• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of geneticsGeneticsCurrent IssueInformation for AuthorsEditorial BoardSubscribeSubmit a Manuscript
Genetics. Oct 2003; 165(2): 589–599.
PMCID: PMC1462798

Dominance and overdominance of mildly deleterious induced mutations for fitness traits in Caenorhabditis elegans.


We estimated the average dominance coefficient of mildly deleterious mutations (h, the proportion by which mutations in the heterozygous state reduce fitness components relative to those in the homozygous state) in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. From 56 worm lines that carry mutations induced by the point mutagen ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS), we selected 19 lines that are relatively high in fitness and estimated the viabilities, productivities, and relative fitnesses of heterozygotes and homozygotes compared to the ancestral wild type. There was very little effect of homozygous or heterozygous mutations on egg-to-adult viability. For productivity and relative fitness, we found that the average dominance coefficient, h, was approximately 0.1, suggesting that mildly deleterious mutations are on average partially recessive. These estimates were not significantly different from zero (complete recessivity) but were significantly different from 0.5 (additivity). In addition, there was a significant amount of variation in h among lines, and analysis of average dominance coefficients of individual lines suggested that several lines showed overdominance for fitness. Further investigation of two of these lines partially confirmed this finding.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (265K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • DOBZHANSKY T. A review of some fundamental concepts and problems of population genetics. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1955;20:1–15. [PubMed]
  • FALK R. Are induced mutations in Drosophila overdominant? II. Experimental results. Genetics. 1961 Jul;46:737–757. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fry James D, Nuzhdin Sergey V. Dominance of mutations affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2003 Apr;163(4):1357–1364. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • García-Dorado A, Caballero A. On the average coefficient of dominance of deleterious spontaneous mutations. Genetics. 2000 Aug;155(4):1991–2001. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gordo I, Charlesworth B. The degeneration of asexual haploid populations and the speed of Muller's ratchet. Genetics. 2000 Mar;154(3):1379–1387. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Haigh J. The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population--Muller's Ratchet. Theor Popul Biol. 1978 Oct;14(2):251–267. [PubMed]
  • Houle D, Hughes KA, Hoffmaster DK, Ihara J, Assimacopoulos S, Canada D, Charlesworth B. The effects of spontaneous mutation on quantitative traits. I. Variances and covariances of life history traits. Genetics. 1994 Nov;138(3):773–785. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Houle D, Hughes KA, Assimacopoulos S, Charlesworth B. The effects of spontaneous mutation on quantitative traits. II. Dominance of mutations with effects on life-history traits. Genet Res. 1997 Aug;70(1):27–34. [PubMed]
  • Keightley PD, Davies EK, Peters AD, Shaw RG. Properties of ethylmethane sulfonate-induced mutations affecting life-history traits in Caenorhabditis elegans and inferences about bivariate distributions of mutation effects. Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):143–154. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet Res. 1982 Dec;40(3):325–332. [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. Genet Res. 1984 Oct;44(2):199–217. [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. [PubMed]
  • Mukai T. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. VI. Further studies on the optimum heterozygosity hypothesis. Genetics. 1969 Feb;61(2):479–495. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mukai T. Viability mutations induced by ethyl methanesulfonate in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1970 Jun;65(2):335–348. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Butcher D. Muller's ratchet, epistasis and mutation effects. Genetics. 1995 Sep;141(1):431–437. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mukai T, Yamazaki T. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. V. Coupling-repulsion effect of spontaneous mutant polygenes controlling viability. Genetics. 1968 Aug;59(4):513–535. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Caballero A, Keightley PD, Turelli M. Average dominance for polygenes: drawbacks of regression estimates. Genetics. 1997 Nov;147(3):1487–1490. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mukai T, Chigusa S, Yoshikawa I. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. 3. Dominance effect of spontaneous mutant polygenes controlling viability in heterozygous genetic backgrounds. Genetics. 1965 Sep;52(3):493–501. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica. 1998;102-103(1-6):3–19. [PubMed]
  • Mukai T, Yoshikawa I, Sano K. The genetic structure of natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. IV. Heterozygous effects of radiation-induced mutations on viability in various genetic backgrounds. Genetics. 1966 Mar;53(3):513–527. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Davies EK, Peters AD, Keightley PD. High frequency of cryptic deleterious mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Science. 1999 Sep 10;285(5434):1748–1751. [PubMed]
  • Mukai T, Chigusa SI, Mettler LE, Crow JF. Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1972 Oct;72(2):335–355. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mukai T, Cardellino RA, Watanabe TK, Crow JF. The genetic variance for viability and its components in a local population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1974 Dec;78(4):1195–1208. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Temin RG. Partial Dominance of Ems-Induced Mutations Affecting Viability in DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. Genetics. 1978 Jun;89(2):315–340. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Vassilieva LL, Hook AM, Lynch M. The fitness effects of spontaneous mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1234–1246. [PubMed]
  • MULLER HJ, FALK R. Are induced mutations in Drosophila overdominant? I. Experimental design. Genetics. 1961 Jul;46:727–735. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wallace B. THE EFFECT OF HETEROZYGOSITY FOR NEW MUTATIONS ON VIABILITY IN Drosophila: A PRELIMINARY REPORT. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1957 May 15;43(5):404–407. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Whitlock Michael C. Selection, load and inbreeding depression in a large metapopulation. Genetics. 2002 Mar;160(3):1191–1202. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Peters AD, Keightley PD. A test for epistasis among induced mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2000 Dec;156(4):1635–1647. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Simmons MJ, Crow JF. Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:49–78. [PubMed]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Genetics Society of America


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...