Nick Barton
ABSTRACT
Even though both population and quantitative genetics, and evolutionary computation, deal with the same questions, they have developed largely independently of each other. I review key results from each field, emphasising those that apply independently of the (usually unknown) relation between genotype and phenotype. The infinitesimal model provides a simple framework for predicting the response of complex traits to selection, which in biology has proved remarkably successful. This allows one to choose the schedule of population sizes and selection intensities that will maximise the response to selection, given that the total number of individuals realised, C = ∑t Nt, is constrained. This argument shows that for an additive trait (i.e., determined by the sum of effects of the genes), the optimum population size and the maximum possible response (i.e., the total change in trait mean) are both proportional to √C.
- N. H. Barton. A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genetical Research, 65(2):123--144, 1995.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- N. H. Barton and J. Coe. On the application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 259(2):317--324, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. H. Barton and H. P. de Vladar. Statistical mechanics and the evolution of polygenic quantitative traits. Genetics, 181(3):997--1011, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Berg, S. Willmann, and M. Lassig. Adaptive evolution of transcription factor binding sites. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 4(1):42, 2004.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Davis and A. Etheridge. Louis Bachelier's Theory of Speculation: The Origins of Modern Finance. Princeton University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
- R. A. Fisher. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance. Proceeding of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52:399--433, 1918.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. A. Fisher. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1930.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. B. Fogel, editor. Evolutionary Computation: The Fossil Record. Wiley-IEEE Press, 1 edition, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. J. Gerrish, A. Colato, A. S. Perelson, and P. D. Sniegowski. Complete genetic linkage can subvert natural selection. PNAS, 104(15):6266--6271, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. B. S. Haldane. The effect of variation of fitness. The American Naturalist, 71(735):337--349, 1937.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. B. S. Haldane. The cost of selection. J. Genet., 55:511--524, 1957.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. He and X. Yao. A study of drift analysis for estimating computation time of evolutionary algorithms. Natural Computing, 3(1):21--35, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Hill and A. Robertson. Effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res., 8(3):269--294, 1966.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. H. Holland. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. University of Michigan Press, 1975.Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Jarzynski. Nonequilibrium equality for free energy differences. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78(14):2690--2693, 1997.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kimura. Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. Genetical Research, 2(01):127--140, 1961.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kimura. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution. Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
- M. Kimura and T. Ohta. Genetic loads at a polymorphic locus which is maintained by frequency-dependent selection. Genet. Res., 16(2):145--150, 1970.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kirkpatrick. Quantum evolution and punctuated equilibria in continuous genetic characters. American Naturalist, 119(6):833--848, 1982.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kirschner and J. Gerhart. Evolvability. Proceeding of the Natianal Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 95(15):8420--8427, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Lande. Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution. Evolution, 30(2):314--334, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Livnat, C. Papadimitriou, N. Pippenger, and M. W. Feldman. Sex, mixability, and modularity. PNAS, 107(4):1452--1457, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Lush. Animal Breeding Plans. Iowa State University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
- H. Mühlenbeim and T. Mahnig. Evolutionary computation and beyond. In Y. Uesaka, P. Kanerva, and H. Asoh, editors, Foundations of Real World Intelligence, pages 123--187. University of Chicago Press, 2001.Google Scholar
- H. Muller. Our load of mutations. Am. J. Hum. Genet., 2(2):111--176, 1950.Google Scholar
- V. Mustonen and M. Laessig. Fitness flux and ubiquity of adaptive evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 107(9):4248--4251, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Oppacher and M. Wineberg. Reconstructing the shifting balance theory in a GA: taking sewall wright seriously. In Proceedings of the 2000 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2000, volume 1, pages 219--226 vol.1, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. A. Orr. The population genetics of adaptation: The distribution of factors fixed during adaptive evolution. Evolution, 52(4):935--949, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. P. Otto and N. H. Barton. Selection for recombination in small populations. Evolution, 55(10):1921--1931, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. R. Price. Selection and covariance. Nature, 227(5257):520--521, 1970.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. B. Provine. Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. University Of Chicago Press, 1989.Google Scholar
- W. B. Provine. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. University Of Chicago Press, 1 edition, 2001.Google Scholar
- A. Prügel-Bennett. Modelling evolving populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185:81--95, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Robertson. A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proc. Biol. Sci., 153:234--249, 1960.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Robertson. A mathematical model of culling process in dairy cattle. Animal Production, 8:95--108, 1966.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Robertson. Some optimum problems in individual selection. Theoretical Population Biology, 1(1):120--127, 1970.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Ruse. Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Harvard University Press, first edition, 1997.Google Scholar
- G. Sella, A. E. Hirsh, and S. A. Levin. The application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(27):9541--9546, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Y. Toquenaga and M. J. Wade. Sewall wright meets artificial life: the origin and maintenance of evolutionary novelty. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(11):478--482, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. E. Weber and L. T. Diggins. Increased selection response in larger populations. II. selection for ethanol vapor resistance in drosophila melanogaster at two population sizes. Genetics, 125(3):585--597, 1990.Google Scholar
- G. C. Williams. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- S. Wright. Evolution in mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2):97--159, 1931.Google Scholar
- S. Wright. The distribution of gene frequencies in populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 23(6):307--320, 1937.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Can quantitative and population genetics help us understand evolutionary computation?
Recommendations
A variance decomposition approach to the analysis of genetic algorithms
GECCO '13: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computationPrediction of the evolutionary process is a long standing problem both in the theory of evolutionary biology and evolutionary computation (EC). It has long been realized that heritable variation is crucial to both the response to selection and the ...
Towards a Runtime Comparison of Natural and Artificial Evolution
Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) form a popular optimisation paradigm inspired by natural evolution. In recent years the field of evolutionary computation has developed a rigorous analytical theory to analyse the runtimes of EAs on many illustrative ...
First Steps Towards a Runtime Comparison of Natural and Artificial Evolution
GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary ComputationEvolutionary algorithms (EAs) form a popular optimisation paradigm inspired by natural evolution. In recent years the field of evolutionary computation has developed a rigorous analytical theory to analyse their runtime on many illustrative problems. ...
Comments