1: %\documentstyle[preprint,pre,aps]{revtex}

2: \documentstyle[twocolumn,pre,aps,epsfig]{revtex}

3: 

4: \begin{document}

5: 

6: %\draft

7: 

8: \title{Symmetry breaking and coarsening in spatially distributed

9: evolutionary processes including sexual reproduction and disruptive

10: selection}

11: 

12: \author{Hiroki Sayama$^1$, Les Kaufman$^{1,2}$ and Yaneer Bar-Yam$^1$}

13: 

14: \address{$^1$ New England Complex Systems Institute, Cambridge, MA 02138\\

15: $^2$ Boston University, Dept.\ of Biology, Boston, MA 02215}

16: 

17: \maketitle

18: 

19: \begin{abstract} Sexual reproduction presents significant challenges to

20: formal treatment of evolutionary processes. A starting point for

21: systematic treatments of ecological and evolutionary phenomena has

22: been provided by the gene centered view of evolution which assigns

23: effective fitness to each allele instead of each organism. The gene

24: centered view can be formalized as a dynamic mean field approximation

25: applied to genes in reproduction / selection dynamics. We show that

26: the gene centered view breaks down for symmetry breaking and pattern

27: formation within a population; and show that spatial distributions of

28: organisms with local mating neighborhoods in the presence of

29: disruptive selection give rise to such symmetry breaking and pattern

30: formation in the genetic composition of local populations. Global

31: dynamics follows conventional coarsening of systems with nonconserved

32: order parameters. The results have significant implications for the

33: ecology of genetic diversity and species formation.

34: \end{abstract}

35: 

36: \pacs{PACS: 87.23.Cc, 87.23.Kg, 05.50.+q}

37: 

38: The dynamics of evolution can be studied by statistical models that

39: reflect properties of general models of the statistical dynamics of 

40: interacting systems\cite{baryam97}. Research on this topic can affect the

41: conceptual foundations of evolutionary biology, and many applications

42: in ecology, population biology, and conservation biology. Among the

43: central problems is understanding the creation, persistence, and

44: disappearance of genetic diversity. In this paper, we describe a model

45: of sexual reproduction which illustrates mean field approaches (the 

46: gene-centered view of evolution) and the relevance of symmetry breaking 

47: and pattern formation in spatially distributed populations as an example 

48: of the breakdown of these approximations.

49: 

50: Pattern formation in genomic space has been of increasing interest in

51: theoretical studies of sympatric

52: speciation\cite{baryam97,higgs91,bagnoli97,drossel00,kondrashov99,dieckmann99,higashi99}.

53: These papers advance our understanding of the mechanisms of forming

54: two species from one. However, they do not address the fundamental and

55: practical problems of genetic diversity and spatial inhomogeneity

56: within one species---a population whose evolution continues to be

57: coupled by sexual reproduction. Moreover, and significantly, these

58: papers do not address the implication of symmetry breaking and pattern

59: formation for the gene centered view as a fundamental framework of

60: evolutionary theory. In the following, we demonstrate that symmetry

61: breaking and pattern formation invalidate the gene centered view

62: (whether or not speciation occurs), and that they are important for

63: the spatio-temporal behavior of the genetic composition of sexually

64: reproducing populations. This has a wide range of implications for

65: ecology, conservation biology, and evolutionary theory.

66: 

67: Before introducing the complications of sexual reproduction, we start 

68: with the simplest iterative model of exponential growth of asexually 

69: reproducing populations:

70: 

71: \begin{equation}

72: N_i(t+1)=\lambda_i N_i(t)

73: \end{equation}

74: 

75: \noindent where $N_i$ is the population of type $i$ and $\lambda_i$ is

76: their fitness. If the total population is considered to be normalized,

77: the relevant dynamics is only of the proportion of each type, then we

78: obtain

79: 

80: \begin{equation}

81: P_i(t+1)=\frac{\lambda_i}{\sum_{i}\lambda_i P_i(t)} P_i(t)

82: \label{eqlabel2}

83: \end{equation}

84: 

85: \noindent where $P_i$ is the proportion of type $i$. The addition of

86: mutations to the model, $N_i(t+1)=\sum_j \lambda_{ij}N_j(t)$, gives

87: rise to the quasi-species model\cite{eigen89} which has attracted

88: significant attention in the physics community. Recent research has

89: focused on such questions as determining the rate of environmental

90: change which can be followed by evolutionary change.

91: 

92: Sexual reproduction causes offspring to depend on the genetic makeup

93: of two parents. This leads to conceptual problems (not just

94: mathematical problems) in evolutionary theory because the offspring of

95: an organism may be as different from the parent as organisms it is

96: competing against. A partial solution to this problem is recognizing

97: that it is sufficient for offspring traits to be correlated to

98: parental traits for the principles of evolution to apply. However, the

99: gene centered view is a simpler perspective in which the genes serve

100: as indivisible units that are preserved from generation to

101: generation\cite{footnote1}. In effect, different versions of the gene,

102: i.e.\ alleles, compete rather than organisms. This view simplifies the

103: interplay of selection and heredity in sexually reproducing organisms.

104: 

105: We will show, formally, that the gene centered view corresponds to a

106: mean field approximation\cite{baryam00}. This clarifies the domain of

107: its applicability and the conditions in which it should not be applied

108: to understanding evolutionary processes in real biological systems.

109: We will then describe the breakdown of the gene centered view in the

110: case of symmetry breaking and pattern formation and its implications

111: for the study of ecological systems.

112: 

113: It is helpful to explain the gene centered view using the ``rowers

114: analogy'' introduced by Dawkins\cite{dawkins89}. In this analogy boats

115: of mixed English- and German-speaking rowers are filled from a common

116: rower pool. Boats compete in heats and it is assumed that a speed

117: advantage exists for boats with more same-language rowers. The

118: successful rowers are then returned to the rower pool for the next

119: round. Over time, a predominantly and then totally same language rower

120: pool will result.  Thus, the selection of boats serves, in effect, to

121: select rowers who therefore may be considered to be competing against

122: each other\cite{footnote2}. In order to make the competition between

123: rowers precise, an effective fitness can be assigned to a rower. We

124: will make explicit the rowers model (in the context of genes and

125: sexual reproduction) and demonstrate the assignment of fitness to

126: rowers (genes).

127: 

128: The rowers analogy can be directly realized by considering genes with

129: selection in favor of a particular combination of alleles on genes. 

130: Specifically, for two genes, after selection, when allele $A_1$

131: appears in one gene, allele $B_1$ must appear on the second gene, and

132: when allele $A_{-1}$ appears on the first gene allele $B_{-1}$ must

133: appear on the second gene. We can write these high fitness organisms

134: with the notation $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$, and the organisms with lower

135: fitness as $(1,-1)$ and $(-1,1)$. For simplicity, we assume below that

136: the lower fitness organisms are non-reproducing. Models which allow

137: them to reproduce, but with lower probabilities than the high fitness

138: organisms, give similar results.

139: 

140: The assumption of placing rowers into the rower pool and taking them

141: out at random is equivalent to assuming that there are no correlations

142: in reproduction (i.e. no correlations in mate pairing) and that there

143: is a sufficiently dense sampling of genomic combinations by the

144: population (in this case only a few possibilities). Then the offspring

145: genetic makeup can be written as a product of the probability of each

146: allele in the parent population. This assumption describes a

147: ``panmictic population'' which forms the core of the gene centered

148: view often used in population biology. The assumption that the

149: offspring genotype frequencies can be written as a product of the

150: parent allele frequencies is a dynamic form of the usual mean field

151: approximation neglect of correlations in interacting statistical

152: systems\cite{footnote3}. While the explicit dynamics of this system is

153: not like the usual treatment of mean-field theory, e.g. in the Ising

154: model, many of the implications are analogous.

155: 

156: In our case, the reproducing parents (either $(1,1)$ or $(-1,-1)$)

157: must contain the same proportion of the correlated alleles ($A_1$ and

158: $B_1$) so that $p(t)$ can represent the proportion of either $A_1$ or

159: $B_1$ and $1-p(t)$ can represent the proportion of either $A_{-1}$ or

160: $B_{-1}$. The reproduction equation specifying the offspring (before

161: selection) for the gene pool model are:

162: 

163: \begin{eqnarray}

164: P_{1,1}(t+1) &=& p(t)^2 \\

165: P_{1,-1}(t+1) &=& P_{-1,1}(t+1) = p(t)(1-p(t)) \\

166: P_{-1,-1}(t+1) &=& (1-p(t))^2

167: \end{eqnarray}

168: 

169: \noindent where $P_{1,1}$ is the proportion of $(1,1)$ among the

170: offspring, and similarly for the other cases.

171: 

172: The proportion of the alleles in generation $t+1$ is given by the

173: selected organisms. Since the less fit organisms $(1,-1)$ and $(-1,1)$

174: do not survive this is given by

175: $p(t+1) = P'_{1,1}(t+1) + P'_{1,-1}(t+1)=P'_{1,1}(t+1)$, where

176: primes indicate the proportion of the selected organisms. Thus

177: 

178: \begin{equation}

179: p(t+1)=\frac{P_{1,1}(t+1)}{P_{1,1}(t+1)+P_{-1,-1}(t+1)}

180: \end{equation}

181: 

182: \noindent This gives the update equation:

183: 

184: \begin{equation}

185: p(t+1) = \frac{p(t)^2}{p(t)^2 + (1-p(t))^2} \label{eqlabel4}

186: \end{equation}

187: 

188: There are two stable states of the population with all organisms

189: $(1,1)$ or all organisms $(-1,-1)$. If we start with exactly 50\% of

190: each allele, then there is an unstable steady state. In every

191: generation 50\% of the organisms reproduce and 50\% do not. Any small

192: bias in the proportion of one or the other will cause there to be

193: progressively more of one type over the other, and the population will

194: eventually have only one set of alleles. This problem is reminiscent

195: of an Ising ferromagnet at low temperature: A statistically biased

196: initial condition leads to alignment.

197: 

198: This model can be reinterpreted by assigning a mean fitness (analogous

199: to a mean field) to each allele as in Eq.\ (\ref{eqlabel2}). The

200: fitness coefficient for allele $A_1$ or $B_1$ is $\lambda_1 = p(t)$

201: with the corresponding $\lambda_{-1} = 1-\lambda_1$. The assignment of

202: a fitness to an allele reflects the gene centered view.  The explicit

203: dependence on the population composition (an Engligh-speaking rower in

204: a predominantly English-speaking rower pool has higher fitness than

205: one in a predominantly German-speaking rower pool) has been objected

206: to on grounds of biological appropriateness \cite{sober82}. For our

207: purposes, we recognize this dependence as the natural outcome of a

208: mean field approximation.

209: 

210: We can describe more specifically the relationship between this

211: picture and the mean field approximation by recognizing that the

212: assumptions of no correlations in reproduction, a random mating

213: pattern of parents, is the same as a long-range interaction in an

214: Ising model. If there is a spatial distribution of organisms with

215: mating correlated by spatial location and fluctuations so that the

216: starting population has more of the alleles represented by 1 in one

217: region and more of the alleles represented by $-1$ in another region,

218: then patches of organisms that have predominantly $(1,1)$ or $(-1,-1)$

219: form after several generations. This symmetry breaking, like in a

220: ferromagnet, is the usual breakdown of the mean field approximation. 

221: Here, it creates correlations / patterns in the genetic makeup of the

222: population. When correlations become significant then the species has

223: two types, though they are still able to cross-mate and are doing so

224: at the boundaries of the patches. Thus the gene centered view breaks

225: down when multiple organism types form.

226: 

227: Understanding the spatial distribution of organism genotype is a

228: central problem in ecology and conservation

229: biology\cite{tilman97,durett94}.  The spatial patterns that can arise

230: from spontaneous symmetry breaking through sexual reproduction, as

231: implied by the analogy with other models, may be relevant.  A

232: systematic study of the relevance of symmetry breaking to ecological

233: systems begins from a study of spatially distributed versions of the

234: model just described. This model is a simplest model of disruptive

235: selection, which corresponds to selection in favor of two genotypes

236: whose hybrids are less viable. Assuming overlapping local reproduction

237: neighborhoods, called demes, the relevant equations are:

238: 

239: \begin{eqnarray}

240: p(x,t+1) &=& D(\bar{p}(x,t)) \\

241: D(p) &=& \frac{p^2}{p^2 + (1-p)^2}\\

242: \bar{p}(x,t) &=& \frac{1}{N_R}\sum_{|x_j|\le R} p(x+x_j,t) \\

243: N_R &=& \bigl| \{x_j \bigm| |x_j|\le R \} \bigr|

244: \end{eqnarray}

245: 

246: \noindent where the organisms are distributed over a two-dimensional

247: grid and the local genotype averaging is performed over a preselected

248: range of grid cells around the central cell. Under these conditions

249: the organisms locally tend to assume one or the other type. In

250: contrast to conventional insights in ecology and population biology,

251: there is no need for either complete separation of organisms or

252: environmental variations to lead to spatially varying genotypes.

253: However, because the organisms are not physically isolated from each

254: other, the boundaries between neighboring domains will move, and the

255: domains will follow conventional coarsening behavior for systems with

256: non-conserved order parameters.

257: 

258: A simulation of this model starting from random initial conditions is

259: shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig1}. This initial condition can arise when

260: selection becomes disruptive after being non-disruptive due to

261: environmental change. The formation of domains of the two different

262: types that progressively coarsen over time can be seen. While the

263: evolutionary dynamics describing the local process of organism

264: selection is different, the spatial dynamics of domains is equivalent

265: to the process of coarsening / pattern formation that occurs in many

266: other systems such as an Ising model or similar cellular automata

267: models\cite{bray94,ermentrout93}. Fourier transformed power spectra

268: (Figs.\ \ref{fig2}--\ref{fig4}) confirm the correspondence to

269: conventional coarsening by showing that the correlation length grows

270: as $t^{1/2}$ after initial transients. In a finite sized system, it is

271: possible for one type to completely eliminate the other type. However,

272: the time scale over which this takes place is much longer than the

273: results assuming complete reproductive mixing, i.e.\ the mean field

274: approximation.  Since flat boundaries do not move except by random

275: perturbations, a non-uniform final state is possible. The addition of

276: noise will cause slow relaxation of flat boundaries but they can also

277: be trapped by quenched (frozen) inhomogeneity.

278: 

279: \begin{figure}

280: \psfig{file=fig1.eps,width=\columnwidth}

281: \caption{Spatially distributed evolution with disruptive selection

282: giving rise to two types appearing in patches and coarsening. The

283: space is periodic and has $256 \times 256$ sites, and the mating

284: neighborhood radius is $R=5$.}

285: \label{fig1}

286: \end{figure}

287: 

288: \begin{figure}

289: \psfig{file=fig2.eps,width=\columnwidth}

290: \caption{Fourier power spectra averaged over ten simulations of

291: evolutionary processes like that shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig1} ($512

292: \times 512$ sites and $R=1$).}

293: \label{fig2}

294: \end{figure}

295: 

296: \begin{figure}

297: \psfig{file=fig3.eps,width=\columnwidth}

298: \caption{Temporal behavior of the peak of a Fourier power spectrum in

299: the shown case. Top: The peak frequency $k_p(t)$ which follows

300: approximately $t^{-1/2}$. Bottom: The peak power $S(k_p)$ which

301: follows approximately $t^{1/2}$.}

302: \label{fig3}

303: \end{figure}

304: 

305: \begin{figure}

306: \psfig{file=fig4.eps,width=\columnwidth}

307: \caption{Collapsed version of the Fourier power spectra demonstrating

308: the scaling form $S(k)=t^{1/2} f(kt^{1/2})$.}

309: \label{fig4}

310: \end{figure}

311: 

312: The results have significant implications for ecology of genetic

313: diversity and species formation. The observation of harlequin

314: distribution patterns of sister forms is generally attributed to

315: nonhomogeneities in the environment, i.e. that these patterns reflect

316: features of the underlying habitat (=selective) template. Our

317: results show that disruptive selection can give rise to

318: spontaneously self-organized patterns of spatial distribution that

319: are independent of underlying habitat structure. At a particular time,

320: the history of introduction of disruptive selection events would

321: be apparent as a set of overlapping patterns of genetic diversity

322: that exist on various spatial scales.

323: 

324: More specific relevance of these results to the theoretical

325: understanding of genetic diversity can be seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig5}

326: where the population averaged time dependence of $p$ is shown. The

327: gene centered view / mean field approximation predicts a rapid

328: homogenization over the entire population.  The persistence of

329: diversity in simulations with symmetry breaking, as compared to its

330: disappearance in mean field approximation, is significant.

331: Implications for experimental tests and methods are also important.

332: Symmetry breaking predicts that when population diversity is measured

333: locally, rapid homogenization similar to the mean field prediction

334: will apply, while when they are measured over areas significantly

335: larger than the expected range of reproduction, extended persistence

336: of diversity should be observed.

337: 

338: \begin{figure}

339: \psfig{file=fig5.eps,width=\columnwidth}

340: \caption{Comparison of the time dependence of type probability in the

341: mean field approximation and symmetry breaking, calculated using different

342: random number sequences. Diversity persists much longer in the latter. In

343: some cases, forever.}

344: \label{fig5}

345: \end{figure}

346: 

347: The divergence of population traits in space studied in our work can

348: also couple to processes of speciation, i.e., processes that prevent

349: interbreeding or doom the progeny of such breedings. These may include

350: assortative mating, whereby organism traits inhibit interbreeding. Such

351: divergences can potentially lead to the formation of multiple species

352: from a single connected species (sympatric speciation). By contrast,

353: allopatric speciation, where disconnected populations diverge, has

354: traditionally been the more accepted process even though experimental

355: observations suggest sympatric speciation is important.

356: 

357: Recent

358: studies\cite{baryam97,higgs91,bagnoli97,drossel00,kondrashov99,dieckmann99,higashi99}

359: have begun to connect the process of symmetry breaking to sympatric

360: speciation. Without considering pattern formation in physical space,

361: we and other researchers have been investigating the role of pattern

362: formation in genomic space as a mechanism or description of sympatric

363: speciation. These studies include: a model of stochastic branching and

364: fixation of subpopulations due to genetic drifts and local

365: reproduction in genome space\cite{higgs91}, general reaction-diffusion

366: Turing pattern formation models in genomic

367: space\cite{baryam97,bagnoli97,drossel00}, and specific

368: individual-based models of reproductive isolation involving

369: assortative mating and disruptive selection (intrinsic disruptive

370: selection, or disruptive selection arising from competition or sexual

371: selection)\cite{kondrashov99,dieckmann99,higashi99}. Our work,

372: presented here, is unique in discussing spatial inhomogeneity and

373: genetic diversity within one species.

374: 

375: In conclusion, in formalizing sexual reproduction in evolutionary

376: theory, we have found fundamental justification for rejecting the

377: widespread application of the gene centered view. The formal

378: mathematical analysis we presented to demonstrate the lack of

379: applicability of the gene centered view is an essential step toward

380: developing a sound conceptual foundation for evolution. We also

381: showed that the gene centered view breaks down for species where local

382: mating and disruptive selection give rise to symmetry breaking and

383: pattern formation, which correspond to genetic inhomogeneity and trait

384: divergence of subpopulations. The patterns formed undergo coarsening,

385: following the usual universal spatio-temporal scaling behavior. The

386: slow movement of boundaries between types cause long term persistence

387: of genetic diversity through the local survival of (partially)

388: incompatible types. This provides a new understanding of the

389: development and persistence of spatio-temporal patterns of genetic

390: diversity within a single species.

391: 

392: One should note that the context in which the gene centered view

393: breaks down is of profound significance in applied aspects of modern

394: ecology and conservation biology. The preservation of endangered

395: species and ecosystems is currently at risk due to a dramatic decrease

396: in their genetic diversity. We have described the implications of our

397: results for the experimental observation of genetic diversity in

398: endangered species. Our study of spatial patterns of genetic diversity

399: in populations may also help guide the design of conservation areas

400: and human directed breeding programs for endangered organisms.

401: 

402: \begin{references}

403: 

404: \bibitem{baryam97} Bar-Yam, Y., Dynamics of Complex

405: Systems, Addison-Wesley Longman (1997).

406: 

407: \bibitem{higgs91} Higgs, P.\ and Derrida, B., J.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 24}, L985 (1991).

408: 

409: \bibitem{bagnoli97} Bagnoli, F.\ and Bezzi, M., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\

410: {\bf 79}, 3302 (1997). While the authors state that they are studying

411: speciation, they are actually treating trait divergence of asexually

412: reproducing organisms, rather than speciation, since they do not

413: include sexual reproduction in their model.

414: 

415: \bibitem{drossel00} Drossel, B.\ and McKane, A., J.\ theor.\ Biol.\ 

416: {\bf 204}, 467 (2000).

417: 

418: \bibitem{kondrashov99} Kondrashov, A.\ S.\ and Kondrashov, F.\ A.,

419: Nature {\bf 400}, 351 (1999).

420: 

421: \bibitem{dieckmann99} Dieckmann, U.\ and Doebeli, M., Nature {\bf 400},

422: 354 (1999).

423: 

424: \bibitem{higashi99} Higashi, M., Takimoto, G.\ and Yamamura, N., Nature

425: {\bf 402}, 523 (1999).

426: 

427: \bibitem{eigen89} Eigen, M., McCaskill, J.\ and Schuster, P.,

428: Adv.\ Chem.\ Phys.\ {\bf 75}, 149 (1989).

429: 

430: \bibitem{footnote1} The evolutionary indivisibility of genes is also

431: not necessarily well justified.

432: 

433: \bibitem{baryam00} Bar-Yam, Y., Adv.\ Complex Sys.\ {\bf 2}, 

434: 277 (1999).

435: 

436: \bibitem{dawkins89} Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene, 2nd ed.,

437: Oxford University Press, p.86 (1989).

438: 

439: \bibitem{footnote2} For a collection of articles discussing the

440: ``levels of selection controversy'' see: Brandon, R.\ N.\ and Burian,

441: R.\ M., eds., Genes, Organisms, Populations: Controversies Over the

442: Units of Selection, MIT Press (1984).

443: 

444: \bibitem{footnote3} The general relationship between the

445: mean-field approximation and the gene centered view can be shown by

446: considering a two-step process of reproduction and selection:

447: \begin{eqnarray*}

448: \{N(s;t)\} & = & R[\{N'(s;t-1)\}] \\

449: \{N'(s;t)\} & = & D[\{N(s;t)\}]

450: \end{eqnarray*}

451: \noindent where $s$ is a particular genome, and $N, N'$ are numbers of

452: reproduced, selected organisms respectively. Using a mean field

453: approximation for offspring, the probability of

454: a particular genome $s$ is the

455: product of probabilities of the alleles $a_i$: $P(a_1,\ldots,a_N) =

456: \prod P(a_i)$. This enables the two-step

457: update equations to be written as a one-step update equation for each

458: allele:

459: \[n'(a_i;t) = \tilde{D}[\{n'(a_i;t-1)\}] = \lambda(\{n'\}) n'(a_i;t-1)\]

460: \noindent where $n'(a_i)$ is the number of allele $a_i$. For details

461: see \cite{baryam00}.

462: 

463: \bibitem{sober82} Sober, E.\ and Lewontin, R.\ C., Phil.\ Sci.\ {\bf

464: 49}, 157 (1982).

465: 

466: \bibitem{tilman97} Tilman, D.\ and Kariena, P., eds., Spatial Ecology:

467: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific

468: Interactions, Princeton University Press, p.368 (1997).

469: 

470: \bibitem{durett94} Durett, R.\ and Levin, S.\ A., Phil.\ Trans.\ R.\

471: Soc.\ Lond.\ {\bf B 343}, 329 (1994).

472: 

473: \bibitem{bray94} Bray, A.\ J., Advances in Physics {\bf 43}, 357 (1994).

474: 

475: \bibitem{ermentrout93} Ermentrout,\ G.\ B.\ and Edelstein-Keshet, J., 

476: Theor.\ Biol.\ {\bf 160}, 97 (1993).

477: 

478: \end{references}

479: 

480: \end{document}

481: