The original source of new alleles, upon which selection oper- ates, is mutation, a random event that occurs without regard to selectional value in the organism. Although many model organ- isms have been used to study mutational events in populations, some investigators have developed abiotic molecular models. Soll et al. \((2006 . \text { Genetics } 175: 267-275)\) examined one such model to study the relationship between both deleterious and advantageous mutations and population size in a ligase molecule composed of RNA (a ribozyme). Soll found that the smaller the population of molecules, the more likely it was that not only deleterious mutations but also advantageous mutations would disappear. Why would population size influence the survival of both types of mutations (deleterious and advantageous) in populations?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: Population size influences the survival of both deleterious and advantageous mutations in populations because it affects the impact of genetic drift. In small populations, genetic drift may cause the loss of advantageous mutations and the fixation or disappearance of deleterious mutations more often due to random fluctuations in allele frequencies. In larger populations, the impact of genetic drift is reduced, allowing selection to have a greater effect on the fate of mutations.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding mutation in populations

Mutation is a random event that introduces new alleles into a population. These new alleles can be either advantageous, deleterious, or neutral depending upon the impact they have on the organism's fitness. The exercise states that the smaller population of molecules, the more likely it is that mutations of both deleterious and advantageous types would disappear.
02

Impact of population size on genetic drift

Population size plays an important role in determining the fate of new mutations. In small populations, genetic drift, a random fluctuation in allele frequencies, has a significant impact. Genetic drift can cause the loss of advantageous mutations, or the fixation (increase in frequency until it becomes the only allele) of deleterious mutations. In larger populations, the impact of genetic drift is diluted, and the chance of fixation or loss of mutations is reduced.
03

Impact of genetic drift on advantageous and deleterious mutations

In small populations, even advantageous mutations may disappear because of genetic drift. This is because their advantage might not be enough to overcome the random fluctuations in allele frequencies within the population. Similarly, deleterious mutations also have an increased chance of disappearing from smaller populations, as they are more prone to get lost due to random fluctuations even before selection can act upon them.
04

Conclusion

Population size influences the survival of both deleterious and advantageous mutations in populations because it affects the impact of genetic drift. In small populations, genetic drift may cause the loss of advantageous mutations and the fixation or disappearance of deleterious mutations more often due to random fluctuations in allele frequencies. In larger populations, the impact of genetic drift is reduced, allowing selection to have a greater effect on the fate of mutations.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Mutation in Populations
Mutation serves as the cornerstone of genetic variety, fueling evolution by adding fresh genetic scripts into the population's gene pool. These mutations can emerge without clear intent or direction—essentially, they are accidental tweaks to an organism’s DNA. Some changes may have neutral implications, but when they meaningfully impact an organism’s ability to thrive and reproduce, they become pivotal to population genetics.

Consider flipping a coin as a metaphor for mutation. Just as heads or tails can emerge at random, so do mutations present themselves without preference. Small-scale mutations, such as single nucleotide polymorphisms, alter just a tiny fraction of the genetic code, whereas larger-scale mutations can rearrange whole segments of chromosomes, with varying effects on an organism’s fitness.
Genetic Drift
Genetic drift is the fancy term for the serendipitous ebb and flow of allele frequencies in a population, particularly noticeable in smaller gene pools. This phenomenon resembles a bag of mixed candies, where randomly grabbing a handful might give you an uneven representation of flavors—the same can happen with genes.

In every new generation, some alleles may become more common while others fade away, not because of their survival advantage but purely by chance. Think of it as the roulette wheel of genetics, where each spin dishes out different winning numbers, or in this case, alleles. Over time, genetic drift can dramatically remodel the genetic landscape of a population, independent of natural selection.
Allele Frequency
The concept of allele frequency is about counting up the representation of a particular genetic variation within a population. Imagine a beach strewn with pebbles of different colors. The percentage of, say, blue pebbles in the vast sea of stones quantifies their allele frequency.

In terms of genetics, if a large majority of a population carries a specific allele, it has a high frequency. These frequencies are not static but rather shift over time due to mutation, selection, genetic drift, and other evolutionary forces. Monitoring these changes is akin to watching the tides reshape the shoreline, each wave (or generational change) leaving a new pattern in the sand.
Advantageous Mutations
Advantageous mutations are like genetic gold dust; they offer the bearer a leg-up in the survival stakes. They're mutations that fit so well within a particular environment that they enhance an organism's reproductive success. For instance, it's like having the perfect tool for a job while others make do with second-best.

These beneficial mutations can lead to improved traits - perhaps a bird with a sharper beak, better-suited for snagging its prey. If such a mutation occurs, the bird could have more offspring than others, cascading this useful genetic change through the bird's population over generations, a process represented by increased allele frequency.
Deleterious Mutations
On the flip side, nature sometimes rolls the genetic dice and comes up with deleterious mutations—genetic alterations that deduct points from an organism's scorecard of survival or reproduction. It's like downloading a faulty mobile app update that crashes upon opening. These mutations can impair how an organism functions or survives within their environment.

A classic example could be a moth with a mutation that gives it a brightly colored wing pattern, making it an easier target for predators. These harmful genetic changes tend to be weeded out by natural selection, as the individuals carrying them often have fewer offspring. Yet in smaller populations, these mutations sometimes slip through the cracks, either by accidentally becoming fixed or by fading away, courtesy of genetic drift.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A form of dwarfism known as Ellis-van Creveld syndrome was first discovered in the late 1930 s, when Richard Ellis and Simon van Creveld shared a train compartment on the way to a pediatrics meeting. In the course of conversation, they discovered that they each had a patient with this syndrome. They published a description of the syndrome in \(1940 .\) Affected individuals have a short-limbed form of dwarfism and often have defects of the lips and teeth, and polydactyly (extra fingers). The largest pedigree for the condition was reported in an Old Order Amish population in eastern Pennsylvania by Victor McKusick and his colleagues \((1964) .\) In that community, about 5 per 1000 births are affected, and in the population of 8000 , the observed frequency is 2 per 1000\. All affected individuals have unaffected parents, and all affected cases can trace their ancestry to Samuel King and his wife, who arrived in the area in \(1774 .\) It is known that neither King nor his wife was affected with the disorder. There are no cases of the disorder in other Amish communities, such as those in Ohio or Indiana. (a) From the information provided, derive the most likely mode of inheritance of this disorder. Using the Hardy-Weinberg law, calculate the frequency of the mutant allele in the population and the frequency of heterozygotes, assuming Hardy- Weinberg conditions. (b) What is the most likely explanation for the high frequency of the disorder in the Pennsylvania Amish community and its absence in other Amish communities?

In a population where only the total number of individuals with the dominant phenotype is known, how can you calculate the percentage of carriers and homozygous recessives?

The use of nucleotide sequence data to measure genetic vari- ability is complicated by the fact that the genes of many eukaryotes are complex in organization and contain \(5^{\prime}\) and \(3^{\prime}\) flanking regions as well as introns. Researchers have compared the nucleotide sequence of two cloned alleles of the \(\gamma\) -globin gene from a single individual and found a variation of 1 percent. Those differences include 13 substitutions of one nucle- otide for another and three short DNA segments that have been inserted in one allele or deleted in the other. None of the changes takes place in the gene's exons (coding regions). Why do you think this is so, and should it change our concept of genetic variation?

The genetic difference between two Drosophila species, \(D\), het. eroneura and \(D\), silvestris, as measured by nucleotide diversity, is about 1.8 percent. The difference between chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans (H. sapiens) is about the same, yet the latter species is classified in a different genera. In your opinion, is this valid? Explain why.

If 4 percent of a population in equilibrium expresses a recessive trait, what is the probability that the offspring of two individuals who do not express the trait will express it?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Biology Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free