1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
2: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
3: \usepackage{graphicx,psfrag}
4: %\usepackage[hypertex]{hyperref}
5:
6: \newcommand{\average}[1]{\left<{#1}\right>}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9: %\preprint{\bf Revision 1}
10: \title[Population size effects in evolutionary dynamics]{Population
11: size effects in evolutionary dynamics on neutral
12: networks and toy landscapes}
13: \author{Sumedha$^1$,
14: Olivier C. Martin$^1,^2$, and Luca Peliti$^3$}
15: \address{$^1$ Université Paris-Sud, UMR8626, LPTMS, Orsay, F-91405; CNRS, Orsay,
16: F-91405, France}
17: \address{$^2$ UMR de Génétique Végétale du Moulon,
18: INRA-UPS-CNRS-INA PG, F--91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France}
19: \address{$^3$ Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Sezione INFN and Unitŕ
20: CNISM, Universitŕ di Napoli ``Federico II'', Complesso
21: Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, I--80126 Napoli, Italy}
22: \eads{\mailto{sumedha.sumedha@gmail.com},
23: \mailto{olivier.martin@u-psud.fr},
24: \mailto{Luca.Peliti@na.infn.it}}
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We study the dynamics of a population subject to selective
27: pressures, evolving either on RNA neutral networks or in toy fitness
28: landscapes. We discuss the spread and the neutrality of the
29: population in the steady state. Different limits arise depending on
30: whether selection or random drift are dominant. In the presence of
31: strong drift we show that observables depend mainly on $M \mu$, $M$
32: being the population size and $\mu$ the mutation rate, while
33: corrections to this scaling go as $1/M$: such corrections can be
34: quite large in the presence of selection if there are barriers in
35: the fitness landscape. Also we find that the convergence to
36: the large $M \mu$ limit is linear in $1/M \mu$. Finally
37: we introduce a
38: protocol that minimizes drift; then
39: observables scale like $1/M$ rather than $1/(M\mu)$, allowing one to
40: determine the large $M$ limit faster when $\mu$ is small; furthermore
41: the genotypic diversity increases from $O(\ln M)$ to
42: $O(M)$.
43: \end{abstract}
44:
45: \pacs{87.23.-n (Ecology and evolution),
46: 87.15.Aa (Theory and modeling; computer simulation),
47: 89.75.Hc (Networks and genealogical trees)}
48:
49: \submitto{JSTAT}
50:
51: Keywords: evolutionary dynamics, neutral networks, drift, selection
52:
53: \maketitle
54:
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: In evolutionary biology, populations are subject to a number of
58: forces that shape their genetic composition~\cite{HerronFreeman03}.
59: Amongst these, mutations, selection and drift play a central role.
60: Drift becomes dominant for small populations, while for large
61: populations one reaches a steady state where mutations balance
62: effects of selection. The landscape
63: paradigm~\cite{Wright32,Gavrilets04} provides a relation between
64: genotype/phenotype and fitness, allowing for quantitative studies of
65: evolving populations, while at the same time giving a qualitative
66: picture. This has been particularly developed in the context of
67: quasispecies theory~\cite{Eigen71,EigenSchuster77,EigenMcCaskill89}
68: and of evolution on networks~\cite{Stadler02,Schuster02}; in a
69: different framework these problems have been analyzed within
70: evolutionary game
71: theory~\cite{LiebermanHauert05,TaylorRudenbert04,RocaGuesta06,AntalRedner06}
72: although, in that case, usually there is no drift in the usual sense and
73: the number of genotypes is low.
74:
75: Let us consider a population of $M$ individuals evolving in a static
76: fitness landscape. We can define its steady-state distribution from
77: the average number of individuals with a given genotype, averaged
78: over a long stretch of time. One can also consider how
79: the population is spread out in genotype
80: space. If all genotypes have the same fitness (flat
81: landscape), the steady state distribution is independent of $M$
82: while the spread of the population depends mainly on the product $M
83: \mu$ where $\mu$ is the mutation rate~\cite{DerridaPeliti91}. In the
84: limit of an infinite population ($\mu$ fixed),
85: the generation-to-generation
86: fluctuations vanish and the instantaneous population distribution
87: coincides with the steady-state one. This is the quasispecies limit,
88: where the steady-state distribution is given by the leading
89: eigenvector of the evolution
90: operator~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}. When the population
91: is finite, no general analytic solution for the steady-state
92: distribution is known. If the population size is much greater than
93: the number of genotypes, then the so-called diffusion
94: approximation~\cite{Ewens04} can be used. However, in most
95: realistic cases, the number of possible genotypes is much greater
96: than the population size. We are interested in understanding how
97: mutation, selection and drift affect different properties of the
98: steady state in such systems.
99:
100: To unravel the different effects, we consider different evolutionary
101: dynamics, in which some of these processes may be present or not.
102: Most of our study is conducted in the framework of RNA neutral
103: networks~\cite{FontanaStadler93,Schuster02}, the archetypes of
104: genotype to phenotype mappings, but we also consider toy fitness
105: landscapes. After specifying our systems and population dynamics in
106: sections~\ref{sec:NeutralNetworks} to
107: \ref{sec:EvolutionaryDynamics}, we examine the dependence on the
108: mutation rate $\mu$ and on $M$ of the different processes driving
109: the dynamics. We begin with the case of neutral evolution in
110: section~\ref{sec:DynamicsWithoutSelection}, turning on and off the
111: drift. In section~\ref{sec:SelectionAndDrift} we allow for selection
112: in the usual way that leads to significant drift. As a general rule,
113: drift in these situations leads to $M \mu$ scaling, as shown
114: previously in the absence of selection~\cite{DerridaPeliti91}. Then
115: in section~\ref{sec:SelectionLowDrift} we introduce a particular
116: dynamics with selection but \emph{low drift}. There the $M \mu$
117: scaling is replaced by a smooth large $M$ limit even when $\mu \to
118: 0$; furthermore the genotypic diversity becomes proportional to $M$
119: rather than being nearly constant. The corrections to these scalings
120: generically go as $O(1/M)$, with large effects when there are
121: barriers in the landscape, as we exhibit in
122: section~\ref{sec:Bottlenecks}. Section~\ref{sec:Conclusions} is
123: devoted to some final considerations.
124:
125: \section{RNA neutral networks as fitness landscapes}
126: \label{sec:NeutralNetworks}
127:
128: In studies of genotype to phenotype mappings, one often focuses on
129: biological molecules because the corresponding mapping is relatively
130: well defined. The genotype is simply the sequence of the
131: bio-molecule, while the phenotype is its shape, as specified for
132: instance by the minimum free-energy structure it folds into. Using
133: either protein or secondary RNA structures, it has been
134: found~\cite{Schuster02,FontanaStadler93,LipmanWilbur91,GrGiegerich96}
135: that neutral genotypes (genotypes that have a given phenotype) which
136: are connected via single mutational steps form extended networks
137: that permeate large regions of genotype space. These are known as
138: ``neutral networks''. Via the neutral network, a population can move
139: in genotype space without crossing unfavorable low-fitness regions,
140: in contrast to what happens in many rugged fitness
141: landscapes~\cite{Wright32,KauffmanLevin87,
142: FlyvbjergHenrik92,NimwegenCrutchfield00}. However, because of the
143: huge dimensionality of our genotype space, large neutral (or nearly
144: neutral) networks can be argued to be inevitable~\cite{Gavrilets04}.
145:
146: Here we shall work with an RNA neutral network, i.e., all RNA
147: sequences which fold into a given target RNA secondary structure.
148: The genotype of an RNA molecule is given by its base sequence: there
149: are four bases, A,C,G, and U, and thus $4^L$ genotypes for molecules
150: of $L$ bases. The molecule's phenotype is given by its
151: \emph{secondary} structure, i.e., by which bases are paired with which
152: as occur in its folded form. To every genotype one associates just
153: one phenotype (the secondary structure of minimum free energy) while
154: in general there will be many genotypes compatible with a given
155: phenotype. This many-to-one genotype to phenotype mapping has been
156: widely
157: studied~\cite{Schuster02,NimwegenCrutchfield99,FontanaStadler93,
158: GrGiegerich96,ReidysSchuster95,FontanaSchuster98,SchusterStadler02}.
159: Standard computational tools are available on the web to fold given
160: sequences; see for instance the \emph{fold} subroutine from the
161: Vienna package~\cite{Vienna95} which we used for all of this work's
162: computations. Two sequences are nearest neighbors (connected on the
163: neutral network) if and only if they differ by a single nucleotide
164: substitution. In general, RNA neutral networks are heterogenous
165: graphs, so that for instance the local connectivity varies quite a
166: lot from site to site.
167:
168: The secondary structure (phenotype) chosen in this study is the one
169: used by van~Nimwegen et
170: al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99,NimwegenCrutchfield00}: it has $18$
171: nucleotides with six base pairs and is depicted in figure~\ref{rna}.
172: By single-nucleotide substitutions, purine-pyrimidine base pairs
173: (G--C, G--U, A--U) can mutate into each other, but not into
174: pyrimidine-purine (C--G, U--G, U--A) base pairs. Hence we considered
175: only the purine-pyrimidine base pairs. Given the base pairing rules
176: for this system, the number of a priori ``compatible'' sequences for
177: such a structure is $4^{6} \times 3^6 =2985884$. At $30^\circ$C,
178: 37963 of these fold into the target structure; this number depends a
179: bit on the choice of temperature since the \textsl{fold} algorithm
180: computes free energies. We find these genotypes to be organized into
181: \emph{three} neutral networks (connected components), of sizes
182: $489$, $5784$ and $31484$ respectively. This will allow us to
183: investigate the effect of neutral network size on our observables.
184: %
185: \begin{figure}
186: % \psfrag{5'}{$5'$} \psfrag{3'}{$3'$}
187: \begin{center}
188: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{RNA.eps}
189: \end{center}
190: \caption{The target RNA secondary structure (cf.\ van Nimwegen et
191: al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}).} \label{rna}
192: \end{figure}
193: %
194:
195: To define the fitness landscape, we consider that individuals with
196: the ``correct'' phenotype (residing on the neutral network) are
197: viable, i.e., have maximal fitness, while all other phenotypes are
198: non-viable, i.e., have minimal fitness. We take these extreme values
199: to be 1 and 0, corresponding to the \emph{strong} selection limit;
200: then any mutation that takes one off the neutral network is lethal.
201:
202: \section{Population spread, Hamming distances and neutrality}
203: \label{sec:neutrality}
204:
205: We now ask how drift and selection affect observables associated
206: with the steady state population. A first observable quantifies how
207: much the population is ``spread out'' in genotype space, namely how
208: individuals at a given generation differ from one another in
209: genotype space. One defines the ``Hamming distance'' $h$ between two
210: genotypes as the number of positions where the two associated
211: sequences have different nucleotides. Following Derrida and
212: Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91}, we shall study the distribution
213: $P(h)$ of distances when two genotypes are taken at random in the
214: population, averaged over generations. If $P(h)$ is broad, then the
215: population is spread out in genotype space.
216:
217: A second observable is ``neutrality''~\cite{HuynenStadler96}. Let
218: $g_0$ be a genotype (a sequence of $L$ bases) belonging to the
219: neutral network; examine its $3 L$ possible single-nucleotide
220: substitutions and let $d$ be the number of these mutants that belong
221: to the neutral network. The ``neutrality'' of $g_0$ is then $d$, the
222: coordination (degree) of $g_0$ on the neutral network. A related
223: notion is the \emph{mutational robustness} $R_{\mu}$ of $g_0$. It is
224: defined as the survival probability of its mutant offspring. In the
225: context of neutral networks with fitness values 0 and 1, we see that
226: in fact
227: \begin{equation}
228: \label{eq:Rmu}
229: R_{\mu} = \frac{d}{3L},
230: \end{equation}
231: where $d$ is the neutrality of $g_0$. These definitions can be
232: straightforwardly extended to the neutrality or robustness of any
233: collection of genotypes. Thus one defines the ``network neutrality''
234: of a neutral network as the mean of $d$ when considering all of its
235: nodes. Similarly, when one has a \emph{population} of genotypes, the
236: ``population neutrality'' is simply the average of $d$ over that
237: population, each individual being counted once. The population neutrality
238: depends on both the neutral network properties and on the
239: evolutionary dynamics~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}. Furthermore, we
240: immediately see that the neutrality of a population is $3 L$ times
241: the mean robustness of its individuals.
242:
243:
244: \section{The model}
245: \label{sec:EvolutionaryDynamics}
246:
247: Many processes affect the genetic makeup of natural populations. In
248: this work, we focus on the effects of mutation, selection and drift.
249: We wish to turn on and off selection or even drift while considering
250: the effects of the population size $M$ or of the mutation rate
251: $\mu$. Thus the details of the evolutionary process we consider are
252: tailored to emphasize one or another of these aspects at a time.
253:
254: We consider a population evolving with nonoverlapping
255: generations; the population size is kept at a fixed value in the
256: standard way. Other choices could have been made, but as
257: in most studies, the detailed procedures used in the evolutionary
258: dynamics is not expected to be very important.
259:
260: Given the $M$ individuals at the current generation, we must produce
261: $M$ viable offspring to form the next generation. Each offspring is
262: produced from a parent and given a chance to mutate: with
263: probability $1-\mu$, no mutation is applied, and with probability
264: $\mu$ one base at random is changed. Then \emph{selection} is
265: applied: the child is kept if and only if it is viable. More
266: generally, on an arbitrary fitness landscape, we let it survive
267: stochastically according to its fitness. Of course if there is no
268: selection, the offspring is always kept. The process of producing
269: offspring is repeated until the new generation has size $M$.
270: \emph{Drift} comes in via the way the parents are chosen to produce
271: candidate offspring. In the standard method, the parents are chosen
272: randomly \emph{with replacement}: clearly this allows for drift as
273: by bad luck some parents will not produce any offspring. In the
274: presence of selection, drift cannot be turned off completely but it
275: can be significantly lowered.
276:
277: Indeed, let us consider the following process. First, each individual
278: of the population produces one offspring which mutates with
279: probability $\mu$: if a mutation is lethal, the corresponding
280: offspring is killed. In this step there is no replacement and the
281: resulting offspring population size will generally be smaller than
282: $M$. Second, one chooses individuals randomly from this offspring
283: population and replicates them. This is done until the population
284: size reaches $M$ again. Note that when $\mu$ is small, the new
285: generation will be nearly identical to the previous one, even for
286: small $M$, so there is very little drift. Because of selection, a
287: small amount of drift does occur, but its intensity is proportional
288: to $\mu$.
289:
290: In all our runs, we initialize arbitrarily the population and let it
291: evolve for a large number of generations until initial conditions
292: are forgotten: this is the steady state limit. All the data
293: presented in this work are time averages taken from this regime. We
294: are now ready to see how $M$, $\mu$, drift and selection affect the
295: spread, neutrality and the genotypic diversity of the steady state
296: population.
297:
298: \section{Dynamics without selection}
299: \label{sec:DynamicsWithoutSelection}
300:
301: In this section, we consider a population evolving without being
302: subject to selection. We investigate the effects of allowing or not
303: drift, first on regular networks and then on
304: heterogeneous ones.
305:
306: \subsection{Homogeneous networks}
307:
308: Consider the space of sequences of length $L$; if we take these to
309: all be viable, then we get a homogeneous network in which all
310: 1-mutant neighbors of each genotype belong to the network. Derrida
311: and Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91} studied the evolution of a
312: population on such a flat fitness landscape. Using the fact that
313: there is no selection, it is easy to show that the steady state
314: distribution is \emph{uniform}. Thus the population neutrality is
315: trivial, being given by the degree of the network, i.e., $3L$, for
316: all population sizes. In contrast to this simple result, the
317: distribution of Hamming distances between genotypes in the
318: population is generally non-trivial. Depending on the nature of the
319: dynamics, we have the following behaviors:
320: \begin{itemize}
321: \item[(a)] Drift off --- The offspring are produced from parents
322: \emph{without replacement}: since each individual has exactly one
323: offspring, each lineage acts like an independent random walk. Thus
324: the Hamming distances between the genotypes in the population are
325: completely random: the mean of $h$ lies at $3L/4$ (at each position
326: along the sequence, one has a $3/4$ chance of having different bases
327: when comparing two random sequences) and its variance is equal to
328: $3L/16$.
329: \item[(b)] Drift on --- Here the offspring are produced from parents
330: \emph{with replacement}: the number of offspring of an individual is
331: variable, leading to tree genealogies. This situation incorporating
332: drift was studied by Derrida and Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91} and
333: leads to a non-trivial $P(h)$ which depends on $M$ and $\mu$. At any
334: given generation, the individuals have mutual distances that reflect
335: the fact that they descend from a common ancestor, giving rise to a
336: clustering of the population that fluctuates from one generation to
337: the next. For our purposes here, we focus on the
338: result~\cite{DerridaPeliti91} that the relevant parameter when $M$
339: is large is $M \mu$: in particular, $P(h)$ depends only on the
340: product $M \mu$ at large $M$, a property that we call $M
341: \mu$~scaling.
342: \end{itemize}
343:
344:
345:
346: \subsection{RNA neutral networks}
347:
348: We now consider a population evolving on an RNA neutral network,
349: defined as the subspace of sequences which fold (at $30^\circ$~C)
350: into the target secondary structure shown in figure~\ref{rna}. RNA
351: neutral networks are generally heterogenous. Evolutionary dynamics
352: without selection can be implemented by simply ``forbidding''
353: attempts to apply lethal mutations. There are two natural ways to do
354: this, referred to as blind and myopic ant dynamics~\cite{Hughes96}.
355: In myopic ant dynamics, also called adaptive random
356: walks~\cite{KauffmanLevin87,FlyvbjergHenrik92,Orr03}, an offspring
357: that mutates is forced to choose a single point mutation that is
358: non-lethal (all non-lethal choices are equiprobable). In blind ant
359: dynamics (also called gradient random walks), a point mutation is
360: chosen at random (lethal or not): if it is non-lethal, it is
361: accepted, while if it is lethal, it is refused and the offspring is
362: taken to be \emph{non-mutant}. Both the blind and myopic dynamics
363: can be implemented with or without drift, according to the method
364: sketched in section~\ref{sec:EvolutionaryDynamics}. Although these
365: dynamical processes may appear to be somewhat artificial, they do
366: provide solvable cases. Furthermore, van~Nimwegen et
367: al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99} have shown that in the limit of
368: small $M \mu$, the standard evolutionary dynamics converges to the
369: blind ant dynamics.
370:
371: Consider first the case without drift, in which the sampling of the
372: parents takes place \emph{without replacement}. Then each lineage
373: performs an independent random walk on the whole neutral network. As
374: shown by van~Nimwegen et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}, the
375: steady-state distribution for blind ants is uniform on the neutral
376: network, while for myopic ants the probability of being at a node of
377: the neutral network that has degree $d$ is a constant times $d$.
378: (Note that if $d$ is the same for all nodes as in regular networks,
379: we obtain the uniform distribution as expected.) Given the
380: steady-state distribution, the histogram $P(h)$ of Hamming distances
381: is determined from the fact that the lineages are independent. At
382: large $L$, one expects it to become peaked, neutral networks being
383: widely spread out in genotype space. Furthermore, the steady-state
384: distribution and the $P(h)$ are $M$ and $\mu$ independent.
385:
386: %
387: \begin{figure}
388: %\psfrag{P(h)}{$P(h)$}\psfrag{h}{$h$}
389: \begin{center}
390: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmyp2.eps}
391: \end{center}
392: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances $h$ for different values
393: of $\mu$ for the myopic ant dynamics in the presence of drift. The
394: population size is $M=20$.} \label{hammingmy2}
395: \end{figure}
396: %
397:
398: Let us now allow for drift. The sampling of the parents takes place
399: \emph{with replacement}. Interestingly, the steady-state
400: distribution of the population is not affected by the drift: this is
401: due to the fact that the heterogeneity of the neutral network does
402: not affect the chances of appearance of an offspring. However, the
403: lineages are no longer independent since the population typically
404: shares a recent common ancestor. As a consequence, the
405: Hamming-distance distribution $P(h)$ is not determined from the
406: steady-state distribution: it is non-trivial and depends
407: on $M\mu$ at large $M$. Since this result holds in a far
408: more general context which includes selection, we postpone its proof
409: to the next section. \emph{Corrections} to the $M \mu$ scaling are
410: $O(1/M)$, with typically a rather small prefactor. In the $M \mu \to
411: 0$ limit, just as in the general population
412: dynamics~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}, one recovers the blind ant
413: dynamics.
414:
415: For illustration, we show in Figures \ref{hammingmy2} and
416: \ref{hammingmy1} the distribution of Hamming distances $h$ for a
417: population with myopic ant moves in the presence of drift on a
418: neutral network. We see that in spite of the heterogeneity of the
419: network, the $M \mu$ scaling holds just as for a homogeneous network.
420:
421: %
422: \begin{figure}
423: %\psfrag{P(h)}{$P(h)$}\psfrag{h}{$h$}
424: \begin{center}
425: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmyp1.eps}
426: \end{center}
427: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances $h$ for different values
428: of $M \mu$ for the myopic ant dynamics in the presence of drift. For
429: each $M \mu$ we studied $M=20$ and $M=40$. The data with same $M
430: \mu$ superimpose perfectly, exhibiting the $M \mu$ scaling.}
431: \label{hammingmy1}
432: \end{figure}
433: %
434:
435:
436: \section{Dynamics with selection and drift}
437: \label{sec:SelectionAndDrift}
438:
439: \subsection{The infinite-population (quasi-species) limit}
440: \label{subsec:InfinitePop}
441:
442: In the infinite-population limit, $M \to \infty$ (with $\mu$ fixed),
443: drift is absent and only the effects of mutation and
444: selection show up; this is called the quasi-species
445: regime~\cite{Eigen71,EigenSchuster77,EigenMcCaskill89}. As shown by
446: van~Nimwegen et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}, the steady-state
447: distribution is given in this limit by the dominant eigenvector
448: $\Psi_0$ of a linear operator defined by the adjacency matrix of the
449: network. This eigenvector does not depend on $\mu$, but its
450: eigenvalue $\lambda_0$ does. If each individual in the population
451: produced only one offspring, and the unviable ones were eliminated
452: without replacement, then the population size would decay by a
453: factor $\lambda_0$ at each generation. Relating this decay to the
454: mutational robustness $R_{\mu}$ of the steady-state population we
455: immediately obtain
456: \begin{equation}
457: \label{eq:RmuInfPop}
458: \lambda_0 = (1-\mu) + \mu R_{\mu},
459: \end{equation}
460: which yields the population's average neutrality $\langle d
461: \rangle_{\infty}$ via equation~(\ref{eq:Rmu}): both $R_{\mu}$ and
462: $\langle d \rangle_{\infty}$ are $\mu$ independent.
463:
464: These results can be compared to the population neutrality in the
465: case of blind/myopic ant moves, in which there is no explicit
466: fitness-based removal of individuals. In the case of blind ants, the
467: probability of residing on any node of the network is uniform. The
468: average neutrality seen by such a walker is just equal to the
469: average network neutrality. For a myopic ant, the probability of
470: choosing any node on the network is proportional to the degree of
471: the node. Neutrality is slightly higher in this case and is given by
472: the ratio of second and first moments of the node degrees. A
473: standard variational principle~\cite{SoshnikovSudakov03} shows that
474: the population neutrality is always at least as large as the network
475: neutrality, defined as the average degree of the neutral network.
476: %This property follows from a variational principle as
477: %follows. The linear operator ${\cal O}=(1-\mu){\cal I} + \mu {\bf A}/3L$,
478: %which evolves the genotype
479: %density from one generation to the next, is symmetric and thus has a real
480: %eigenvalue spectrum. The time evolution over many steps projects
481: %the initial density onto the eigenvector $\Psi_0$ of largest eigenvalue
482: %$\lambda_0$. Then the standard variational principle for the spectrum
483: %of ${\cal O}$ states that
484: %\begin{equation}
485: %\label{eq:variational} \lambda_\phi=\frac{\sum_{ij} \phi_i
486: %\,\mathcal{O}_{ij}\, \phi_j}{\sum_i \phi_i^2},
487: %\end{equation}
488: %is maximized when $\phi = \Psi_0$; this maximum
489: %is $\lambda_0=1-\mu + \mu \alpha_0 / 3L$ where
490: %$\alpha_0$ is the largest eigenvalue of the adjacency
491: %matrix. A direct calculation shows
492: %$\alpha_0 = \average{d}_{\Psi_0}$ which is
493: %the same as the population neutrality. Now if we take $\phi$
494: %to be the uniform distribution $\phi_0$, the variational expression
495: %gives
496: %\begin{equation}
497: %\lambda_{\phi_0} = (1-\mu) + \frac{\mu}{3L} \average{d}_{\phi_0}
498: %\end{equation}
499: %where $\average{d}_{\phi_0}$ is the network neutrality,
500: %proving the desired inequality.
501: Of course on a homogenous graph, population neutrality, blind ant
502: neutrality and myopic ant neutrality are all equal to the network
503: neutrality. We refer the reader to the work of van~Nimwegen
504: et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99} for a thorough discussion.
505:
506: %As for the
507: %population spread, there are no fluctuations from generation to
508: %generation and $P(h)$ is simply determined by the
509: %eigenvector $\Psi_0$ (and thus the steady state genotype density).
510:
511:
512: \subsection{Case of an infinite population at fixed $M \mu$}
513: \label{subsec:InfinitePopMmu}
514:
515: In biological situations, the mutation rate is very small, making
516: the large-$M$ limit of little use: indeed to get to the infinite $M$
517: limit just discussed, the quantity $M \mu$ must be large.
518: When $M \mu$ is finite, drift occurs, and it is of interest
519: to consider the large $M$ limit at fixed $M \mu$. In
520: the \emph{absence} of selection, the $M \mu$ scaling law has been derived
521: by Derrida and Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91}. In the presence of
522: selection, it has been exhibited from numerical simulations by
523: van~Nimwegen et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}. It turns out
524: that this scaling follows
525: from the dynamical equations, whether or not there is selection:
526: these equations are invariant under a simultaneous rescaling of
527: time, $M$ and $\mu$, as long as $M \mu$ is fixed, as we now show.
528:
529: Let $N_i(g)$ denote the number of individuals in the population
530: residing at the neutral network node $i$ at generation $g$. To go to
531: the next generation, let us choose $M$ individuals at random with
532: replacement, and let them mutate with probability $\mu$. One then
533: has
534: \begin{equation}
535: \label{eq:stochasticN}
536: N_i(g+1) = \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} P_j(M
537: p_j) + G_i(M q_i, M q_i),
538: \end{equation}
539: where $\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}$ denotes the sum over the nodes $j$
540: which are nearest neighbors of node $i$. Also, $p_j = \mu N_i / (3 L
541: M)$ is the probability to choose an individual of genotype $j$ and
542: to have it mutate to node $i$; $P_j(M p_j)$ is a Poisson random
543: variable of mean $M p_j$; $q_i = (1-\mu) N_i /M$ is the probability
544: to choose an individual of genotype $i$ and to leave it without
545: mutation; $G_i(M q_i, M q_i)$ is the sum of $M$ 0--1 random
546: variables of mean $q_i$, and thus at large $M$ is a Gaussian whose
547: mean and variance are both given by $M q_i$.
548:
549: Since we are interested in the large $M$ limit with $M \mu$ fixed,
550: let us define $x_i =N_i/M$ to be the fraction of individuals
551: residing on node $i$. If we average equation~(\ref{eq:stochasticN}),
552: we recover
553: the deterministic (quasi-species) evolution equations for the
554: $x_i$'s. But fluctuations do \emph{not} go away at large $M$ if $M
555: \mu$ is fixed, instead the intensity of drift goes to a limit.
556: Extracting the
557: mean from the Gaussian of equation~(\ref{eq:stochasticN}), the
558: stochastic evolution equations for the $x_i$ take the form
559: \begin{equation}
560: \label{stochasticX} x_i(g+1) = (1-\mu) x_i(g) + \sum_{\langle ij
561: \rangle} P_j(M p_j) / M + G_i(0, M q_i) / M.
562: \end{equation}
563: Summing this expression over $M$ steps we obtain in
564: the limit of large $M$ (and thus $\mu \to 0$):
565: \begin{equation}
566: \label{stochasticXX}
567: \Delta x_i \equiv x_i(g+M) - x_i(g) = - M \mu x_i +
568: \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} (M \mu) x_j/3L + G_i(0,x_i),
569: \end{equation}
570: where we have used the fact that the sum of the $M$ Poisson
571: variables contributes via its mean but its variance (equal to $p_j$)
572: becomes negligible. Clearly, the steady-state behavior of these
573: stochastic equations depends only on the scaling parameter $M \mu$.
574: As expected, by averaging these equations, we recover the
575: quasi-species evolution dynamics. Strictly speaking, we have shown
576: that there is a limit when evolving $M$ individuals, neglecting the
577: decrease in the population size. But restoring the population to a
578: fixed size $M$ involves no mutations and so falls into the standard
579: case of drift for a single genotype; that stochastic process also
580: reaches a limit at large $M$ when $M \mu$ is fixed, so we can
581: conclude that the full process (which maintains the population size
582: at $M$) also depends only on the scaling variable $M \mu$ as $M \to
583: \infty$. Note that within this scaling framework, we recover the
584: $\mu$ fixed, $M\to \infty$ case of equation~(\ref{eq:RmuInfPop}) by
585: taking $M \mu \to \infty$: we shall see that the corrections to this
586: limit are linear in $1/M \mu$. One can also consider the limit $M
587: \mu \to 0$: there, the population structure typically collapses to
588: just one genotype at a time, and as shown by van Nimwegen et
589: al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}, the effective dynamics reduces to a
590: random walk on the neutral network, so the population neutrality is
591: given by the network neutrality.
592:
593:
594: \subsection{Hamming distances in a finite population}
595: \label{subsec:HammingSelection}
596:
597: We studied the distribution of Hamming distances between individuals
598: in the steady state population evolving on our three RNA neutral
599: networks. Here we report our results only for the largest network
600: (of size 31484), as qualitatively similar results were obtained with
601: the two other sizes.
602:
603: %
604: \begin{figure}
605: %\psfrag{P(h)}{$P(h)$}\psfrag{h}{$h$}
606: \begin{center}
607: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmmu0p2rds.eps}
608: \end{center}
609: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances at $M \mu=0.2$ when
610: $M=10,20,40$ and 100. The data superpose perfectly.}
611: \label{rdsmmu0p2}
612: \end{figure}
613: %
614: \begin{figure}
615: \begin{center}
616: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmmu2rds.eps}
617: \end{center}
618: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances at $M \mu=2$ when
619: $M=10,20,40$ and 100. The data collapse is excellent when $M \ge 20$.}
620: \label{rdsmmu2}
621: \end{figure}
622: %
623: \begin{figure}
624: \begin{center}
625: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmmu5rds.eps}
626: \end{center}
627: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances at $M \mu=5$ when
628: $M=20,40$ and 100. Here the data collapse requires $M \ge 40$.}
629: \label{hammingmmu5}
630: \end{figure}
631: %
632: \begin{figure}
633: \begin{center}
634: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{hammingmmu10rds.eps}
635: \end{center}
636: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances at $M \mu=10$ when
637: $M=20,40,100,200$. The $M \mu$ scaling is good only for $M \ge
638: 100$.} \label{hammingmmu10}
639: \end{figure}
640:
641: If we fix $M \mu$, we obtain $M$-independent results when $M$ is
642: large, in agreement with the scaling law derived in the previous
643: section. However, the value of $M$ at
644: which this scaling arises depends on $M \mu$. As shown in figures
645: \ref{rdsmmu0p2}, \ref{rdsmmu2}, \ref{hammingmmu5} and
646: \ref{hammingmmu10}, the scaling sets in for larger and larger values
647: of $M$ as the value of $M \mu$ grows. For instance, when $M \mu=10$,
648: one needs $M \ge 100$ to really see the $M \mu$ scaling convincingly
649: (cf.~figure~\ref{hammingmmu10}). Moreover corrections to this
650: scaling go as $O(1/M)$, i.e., they are of the same form as we found
651: in section~\ref{sec:DynamicsWithoutSelection} in the absence of
652: selection. This is a generic property that will be further studied
653: in section~\ref{sec:Bottlenecks}.
654:
655: Within the $M \mu$ scaling, we see the population spread increases
656: monotonically with $M \mu$. In particular, as $M \mu \to 0$, the
657: spread goes to $0$, while as $M \mu \to \infty$, the population
658: spreads across the whole neutral network.
659:
660:
661: \subsection{Neutrality in a finite population}
662:
663: We first examine the population neutrality $\langle d
664: \rangle_\mathrm{M}$. We are interested in seeing how large $M$ should
665: be for the $M \mu$ scaling to set in, considering in particular
666: the dependence on the neutral network size.
667:
668: \subsubsection{Small neutral network}
669:
670: Figures~\ref{small1}(a) and (b) show the average neutrality
671: $\average{d}_\mathrm{M}$ as a function of $M$ and $M \mu$
672: respectively, for $\mu=0.01$, $0.1$ and $0.25$.
673: \begin{figure}[htb]
674: \begin{center}
675: \begin{tabular}{cc}
676: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{smallrdsm.eps}
677: & \includegraphics[width=7cm]{smallmmu.eps}\\
678: %\mbox{\bf ($M$ dependence)} & \mbox{\bf ($M \mu$ dependence)}
679: \end{tabular}
680: \end{center}
681: \caption{Population neutrality $\average{d}_\mathrm{M}$ as a
682: function of $1/M$ and $1/M \mu$ for $\mu=0.01,0.1$ and $0.25$
683: in our small size network. One can
684: see the $M \mu$ scaling with small corrections due to
685: finite $M$; note also the linear behavior at the origin.} \label{small1}
686: \end{figure}
687:
688: %
689: \begin{figure}
690: \begin{center}
691: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{smallrdsmmu.eps}
692: \end{center}
693: \caption{$1/M$ law for the corrections to $M \mu$ scaling.} \label{small3}
694: \end{figure}
695: %
696:
697: The average population neutrality depends both on $M$ and $M \mu$.
698: If $\mu$ is fixed and we take $M \to \infty$, we recover the
699: quasi-species limit which is
700: $\mu$-independent. Similarly, for fixed $M \mu$, we
701: obtain the $M \mu$ scaling regime by taking large $M$, just as in
702: van~Nimwegen et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}. Furthermore, we
703: see that the corrections to the large-$M \mu$ limit of population
704: neutrality are linear in $1/(M \mu)$ (cf.~the linear behavior at
705: the origin in Figure~\ref{small1}(b)). Finally, the approach to the
706: large $M$ limit at fixed $M \mu$ has measurable $1/M$ corrections.
707: (We also find that the value of $M \mu$ affects the time taken to
708: approach the steady state.) At fixed $M \mu$, the dependence on $M$
709: of the population neutrality or of the distribution of $d$ is rather
710: mild, though more marked than in the myopic or blind ant dynamics.
711: For several values of $M \mu$, we show these $1/M$ corrections in
712: figure~\ref{small3}. From all these data, we conclude that the
713: population neutrality has the form
714: \begin{equation}
715: \average{d}_\mathrm{M} = f(M \mu) \left(1+\frac{A(M
716: \mu)}{M} + \cdots\right),
717: \label{eq:CorrectionsToScaling}
718: \end{equation}
719: where $f(M \mu)=\average{d}_{\infty}$ is the $M \rightarrow \infty$
720: limit of $\average{d}_\mathrm{M}$ at given $M \mu$ and
721: \begin{equation}
722: f(M \mu) = f(\infty) \left(1 + \frac{B}{M \mu} + \cdots \right),
723: \label{eq:CorrectionsToInfinity}
724: \end{equation}
725: describes how the large $M \mu$ limit converges to the quasi-species
726: case. Finally, as shown by van~Nimwegen
727: et~al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}, $f(M \mu)$
728: tends to the network neutrality as $M \mu \to 0$.
729:
730:
731: \subsubsection{Medium and large networks}
732:
733: Similar results are found for our medium and large networks.
734: Figure~\ref{med} shows the population neutrality
735: as a function of $1/M \mu$,
736: exhibiting good $M \mu$ scaling.
737: %
738: \begin{figure}[htb]
739: \begin{center}
740: \begin{tabular}{cc}
741: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{medmmu.eps} &
742: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{largemmu.eps} \\
743: %\mbox{\bf (medium network)} & \mbox{\bf (large network)}
744: \end{tabular}
745: \end{center}
746: \caption{Average neutrality as a function of $1/M \mu$ for different
747: values of $\mu$ on our medium and large size networks.} \label{med}
748: \end{figure}
749: %
750: However the corrections to this scaling are larger than those
751: found in the small network; in fact, to see the asymptotic $1/M$ law
752: for the corrections to the $M \mu$ scaling, one has to go to quite
753: large values of $M$. Finally, as before, the
754: quasi-species limit is reached with corrections $O(1/(M \mu))$.
755:
756: Other results that seems to apply generally is that for fixed $\mu$,
757: the population neutrality (and thus the population robustness)
758: increases with $M$, but it decreases at fixed $M \mu$.
759: Mathematically, this means that $A > 0$ in
760: equation~(\ref{eq:CorrectionsToScaling}) while $B < 0$ in
761: equation~(\ref{eq:CorrectionsToInfinity}).
762:
763:
764: \section{Dynamics with selection but low drift}
765: \label{sec:SelectionLowDrift}
766:
767: \subsection{Framework}
768: \label{subsec:framework}
769:
770: Random drift reduces the population spread and thus delays the
771: approach to the large $M$ limit at fixed $\mu$. Lowering
772: the drift
773: would thus allow one to reach the large $M$ limit more easily.
774: Furthermore, one would have a higher mutational robustness of the
775: steady-state population for a given population size; this higher
776: survival probability suggests that biological mechanisms for
777: reducing drift~\cite{WhitlockIngvarsson00} could be selected for in
778: natural populations. In this section we study dynamics in which
779: selective pressures are high but the drift is particularly low.
780:
781: Our dynamics on a neutral network is defined as follows
782: so that drift effects are minimized:
783: %
784: \begin{itemize}
785: \item For a given population of size $M$ and mutation probability
786: per individual $\mu$, we have $M \mu$ of the individuals in the
787: population hop to any of their $3L$ neighbors; the others are
788: unchanged. If a mutation brings an individual off the neutral
789: network, we kill it, otherwise we keep it.
790: \item We find the number of individuals that were killed and replace them
791: by randomly cloning individuals from the remaining population.
792: \end{itemize}
793: Note that in these dynamics we perform a random sampling \emph{only
794: for a part of the population}; in fact, in the absence of selection,
795: there is no drift at all.
796:
797: To understand the essential difference from the usual dynamics, we
798: use a branching process representation of the evolution and the
799: cloning. An individual is represented by a point; at a given time
800: there are $M$ points for $M$ individuals (note that as always $M$
801: represents the number of individuals, not the number of different
802: genotypes). From one generation (time) to the next,
803: $M \mu$ points are replicated leading to branchings
804: while the other points just proceed without branching. The time
805: evolution generates branching processes in which each individual is
806: represented by a point and is connected to its parent at the
807: previous time by an edge. Following this branching process, we
808: obtain the descendants of a given individual; one can also
809: consider two individuals, follow their edges backwards till one reaches
810: their most recent common ancestor. Because of the drift, at large
811: enough times the whole population belongs to just one connected
812: component.
813:
814: Following Derrida and Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91}, let us
815: investigate the genealogy of individuals going back in generations.
816: For a subset of $k$ individuals in the population, let $w_k(t)$ be
817: the probability that their ancestors $t$ generations ago were all
818: different. To calculate this quantity, we first determine the
819: probability $x_k$ that $k$ individuals have $k$ distinct immediate
820: ancestors (parents). Define $q=\mu(1-\average{R_\mu}_{M})$ where
821: $\average{R_\mu}_{M}$ is the mean robustness of the population. Then
822: assuming $q$ is small and neglecting node to node fluctuations in
823: neutrality, we have
824: \begin{equation}
825: x_k \approx 1 - \frac{k (k-1) q}{(1-q)M} \ .
826: \end{equation}
827: Taking the generation-to-generation processes to be independent, one
828: has $w_k(t) = x_k^t$, which can be approximated to leading order in
829: $q$ by
830: %
831: \begin{equation}
832: \label{DP2:eq}
833: w_k(t) \approx \exp\left(-\frac{k(k-1) q}{M} ~ t\right).
834: \end{equation}
835: %
836: Hence, unlike the random drift case, the time scale is proportional
837: to $M/q$. We thus define a rescaled dimensionless time variable
838: %
839: \begin{equation}
840: \tau = q t / M.
841: \end{equation}
842: %
843: The probability that the two individuals shared a common ancestor at
844: most $t$ generations back is given by $1-w_2(t) = 1-\exp(-2\tau)$.
845: Thus the probability density $p(\tau)$ that the most recent common
846: ancestor of the two individuals arose between $\tau M/q$ and
847: $(\tau+d \tau) M/q$ generations ago is given by
848: %
849: \begin{equation}
850: p(\tau)=\frac{\rmd (1-w_2(\tau))}{\rmd \tau} = 2 \exp(-2\tau).
851: \end{equation}
852: Therefore the characteristic time for the most recent common
853: ancestor scales as $M/\mu$, while it scales as $M$ in the usual
854: dynamics with drift of section~\ref{sec:SelectionAndDrift}.
855:
856: The distribution of times to the most recent
857: common ancestor can be used to
858: obtain the Hamming-distance distribution of the steady-state
859: population. Let $\phi_{\nu}(t)$ be the probability that two random
860: walkers in genotype space find themselves at a Hamming distance
861: $\nu$ given that they coincided $t$ generations before. We have
862: \begin{equation}
863: \label{DP3:eq}
864: \phi_{\nu}(t)= \frac{\Gamma[L+1]}{2^{\nu} \Gamma[\nu+1]
865: \Gamma[L-\nu+1]} (1-\exp^{-2 \mu t})^{\nu},
866: \end{equation}
867: where $L$ is the genome length. Then $P_{\nu}$, the probability that
868: the Hamming distance between two individuals in the steady state
869: population is equal to $\nu$, is given by
870: %
871: \begin{equation}
872: P_{\nu} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \rmd \tau\, p(\tau) \phi_{\nu}(t).
873: \end{equation}
874: %
875: Using the expression of $\phi_{\nu}(t)$ from equation~(\ref{DP3:eq}),
876: one sees that $P_{\nu}$ depends on $M$ but not much
877: on $\mu$; in particular, one has
878: a well defined $\mu \to 0$ limit at fixed $M$. This is to be
879: contrasted with the random drift case where $P_{\nu}$ depends mainly
880: on $M \mu$.
881:
882: \subsection{Consequence for the genotypic diversity}
883: \label{subsec:diversity}
884:
885: A high level of genotypic diversity in a population is usually
886: advantageous for survival. Here we study how low drift can greatly
887: enhance this diversity by examining two measures of the number of
888: different genotypes, namely the actual number $g_M$ (which is
889: frequency independent), and the inverse participation ratio $G_M$ of
890: the genotypic abundances. Explicitly, for a population of size $M$,
891: if the number of individuals with genotype $i$ is $m_i$, we define
892: %
893: \begin{equation}
894: G_M = \frac{(\sum m_i)^2}{\sum m_i^2},
895: \end{equation}
896: where the sum runs over all the different genotypes present in the
897: population.
898: %
899: \begin{figure}
900: \begin{center}
901: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{drift.eps}
902: \end{center}
903: \caption{Plot of genotypic diversity ($g_M$ and $G_M$) for dynamics with
904: selection and drift as
905: function of $\ln M$ at $M \mu =0.4$.}
906: \label{fig:driftd}
907: \end{figure}
908: %
909:
910: %
911: \begin{figure}
912: \begin{center}
913: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{lessdrift.eps}
914: \end{center}
915: \caption{Plot of genotypic diversity ($g_M$ and $G_M$)
916: as a function of population size
917: $M$ for dynamics with selection but low drift at $M \mu =0.4$.}
918: \label{fig:lessdriftd}
919: \end{figure}
920: %
921:
922: We show in figure~\ref{fig:driftd} the two different measures of
923: genotypic diversity for dynamics with selection and drift. The
924: bottom curve corresponds to $G_M$, the top one to $g_M$. We find
925: that the ``absolute'' genotypic diversity $g_M$, (taking into
926: account genotypes of arbitrarily low frequencies), grows
927: logarithmically (and thus rather slowly) with $M$ at fixed $M \mu$.
928: On the other hand, the rare genotypes contribute less to the inverse
929: participation ration $G_M$, and we find that this measure of
930: genotypic diversity saturates in the large $M$ limit at fixed $M
931: \mu$.
932:
933: In Fig.~\ref{fig:lessdriftd} we display the same quantities for our
934: low-drift dynamics. We now see that both measures of diversity grow
935: linearly with $M$ at fixed $M \mu$; thus each genotype in the
936: population arises just a few times as $M \to \infty$ if $M \mu$ is
937: fixed. Clearly the reduction of drift in this dynamics allows for a
938: high genotypic diversity.
939:
940:
941: \subsection{Hamming distances}
942: We can study Hamming distances as was done in
943: section~\ref{subsec:HammingSelection} for our low-drift dynamics. We
944: find that the distribution of Hamming distances depends strongly on
945: $M$ but not much on $\mu$ and approaches a $\mu$-independent limit
946: as $M$ grows large (figures~\ref{hammings1} and~\ref{hammings2}).
947: This is consistent with the above calculation for the scaling laws.
948: As expected, for fixed $M$, there is a non-trivial limit
949: distribution as $\mu \to 0$.
950: %
951: \begin{figure}
952: \begin{center}
953: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{avHist.eps}
954: \end{center}
955: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances
956: for evolutionary dynamics with low drift. The distributions
957: depend strongly on $M$ and only very weakly on $\mu$.} \label{hammings1}
958: \end{figure}
959: %
960: \begin{figure}
961: \begin{center}
962: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{noMmu.eps}
963: \end{center}
964: \caption{Distribution of Hamming distances for two different values of
965: population size (20 and 40) when $M \mu$=0.4, showing the absence
966: of $M \mu$ scaling when the dynamics has low drift.}
967: \label{hammings2}
968: \end{figure}
969:
970: \subsection{Population neutrality}
971:
972: In the infinite population limit, the value of population neutrality
973: is independent of drift effects, and it is also independent of
974: $\mu$. Consider first our small neutral network with $489$ nodes and
975: network neutrality $10.4499$; we determined the largest eigenvalue
976: of the adjacency matrix (via
977: \textsl{Mathematica}~\cite{Mathematica05}), obtaining $\langle d
978: \rangle_{\infty} = 11.5107$. In a finite population we find that
979: $\average{d}_M$ approaches $\average{d}_{\infty}$, with $1/M$
980: corrections that do not depend much on the mutation rate. In
981: particular, we find
982: \begin{equation}
983: \average{d}_M = \average{d}_{\infty} \left(1+\frac{A(\mu)}{M} \right),
984: \label{eq:nc}
985: \end{equation}
986: where $A=-0.328\pm 0.002$ for $\mu =0.1$ and $A=-0.317 \pm 0.005$
987: for $\mu=0.25$. The corresponding fits are shown in
988: figure~\ref{small}.
989: %
990: \begin{figure}[htb]
991: \begin{center}
992: \begin{tabular}{cc}
993: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fitm01.eps} &
994: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{fitm025.eps} \\
995: \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.1)} & \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.25)}
996: \end{tabular}
997: \end{center}
998: \caption{Population neutrality vs $1/M$ on the small size network.
999: The dotted line is a linear fit as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nc}).}
1000: \label{small}
1001: \end{figure}
1002:
1003: %\subsubsection{Medium-size neutral network}
1004: On our medium-size neutral network (with $5784$ nodes), we find that
1005: the network average neutrality is equal to $10.6888$, while
1006: $\average{d}_{\infty} = 12.592 \pm 0.0002$. We again find a $1/M$
1007: convergence as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nc}) with $A=-0.752 \pm 0.035$ for
1008: $\mu=0.05$ and $A= -0.662 \pm 0.02$ for $\mu=0.25$
1009: (figure~\ref{medium}). Just as for the small neutral network, $A$
1010: does not depend much on $\mu$.
1011: %
1012: \begin{figure}[htb]
1013: \begin{center}
1014: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1015: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mfitm005.eps} &
1016: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{mfitm025.eps} \\ [0.4cm]
1017: \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.05)} & \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.25)}
1018: \end{tabular}
1019: \end{center}
1020: \caption{Population neutrality vs $1/M$ on the medium size
1021: network. The dotted line is a linear fit as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nc}).}
1022: \label{medium}
1023: \end{figure}
1024: %
1025: \begin{figure}[htb]
1026: \begin{center}
1027: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1028: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{lfitm005.eps} &
1029: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{lfitm025.eps} \\
1030: \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.05)} & \mbox{\bf ($\mu$ =0.25)}
1031: \end{tabular}
1032: \end{center}
1033: \caption{Population neutrality vs $1/M$ on the large size network.
1034: The dotted line is a linear fit as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nc}).}
1035: \label{large}
1036: \end{figure}
1037: %
1038:
1039: %\subsubsection{Large neutral network}
1040: Finally, on the large neutral network (with $31484$ nodes), we find
1041: the network neutrality to be $12.116$, whereas $\average{d}_{\infty}
1042: = 15.434$. Figure~\ref{large} confirms the $1/M$ convergence with
1043: $A=-0.927 \pm 0.045$ for $\mu =0.05$ and $A=-0.944 \pm 0.044$ for
1044: $\mu =0.25$.
1045:
1046: The overall pattern is thus that the data are well represented by
1047: equation~(\ref{eq:nc}),with an $A(\mu)$ that grows with increasing
1048: network size and depends slowly on $\mu$. We have also checked
1049: directly that $\average{d}_M$ is rather insensitive to the value of
1050: $\mu$ (cf.~figure~\ref{Mdep}). Furthermore, in all cases, there is
1051: no $M \mu$ scaling (cf.~figure~\ref{Mmudep}), in contrast with what
1052: happens for the case of standard drift (see
1053: section~\ref{sec:SelectionAndDrift}).
1054: %
1055: \begin{figure}
1056: \begin{center}
1057: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{Mplot.eps}
1058: \end{center}
1059: \caption{Population neutrality $\average{d}_M$ vs $M$ for
1060: $\mu =0.01,0.05,0.1$ and $0.25$ on the large neutral network,
1061: showing the insensitivity to $\mu$.}
1062: \label{Mdep}
1063: \end{figure}
1064: %
1065:
1066: %
1067: \begin{figure}
1068: \begin{center}
1069: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{Mmuplot.eps}
1070: \end{center}
1071: \caption{Population neutrality $\average{d}_M$ vs $M \mu$ for $\mu
1072: =0.01,0.05,0.1$ and $0.25$ on the large neutral network,
1073: showing the absence of $M \mu$ scaling. }
1074: \label{Mmudep}
1075: \end{figure}
1076: %
1077:
1078: \subsection{Distribution of neutrality}
1079:
1080: As a last point, let us consider the whole distribution $P_M(d)$
1081: rather than just the average population neutrality $\average{d}_M$.
1082: In figure~\ref{dis} we display several cases of interest for our
1083: largest neutral network. The left-most curve is for genotypes chosen
1084: randomly and uniformly from the neutral network. The next curve on
1085: the right is for a population of size $M=50$ undergoing selection
1086: with low drift; there are in fact two data sets displayed, one for
1087: $\mu=0.1$ and one for $\mu=0.25$. The last curve is for the same
1088: algorithm at $M=1000$ for three values of $\mu$, namely $\mu=0.1$,
1089: $0.25$ and $0.5$.
1090: %
1091: \begin{figure}
1092: \begin{center}
1093: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{dist.eps}
1094: \end{center}
1095: \caption{The continuous line shows the distribution of
1096: the number of neighbors for
1097: random nodes on the largest network (with 31484 nodes). The curve closest
1098: to it shows the steady state distribution for two data sets,
1099: with $\mu=0.1$ and $0.25$ when the population size is 50:
1100: they superpose extremely well.
1101: The third curve corresponds to $M=1000$ and
1102: $\mu=0.1,0.25$ and $0.5$, again with excellent superposition.
1103: Superposition (independence on $\mu$) becomes
1104: exact when $M=\infty$.} \label{dis}
1105: \end{figure}
1106: %
1107:
1108: Several comments are in order. First, as $M$ increases, the overall
1109: trend is for $P_M(d)$ to shift to larger $d$; this is in agreement
1110: with the general property that mutational robustness grows with
1111: increasing genotypic diversity. Second, there is hardly any
1112: dependence of these data on $\mu$, a feature particular
1113: to dynamics having reduced drift.
1114:
1115:
1116: \section{Reaching the large $M$ limit and barriers in the fitness landscape}
1117: \label{sec:Bottlenecks}
1118:
1119: \subsection{Motivation}
1120: For large populations in the presence of drift, the relevant
1121: parameter appears to be $M \mu$, as we have seen in
1122: sections~\ref{sec:DynamicsWithoutSelection} and
1123: \ref{sec:SelectionAndDrift}. When one wishes to evaluate the
1124: large-$M$ limit at given $\mu$, it is better to minimize drift as in
1125: section~\ref{sec:SelectionLowDrift}, especially when $\mu$ is small,
1126: since $\mu$ plays little role in this modified dynamics. We also saw
1127: that the corrections to the $M=\infty$ limit go like $O(1/M)$ on
1128: neutral networks. Simple arguments~\cite{CerfMartin95} suggest that
1129: this is a generic property of growth with
1130: diffusion phenomena, and we shall now confirm this on toy
1131: landscapes: the $O(1/M)$ corrections are not an artefact of the
1132: fitness being 0 and 1 as we have assumed so far. Furthermore, we
1133: wish to get some insight into the \emph{size} of this correction.
1134: For our three neutral networks, we found that the factor $A$ of the
1135: $A/M$ correction grows with increasing neutral network size;
1136: however, barriers (entropic or fitness) in the landscape are likely
1137: to affect $A$, as we will now illustrate using a few toy landscapes.
1138:
1139: \subsection{Evolution in a toy fitness landscape}
1140:
1141: To build up our intuition, we will consider a space where genotypes
1142: are parametrized by a real number, and mutations correspond to small
1143: changes of this number. Evolution in low-dimensional fitness
1144: landscapes has been considered by several authors in the recent
1145: years and has led to a number of insights (see, e.g.,
1146: \cite{tsimring96,tsimring97,peng03,rouzine03}). In this case, it is
1147: convenient to consider a continuous-time limit because this allows
1148: for a Fokker-Planck formulation. We can start with all individuals
1149: at the same position or place them randomly in the landscape. After
1150: some time, the population reaches a well defined steady state. For
1151: the numerical simulation of such evolutionary dynamics, we
1152: discretize time using a time step $\Delta t$; this then
1153: gives the following update rules:
1154: \begin{itemize}
1155: \item At each
1156: step (small) mutations arise; this means that the genotype $x$ is
1157: changed by $\Delta x$ where $\Delta x$ is a Gaussian random
1158: variable of standard deviation $\sqrt{2 D \Delta t}$~\cite{Vankampen81}.
1159: \item Given the new positions of the individuals, we allow for
1160: replication according to fitness given by a function
1161: $-V(x)$ in the Fokker-Planck language.
1162: $V(x)$ is low (or even negative) if
1163: the genotype has a high fitness; it is large and positive for an
1164: unfit genotype. Then for an interval $\Delta t$ of time, an
1165: individual of genotype $x$ will be killed with probability
1166: $1-\exp(-V(x)\Delta t)$ if $V(x) > 0$; if instead $V(x) < 0$, a clonal
1167: birth will be produced with probability $\exp(-V(x)\Delta t) - 1$.
1168: Following standard practice, if one wants
1169: to keep the population size fixed on average near some
1170: target value $M$, one simply shifts additively $V(x)$ so that the
1171: expected population size is precisely $M$.
1172: \end{itemize}
1173:
1174: %\subsection{Infinite population limit}
1175: In the $M \to \infty$ limit, the details associated with keeping the
1176: population at its target value no longer matter and the overall
1177: process can be formulated as a rate equation. Up to the rescaling of
1178: the population to keep its size fixed, the density of genotypes
1179: $\rho(x)$ follows the deterministic equation
1180: \begin{equation}
1181: \label{eq:schroedinger}
1182: \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t} = D
1183: \frac{{\partial}^2 \rho(x,t)} {\partial x^2} -V(x) \rho(x,t) .
1184: \end{equation}
1185: This is a linear evolution law that is the
1186: continuum analog of the quasi-species dynamics.
1187: At large times the \emph{shape} of
1188: $\rho(x)$ converges to the eigenfunction of the linear operator on
1189: the right hand side whose eigenvalue is largest. One can recognize
1190: \eref{eq:schroedinger} as being an (imaginary time) Schrödinger
1191: equation. The problem of the steady-state distribution is thus
1192: mathematically a simple one that can be solved analytically for
1193: particular choices of the function $V(x)$. Now we can address the
1194: question of \emph{how} the large $M$ limit is reached.
1195:
1196: \subsection{Harmonic well}
1197: We first consider the case where $V(x)= x^2$, which corresponds in
1198: the Schrödinger equation framework to diffusion in a harmonic well,
1199: a case with no barriers. In the $M\to \infty$ limit, the probability
1200: distribution of the population in this landscape is
1201: $P(x)=\exp(-x^2/2)/\sqrt{2 \pi}$.
1202:
1203: For a finite population of size $M$, we evaluate numerically the
1204: steady state distribution $P_M(x)$. We see a clear convergence of
1205: this distribution to its large-$M$ limit, with $1/M$ corrections:
1206: %
1207: \begin{equation}
1208: P_M(x) = P(x)\left(1+\frac{K(x)}{M}\right) +
1209: \Or\left(M^{-2}\right).
1210: \end{equation}
1211: %
1212: The $1/M$ nature of the convergence clearly appears in
1213: figure~\ref{fig:HarmonicWell}, where we see that the amplitude of
1214: these corrections is small. This kind of convergence has been
1215: justified before~\cite{CerfMartin95} in the context of population
1216: algorithms for solving linear evolution operators. Furthermore, it
1217: is possible to show that the correction function $K(x)$ goes to a
1218: constant at large $x$. When we obtain such a data collapse, we know
1219: $M$ is large enough for one to extract $P(x)$.
1220: %
1221: \begin{figure}[htb]
1222: \begin{center}
1223: \begin{tabular}{cc}
1224: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{beforescalingH.eps} &
1225: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{afterscalingH.eps} \\
1226: \mbox{\bf (a)} & \mbox{\bf (b)}
1227: \end{tabular}
1228: \end{center}
1229: \caption{(a) Relative deviation $P_M(x)/P(x)-1$ vs $x$ for
1230: $M=6,8,10,12,15$ and 20. (b) Data collapse plot: $M(P_M(x)/P(x)-1)$ for
1231: $M=6,8,10,12,15$ and 20.}
1232: \label{fig:HarmonicWell}
1233: \end{figure}
1234:
1235: \subsection{Symmetric double well}
1236: We now consider the case of a landscape with two degenerate optima
1237: separated by a barrier (passage of low fitness). For that we take
1238: $V(x)$ to be an even polynomial of degree 4 in $x$: $V(x)=V(-x)$.
1239: Since $P(x)$ is not analytically known, we examine instead the
1240: quantity $M_1 M_2 (P_{M_1}(x) - P_{M_2}(x))/(M_1 - M_2)$ for
1241: different population sizes $M_1$ and $M_2$. If the convergence goes
1242: as $O(1/M)$, then, provided $M_1$ and $M_2$ are sufficiently large,
1243: the data should collapse onto a limit function. This is indeed what
1244: we find; the case $V(x) = x^2 + 0.1 x^4$ is used for illustration in
1245: figure~\ref{fig:DoubleWell}.
1246: %
1247: \begin{figure}
1248: %\psfrag{x}{$x$}
1249: \begin{center}
1250: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{doublewellscaled.eps}
1251: \end{center}
1252: \caption{Data collapse plot for $M_1 M_2 (P_{M_1}(x) - P_{M_2}(x))/(M_1
1253: - M_2)$ vs $x$, for several population sizes $M_1$ and $M_2$, in
1254: the case of a symmetric double well. We have taken $(M_1,M_2)=
1255: (6,10),(10,20),(6,20),(20,50)$}
1256: \label{fig:DoubleWell}
1257: \end{figure}
1258:
1259: \subsection{Case of an asymmetric double well}
1260: To go from one fitness peak to another, one has to cross a barrier.
1261: The previous double well has a symmetric steady state, and even with
1262: a small population, this symmetry is realized. However when
1263: the well is asymmetric, finite population effects will be quite
1264: larger. Indeed, in the $M\to\infty$ limit, even a small non
1265: symmetric part ($V(x)$ not even in $x$) will lead to a distribution
1266: practically concentrated in one well. (This is called the ``flea and
1267: elephant phenomenon'' well known in
1268: quantum mechanics: when the barrier between the two wells is
1269: high, even a tiny difference in $V$ between the two sides leads to a
1270: big effect, just as when a little itching on an elephant's shoulder
1271: leads it to put all of its weight onto one side.) When the
1272: population is finite, this effect is not so evident, and the two
1273: wells remain nearly symmetrically populated. One has to go to large
1274: population sizes $M$ in order to come closer to the $M\to\infty$
1275: limit.
1276:
1277: %
1278: \begin{figure}[htb]
1279: %\psfrag{PM}[c]{$M(P_M(x)/P(x)-1)$}\psfrag{x}{$x$}
1280: \begin{center}
1281: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{asym.eps}
1282: \end{center}
1283: \caption{Data collapse plot for
1284: $M_1 M_2 (P_{M_1}(x) - P_{M_2}(x))/(M_1 - M_2)$ vs $x$, for
1285: several population sizes $M_1$ and $M_2$, in
1286: the case of an asymmetric well. $M=200,250,300,400,500$. }\label{asym:fig}
1287: \end{figure}
1288: %
1289:
1290: To investigate this effect quantitatively, we consider the
1291: asymmetric potential $V(x)=-x^2+b x^4+cx$ with $b=0.05$ and
1292: $c=0.002$, corresponding to an asymmetry of roughly $0.1\%$. We
1293: found the $1/M$ convergence law,
1294: but had to go to $M \approx 100$ to observe
1295: the data collapse. This is shown in figure~\ref{asym:fig}; note the
1296: large scale of the $y$ axis compared to the symmetric double well
1297: case: the $1/M$ corrections are much larger here. When the barrier
1298: height is increased, one needs even larger $M$ values to see the
1299: $M=\infty$ limit: the proper balance of population on each side of
1300: the barrier sets in very slowly in $M$. In landscapes with more than
1301: one dimension, there can also be entropic barriers, that is passages
1302: that are narrow but not of particularly low fitness; such cases are
1303: relevant for general neutral networks.
1304:
1305: \section{Summary and conclusions}
1306: \label{sec:Conclusions}
1307:
1308: In general, an evolving population undergoes mutation, selection and
1309: random drift. In this work we quantified the effect of these
1310: processes to untangle the different effects, using neutral networks
1311: and toy fitness landscapes for illustration. In the case of infinite
1312: populations, there have been many studies. If $M \mu\to\infty$, ($M$
1313: being the population size and $\mu$ the mutation rate), drift is
1314: absent and one recovers the quasi-species
1315: limit~\cite{Eigen71,EigenSchuster77,EigenMcCaskill89}, with results
1316: that developed by van Nimwegen et al.~\cite{NimwegenCrutchfield99}
1317: in the context of neutral networks. For finite $M \mu$ ($M \to
1318: \infty$), drift effects are important; there, in the absence of
1319: selection, Derrida and Peliti~\cite{DerridaPeliti91} derived a
1320: number of important results. In this work we have considered the
1321: case $M \mu$ finite with selection, for both $M$ finite and
1322: infinite. We derived the $M \mu$ scaling even
1323: in the presence of selection.
1324: The (finite $M$) \emph{corrections} to
1325: this $M \mu$ scaling are $O(1/M)$, be there selection or not.
1326: When $M=\infty$, we find that the quasi-species limit is reached
1327: via $1/M \mu$ corrections. In all cases,
1328: $M \mu$ plays the role of an effective population size. These
1329: laws are summarized in equations~(\ref{eq:CorrectionsToScaling})
1330: and (\ref{eq:CorrectionsToInfinity}). We also
1331: found that the amplitude of the correction terms showed a slow
1332: increase with neutral network size. In practice, the $M \mu$ scaling
1333: sets in at relatively small values of $M$. Furthermore, at fixed $M
1334: \mu$ we showed that the genotypic diversity $g_M$ of the population
1335: increases only logarithmically as a function of $M$.
1336:
1337: Finally, we considered a dynamics with low drift in
1338: section~\ref{sec:SelectionLowDrift}. Drift is effectively reduced by
1339: a factor $\mu$ and thus genotypic diversity
1340: always grows \emph{linearly}
1341: with population size even if $M \mu$ is fixed. One thereby avoids
1342: the $M \mu$ scaling law, a useful property
1343: if one wishes to evaluate the
1344: large-$M$ limit at small $\mu$. Nevertheless, reaching this limit
1345: can be seriously hindered by fitness or entropic barriers in the
1346: fitness landscape as we saw in section~\ref{sec:Bottlenecks}.
1347:
1348: \ack This work was supported by the EEC's FP6 IST Programme under
1349: contract IST-001935, EVERGROW. We thank F. Hospital and A. Wagner
1350: for their comments. LP is grateful to the LPTMS for its hospitality
1351: when this work was started.
1352:
1353:
1354: \section*{References}
1355: %\begin{thebibliography}{99}
1356:
1357: \addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\protect\bibname}
1358: \providecommand{\newblock}{}
1359: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1360: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
1361: \def\url#1{{\tt #1}}\fi
1362: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
1363: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
1364: % Bibliography created with iopart-num v2.0
1365: % /biblio/bibtex/contrib/iopart-num
1366:
1367: \bibitem{HerronFreeman03}
1368: Herron J~C and Freeman S~R 2003 {\em Evolutionary Analysis\/} (Prentice Hall)
1369:
1370: \bibitem{Wright32}
1371: Wright S 1932 {\em Proc. of the Sixth Int. Congress on Genetics\/} vol~1 ed
1372: Jones D~F (Austin, TX) pp 356--366
1373:
1374: \bibitem{Gavrilets04}
1375: Gavrilets S 2004 {\em Fitness Landscapes and the Origin of Species\/}
1376: (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
1377:
1378: \bibitem{Eigen71}
1379: Eigen M 1971 {\em Naturwissenschaften\/} {\bf 58} 465
1380:
1381: \bibitem{EigenSchuster77}
1382: Eigen M and Schuster P 1977 {\em Naturwissenschaften\/} {\bf 64} 541
1383:
1384: \bibitem{EigenMcCaskill89}
1385: Eigen M, McCaskill J~S and Schuster P 1989 {\em Adv. Chem. Phys.\/} {\bf 75}
1386: 149--263
1387:
1388: \bibitem{Stadler02}
1389: Stadler P~F 2002 {\em Biological Evolution and Statistical Physics\/} ed
1390: {L\"assig} M and Valleriani A (Berlin: Springer) pp 183--204
1391:
1392: \bibitem{Schuster02}
1393: Schuster P 2002 {\em Biological Evolution and Statistical Physics\/} ed
1394: {L\"assig} M and Valleriani A (Berlin: Springer) pp 56--83
1395:
1396: \bibitem{LiebermanHauert05}
1397: Lieberman E, Hauert C and Nowak M 2005 {\em Nature\/} {\bf 433} 312--316
1398:
1399: \bibitem{TaylorRudenbert04}
1400: Taylor C, Fudenberg D, Sasaki A and Nowak M 2004 {\em Bull. Math. Biol.\/} {\bf
1401: 66} 1621--1644
1402:
1403: \bibitem{RocaGuesta06}
1404: Roca C~P, Cuesta J~A and Sanchez A 2006 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 97}
1405: 158701
1406:
1407: \bibitem{AntalRedner06}
1408: Antal T, Redner S and Sood V 2006 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 96} 188104
1409:
1410: \bibitem{DerridaPeliti91}
1411: Derrida B and Peliti L 1991 {\em Bull. Math. Biol.\/} {\bf 53} 355--382
1412:
1413: \bibitem{NimwegenCrutchfield99}
1414: {van Nimwegen} E, Crutchfield J~P and Huynen M 1999 {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
1415: USA\/} {\bf 96} 9716--9720
1416:
1417: \bibitem{Ewens04}
1418: Ewens W 2004 {\em Mathematical Population Genetics - I. Theoretical
1419: Introduction\/} (New York: Springer Verlag)
1420:
1421: \bibitem{FontanaStadler93}
1422: Fontana W, Stadler P~F, Bornberg-Bauer E~G, Griesmacher T, Hofacker I~L, Tacker
1423: M, Tarazona P, Weinberger E~D and Schuster P 1993 {\em Phys. Rev. E\/} {\bf
1424: 47} 2083--2099
1425:
1426: \bibitem{LipmanWilbur91}
1427: Lipman D~J and Wilbur W~J 1991 {\em Proceedings: Biological Sciences\/} {\bf
1428: 245} 7--11
1429:
1430: \bibitem{GrGiegerich96}
1431: {Gr\"uner} W, Giegerich U, Strothmann D, Reidys C, Weber J, Hofacker I, Stadler
1432: P and Schuster P 1996 {\em Monath. Chem.\/} {\bf 127} 375--389
1433:
1434: \bibitem{KauffmanLevin87}
1435: Kauffman S and Levin S 1987 {\em J. Theor. Biol.\/} {\bf 128} 11--45
1436:
1437: \bibitem{FlyvbjergHenrik92}
1438: Flyvbjerg H and Lautrup B 1992 {\em Phys. Rev. A\/} {\bf 46} 6714--6723
1439:
1440: \bibitem{NimwegenCrutchfield00}
1441: van Nimwegen E and Crutchfield J~P 2000 {\em Bull. Math. Biol.\/} {\bf 62}
1442: 799--848
1443:
1444: \bibitem{ReidysSchuster95}
1445: Reidys C, Schuster P and Stadler P 1997 {\em Bull. Math. Biol.\/} {\bf 59}
1446: 339--397
1447:
1448: \bibitem{FontanaSchuster98}
1449: Fontana W and Schuster P 1998 {\em J. Theor. Biol.\/} {\bf 194} 491--515
1450:
1451: \bibitem{SchusterStadler02}
1452: Schuster P and Stadler P 2002 {\em Complexity\/} {\bf 8} 34--42
1453:
1454: \bibitem{Vienna95}
1455: {The {V}ienna package} 1995 Http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/$\sim$ivo/RNA/
1456:
1457: \bibitem{HuynenStadler96}
1458: Huynen M~A, Stadler P~F and Fontana W 1996 {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA\/}
1459: {\bf 93} 397--401
1460:
1461: \bibitem{Hughes96}
1462: Hughes B~D 1996 {\em Random Walks and Random Environments\/} (Oxford:
1463: Clarendon)
1464:
1465: \bibitem{Orr03}
1466: Orr H~A 2003 {\em J. Theor. Biol.\/} {\bf 220} 241--247
1467:
1468: \bibitem{SoshnikovSudakov03}
1469: Soshnikov A and Sudakov B 2003 {\em Comm. Math. Phys.\/} {\bf 239} 53--63
1470:
1471: \bibitem{WhitlockIngvarsson00}
1472: Whitlock M, Ingvarsson P and Hatfield T 2000 {\em Heredity\/} {\bf 84} 452
1473:
1474: \bibitem{Mathematica05}
1475: {Mathematica} 2005 {W}olfram {R}esearch, http://www.wolfram.com
1476:
1477: \bibitem{CerfMartin95}
1478: Cerf N~J and Martin O~C 1995 {\em Int. J. of Modern Physics C\/} {\bf 6}
1479: 693--723
1480:
1481: \bibitem{tsimring96}
1482: Tsimring L~S, Levine H and Kessler D~A 1996 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 76}
1483: 4440--4443
1484:
1485: \bibitem{tsimring97}
1486: Kessler D~A, Levine H~Ridgway D and Tsimring L 1997 {\em J. Stat. Mech.\/} {\bf
1487: 87} 519--544
1488:
1489: \bibitem{peng03}
1490: Peng W~Q, Gerland U, Hwa T and Levine H 2003 {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.\/} {\bf 90}
1491: 088103
1492:
1493: \bibitem{rouzine03}
1494: Rouzine I~M, Wakeley J and Coffin J~M 2003 {\em Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA\/}
1495: {\bf 100} 587--592
1496:
1497: \bibitem{Vankampen81}
1498: {van Kampen} N~G 1981 {\em Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry\/}
1499: (Amsterdam: North-Holland)
1500:
1501: \end{thebibliography}
1502:
1503: \end{document}
1504:
1505:
1506: %\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
1507: %\bibliography{biology}
1508: %\end{document}
1509:
1510:
1511: