it is statistically significantly different aggravate average selection to a greater extent than other
from zero. This is highlighted by the recent yeast study of types of genetic stresses.
Jasnos and Korona [40] that examined a large number of One important scenario makes it clear that we often will
lines containing 0, 1, or 2 deletions. This study had con- expect heterogeneous responses to stress. By definition, if a
siderable statistical power and could therefore detect sig- population consists of the optimal genotype (i.e. the popu-
nificant positive average epistasis. Nonetheless, it is clear lation is well matched to its environment), all mutations
from their histogram of epistatic effects that mean epistasis are deleterious. Any time a population is displaced away
in yeast is slightly positive but very close to zero and that from the optimum because of environmental or genetic
there is high variance around this value. Martin et al. [26] stress, there is an increased opportunity for beneficial
found a similar result with respect to epistatic interactions mutations [23]. There is some good empirical evidence that
in Escherichia coli. Overall, epistasis between deleterious the effects of beneficial mutations increase after fixation of
genes can be strongly positive or strongly negative, but there deleterious mutations [48,49] or under environmental
is little evidence that the average epistatic effect is very stress [50,51]. Thus, we might expect stress to increase
different from zero. Moreover, claims of a relationship be- the variance in selection coefficients among loci. Such a
tween genomic complexity and the nature of epistasis may prediction is a formal outcome of the landscape model by
be premature (see Box 1). Martin and Lenormand [5]. In their survey of nine
mutation accumulation experiments in which fitness
Variation in the effects of stress on selection assays were undertaken in multiple environments, Martin
Looking across studies of genetic and environmental and Lenormand [5] found that, though the effects of stress
stress, it is clear that the effects of stress on selection vary on the mean were quite mixed, there was a much more
in several ways. Unsurprisingly, there are plenty of consistent pattern for the variance to be higher under
examples within studies in which a particular environ- stressful conditions.
mental stress increases selection on some genes but Different environments and different taxa may show
decreases it on others [31,41,42]. Likewise, within studies different levels of interaction between stress and the
of epistasis, there are cases in which a given mutant strength of selection. Among the studies of environmental
background alleviates selection at some loci but increases stress (Tables 1 and 2), there are cases in which stress
it for others [43,44]. There is some evidence that a gene will increases average selection and other cases in which stress
have different types of epistatic interactions with function- decreases it. In many of these cases, the effect of stress is
455
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
statistically significant and so cannot be attributed to both types of stresses operate via a common mechanism.
measurement error. That is, several studies do not seem Determination of this mechanism would greatly enhance
to fit the theoretical prediction of Martin and Lenormand our understanding of selection.
[5] that stress has no effect on the average strength of
selection. Rather, some types of stresses appear to increase Conclusions
selection whereas other types of stress decrease it. The generic effects of environmental or genetic stress may
Even though it appears that some stresses alleviate be understood in similar ways, but the specific nature of
average selection and others aggravate it, in most cases the effects of stress must be investigated in each special
we do not understand why these effects occur. For example, case. There is neither a compelling theoretical reason nor
why do chemical stresses often alleviate selection in bac- empirical support for the common intuition that stress,
teria and yeast (Table 1)? Developing hypotheses and broadly defined, makes selection stronger. In most cases, a
testing them remains an important challenge for under- given stress probably makes selection stronger on some
standing different classes of stresses. Competitive stress mutations but weaker on others. Some stresses probably
seems to increase the difference between mutations. For have no average effect on selection whereas other stresses
this observation we have evidence of a pattern, a plausible may cause an average increase or an average decrease. One
mechanism by which it could work, and some evidence of of the biggest challenges is identifying different classes of
its operation by way of experiments showing that individ- stresses that affect mean selection and elucidating the
uals with a slight initial advantage tend to do dispropor- mechanisms by which these effects occur. Another major
tionately well under high density [13–16]. However, formal challenge is to move beyond average effects. This involves
tests of this pattern and empirical testing of the mechan- obtaining good estimates of selection on many individual
ism using new mutations are lacking. From the genetic genes in multiple environments. Such data will allow us to
viewpoint, a plausible mechanism exists for how a genetic better study changes in the variance in selection and
stress affecting a buffering system such as an Hsp90 understand the extent to which selection changes in mag-
mutant background could increase selection, but in this nitude versus sign when under stress.
case we are lacking the explicit fitness assays to show that
Acknowledgements
it does so. Conversely, Jasnos et al. [9] found that random
We appreciate the comments of three anonymous reviewers. This work
genetic stresses tended to alleviate selection as did was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
environmental stresses, leading to the suggestion that Council of Canada (AFA and MCW).
456
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
457
Review Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.25 No.8
59 Yang, H.P. et al. (2001) Whole-genome effects of ethyl 64 Moree, R. and King, J.R. (1961) Experimental studies on relative
methanesulfonate-induced mutation on nine quantitative traits in viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 46, 1735–1752
outbred Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 157, 1257–1265 65 Sanjuan, R. et al. (2004) The contribution of epistasis to the
60 Young, J.A. et al. (2009) The effect of pathogens on selection against architecture of fitness in an RNA virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S.
deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 22, A. 101, 15376–15379
2125–2129 66 Elena, S.F. and Lenski, R.E. (1997) Test of synergistic interactions
61 Lewontin, R.C. and Matsuo, Y. (1963) Interaction of genotypes among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature 390, 395–398
determining viability in Drosophila buskii. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. 67 Szafraniec, K. et al. (2003) Small fitness effects and weak genetic
S. A. 49, 270–278 interactions between deleterious mutations in heterozygous loci of
62 Keightley, P.D. et al. (1998) Population genetics: Surviving under the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genet. Res. 82, 19–31
mutation pressure. Curr. Biol. 8, R235–R237 68 Whitlock, M.C. and Bourguet, D. (2000) Factors affecting the genetic
63 Shabalina, S.A. et al. (1997) Rapid decline of fitness in panmictic load in Drosophila: synergistic epistasis and correlations among fitness
populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under components. Evolution 54, 1654–1660
relaxed natural selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 13034– 69 Kirkpatrick, M. (2009) Patterns of quantitative genetic variation in
13039 multiple dimensions. Genetica 136, 271–284
458