1: \documentclass[]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \renewcommand\floatpagefraction{.9}
4: \renewcommand\textfraction{.01}
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \centerline{\Large \bf Chromosome-Length-Scaling in}\smallskip
8: \centerline{\Large \bf Haploid, Asexual Reproduction}\medskip
9:
10: \bigskip
11:
12: \centerline{P.M.C. de Oliveira}
13:
14: \bigskip
15:
16: Instituto de F\'\i sica\par
17:
18: Universidade Federal Fluminense\par
19:
20: av. Litor\^anea s/n, Boa Viagem, Niter\'oi, Brasil 24210-340
21:
22: \medskip
23:
24: e-mail addresses: pmco@if.uff.br
25:
26:
27: \bigskip
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30:
31: We study the genetic behaviour of a population formed by haploid
32: individuals which reproduce asexually. The genetic information for each
33: individual is stored along a bit-string (or chromosome) with $\, L\, $ bits,
34: where $\, 0$-bits represent the wild-type allele and $\, 1$-bits correspond to
35: harmful mutations. Each newborn inherits this chromosome from its parent with
36: some few random mutations: on average a fixed number $\, m\, $ of bits are
37: flipped. Selection is implemented according to the number $\, N\, $ of $\,
38: 1$-bits counted along the individual's chromosome: the smaller $\, N\, $ the
39: higher the probability an individual has to survive a new time step. Such a
40: population evolves, with births and deaths, and its genetic distribution
41: becomes stabilised after many enough generations have passed.
42:
43: The question we pose concerns the procedure of increasing $\, L\, $.
44: The aim is to get the same distribution of relative genetic loads $\, N/L\, $
45: among the equilibrated population, in spite of a larger $\, L\, $. Should we
46: keep the same mutation rate $\, m/L\, $ for different values of $\, L\, $? The
47: answer is {\sl yes}, which intuitively seems to be plausible. However, this
48: conclusion is not trivial, according to our simulational results: the question
49: involves also the population size.
50:
51:
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \newpage
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: A natural way for evolution is to increase the chromosome length in
58: order to make space for more genetic information. However, Nature seems to
59: impose a maximum possible chromosome length, as inferred from at least two
60: general observations. First, all big animals present the same order of
61: magnitude for their chromosome lengths. Second, the genetic information for
62: these animals is spread over more-than-one chromosome pairs (23 for humans),
63: instead of a single, long one. This broken-information storage strategy demands
64: an extra cost, a coordinated regulatory mechanism triggering the simultaneous
65: copy of the various chromosomes at reproduction or cell division. Therefore,
66: some unavoidable obstacle should exist, which prevents Nature to follow the
67: simpler rule of increasing the length of a single chromosome.
68:
69: On the other hand, during reproduction, the chemical machinery which
70: performs DNA duplication works as a zipper, scanning the one dimensional
71: chromosome chain, basis after basis. Thus, the total number $\, m\, $ of
72: ``errors'' (i.e. mutations appearing in offspring as compared to parents)
73: should be proportional to the chromosome length $\, L\, $, on average.
74: Therefore, by increasing $\, L\, $, this linear behaviour indicates that one
75: should keep the same mutation rate $\, m/L\, $: this procedure is then supposed
76: to yield the same genetic quality for the whole population, in spite of the
77: larger $\, L\, $.
78:
79: In order to test these ideas, we decided to simulate on computers a
80: very simple model where each individual carries a single chromosome represented
81: by a bit-string with $\, L\, $ bits. Each bit can appear in either of two
82: forms, $\, 0\, $ or $\, 1\, $. The allele represented by a $\, 0$-bit is the
83: wild type, whereas a $\, 1$-bit corresponds to some harmful mutation. In this
84: work, we treat the case of haploid individuals, the genetic information stored
85: along a single bit-string. In another related work \cite{sex} we treat diploid,
86: sexual reproducing populations with crossings and recombination, and the
87: results and conclusions are completely different (preliminary results can be
88: found in \cite{newbook}).
89:
90: The model is designed in order to keep only the fundamental ingredients
91: of genetic inheritance and Darwinian evolution: random mutations performed at
92: birth, and natural selection. All other biological issues which have no direct
93: influence during the very moment of reproduction are ignored, as, for instance,
94: the various correlations and inhomogeneities along the chromosome, the various
95: phases during embryo development, the metabolism during life, etc. Instead,
96: selection is implemented by taking into account just one phenotype: the number
97: $\, N\, $ of harmful alleles, i.e. $1$-bits counted along the individual's
98: chromosome. It is a {\sl minimalist} model, not a {\sl reductionist} one,
99: because we do not divide the problem into smaller, separate pieces neither in
100: space nor in time (see \cite{parisi}). This distinction between minimalism and
101: reductionism is of fundamental importance in what concerns the size- and
102: time-scaling behaviour which leads to the criticality observed in evolutionary
103: systems \cite{newbook}.
104:
105: We keep in the computer memory the chromosome (bit-string) of each
106: individual belonging to a population (in reality, the number of 1-bits is
107: enough). The total number $\, P\, $ of individuals is kept fixed by controlling
108: the number of deaths equal to the number of births at each new time step: a
109: fraction $\, b\, $ of the population dies, while another fraction also equal to
110: $\, b\, $ of newborns are generated by random parents chosen among the
111: survivors. At each time step, we perform two successive sub-steps, first deaths
112: and then births.
113:
114: The death sub-step contains the selection ingredient \cite{tb}: an
115: individual with $\, N+1\, $ harmful alleles ($\, 1$-bits) along its chromosome
116: survives with a smaller probability than another individual with $\, N\, $
117: harmful alleles. Let's call $\, x\, $ the ratio between these two
118: probabilities, $\, x = P(N+1)/P(N)\, $, and let's also consider $\, x\, $
119: independent of $\, N = 0,\, 1,\, 2 \dots L\, $ (this assumption is equivalent
120: to adopt an exponential decay for the survival probability as a function of $\,
121: N\, $). The same $\, x\, $ is also adopted as the survival probability for
122: individuals with $\, N = 0\, $. Of course, the value of $\, x\, $ should be
123: strictly smaller than 1, otherwise nobody dies and the population does not
124: evolve.
125:
126: Let's now describe the first sub-step corresponding to deaths. First,
127: we count the number $\, H(N)\, $ of individuals with $\, N\, $ harmful alleles.
128: Then, we solve the polynomial equation
129:
130: $$\sum_{N=0}^L\, H(N)\, x^{N+1}\, =\, (1-b)\, P\eqno(1)$$
131:
132: \noindent getting the value of $\, x\, $. We adopted $\, b = 0.02\, $, i.e.
133: $2\%$ of the population die each new time step. Other not-too-large values
134: ($1\%,\, 3\%\, $, etc) can also be adopted with the same results, since the
135: role of $\, b\, $ is only to fix a convenient time scale, the time interval
136: between two successive snapshots of a movie describing the evolving population.
137: As $\, b\, $ is a small fraction, $\, x\, $ is always near $\, 1\, $ (in fact,
138: $\, 1-b \le x < 1\, $). Now, for each individual $\, i\, $, we toss a random
139: number $\, r\, $ in between $\, 0\, $ and $\, 1\, $: if $\, r < x^{N_i+1}\, $,
140: then this individual survives, where $\, N_i\, $ counts the number of harmful
141: alleles along its chromosome; otherwise, this individual dies and is excluded
142: from the population. After applying this death roulette to the whole
143: population, the number of survivors is $\, (1-b)\, P\, $, on average.
144:
145: The second sub-step corresponds to births in exactly the same number of
146: deaths occurred during the first. For each newborn we toss a random parent
147: among the survivors. Then, we copy its chromosome and perform mutations on the
148: copy. Each mutation is a bit which is flipped (from $\, 0\, $ to $\, 1\, $, or
149: vice-versa), the position of which along the chromosome taken at random. As
150: the number of $\, 0$-bits is dominant among the population, ``bad'' mutations
151: ($\, 0\, $ to $\, 1\, $) are much more likely to occur, as in Nature. The total
152: number of mutations for this particular newborn is a random number $\, M\, $
153: whose average coincides with the parameter $\, m\, $ fixed the same for the
154: whole population during all the evolutionary time: for each newborn, we toss
155: $\, M\, $ in between $\, 0\, $ and $\, 2m\, $. Neither $\, M\, $ nor $\, m\, $
156: need to be integer numbers, they are real numbers. Suppose the tossed $\, M\, $
157: is not an integer. Then, we perform first $\, {\rm int}(M)\, $ mutations, where
158: $\, {\rm int}(X)\, $ is the integer part of $\, X\, $. After that, with
159: probability $\, {\rm frac}(M)\, $, we perform a last mutation, where $\, {\rm
160: frac}(X)\, $ is the fractional part of $\, X\, $: we toss a new random number
161: $\, r\, $ in between $\, 0\, $ and $\, 1\, $, and perform the last mutation
162: only if $\, r < {\rm frac}(M)\, $.
163:
164:
165: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
166:
167: \begin{center}
168: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig1.eps}
169: \end{center}
170:
171: \caption{Collapsed distributions of the individual genetic load $\, N/L\, $,
172: for haploid, asexual reproducing populations with different chromosome lengths,
173: after many generations. The full circles correspond to the largest length $\, L
174: = 512\, $. The mutation rate $\, m/L = 1/320 \approx 0.003\, $ is the same for
175: all lengths, as well as the population size $\, P = 10000\, $. The inverse of
176: the typical genetic load (here, $\, \langle N\rangle/L \approx 0.01\, $) is an
177: estimate for the population genetic quality: the larger $\, \langle N\rangle/L
178: \, $ the poorer this quality.}
179:
180: \label{fig1}
181: \end{figure}
182:
183:
184: The simulation starts with all individuals alike, only $\, 0$-bits
185: along their chromosomes, i.e. $\, N = 0\, $ for all. As the generations pass,
186: individuals with different values of $\, N = 1, 2, 3 \dots\, $ appear, due to
187: mutations. After many generations, the distribution of genetic loads $\, N/L\,
188: $ stabilises. Fig.1 is an example, where we have superimposed different
189: chromosome lengths. The first observation concerning this figure is that both
190: Darwinian evolution ingredients (random mutations and selection) work together.
191: In order to better understand this important point, imagine the first sub-step
192: was replaced by random deaths (no selection): in this case, the curve would run
193: away to the right, sticking to a normal, bell-shaped narrow distribution
194: (Gaussian) centred in $\, N/L = 0.5\, $, far to the right in Fig.1. Moreover,
195: in this selection-less case the wild-type genotype $\, N = 0\, $ would be
196: extinct. This would correspond to a completely random genetic pool, nothing to
197: do with any kind of evolutionary process. On the other hand, instead of
198: selection, imagine we skip the mutation ingredient (no mutations): now, the
199: curve would be replaced by a single point at $\, N = 0\, $, a situation where
200: all individuals are ``perfect'', again no relation with any evolutionary
201: process. Without mutations, this would be the final destiny even if we have
202: started the simulation from a randomly chosen population. The fact that Fig.1
203: is in between these two extremes, neither $\, N = 0\, $ nor $\, \langle
204: N\rangle/L = 0.5\, $, shows that Darwin evolution is going on, the tendency
205: towards complete genetic randomisation due to successive mutations is
206: compensated by the selective deaths, according to a steady-state balance. In
207: the physicist's jargon, we can say that selection is able to contain the
208: tendency towards entropy explosion, the same balance which leads to free-energy
209: minimisation.
210:
211: The second observation concerning this Fig.1 is that all populations
212: with different chromosome lengths collapse onto the same curve. In other words,
213: one is able to obtain the same genetic quality for populations with different
214: chromosome lengths, provided one keeps the same mutation rate $\, m/L\, $ per
215: locus.
216:
217: Based on these results, the preliminary conclusion would be the
218: following. There is no price to pay by adopting the evolutive procedure of
219: increasing the chromosome length. One can perform this increment by keeping the
220: same chemical copying machinery, i.e. the same error rate $\, m/L\, $, and
221: obtain the same degree of genetic degradation kept under control. The advantage
222: is a larger information storage capacity. Why, then, real chromosome lengths
223: seem to have already reached a limiting size?
224:
225: The story is incomplete. The rest is described in the following
226: section. Definitive conclusions appear in the last section.
227:
228: \newpage
229: \section{The Scaling}
230:
231: Fig.1 with chromosome lengths of $\, L = 32,\, 64,\, 128\, $ and 512 is
232: incomplete. By including a larger length of $\, L = 1024\, $, one gets Fig.2.
233:
234:
235: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
236:
237: \begin{center}
238: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig2.eps}
239: \end{center}
240:
241: \caption{The same data displayed in Fig.1, now within a wider horizontal scale
242: in order to fit further data obtained for a larger chromosome length of $\, L =
243: 1024\, $ (rightmost bell shaped curve). The population size is still $\, P =
244: 10000\, $, the birth/death rate $\, b = 0.02\, $, and $\, m/L = 1/320 \approx
245: 0.003\, $.}
246:
247: \label{fig2}
248: \end{figure}
249:
250:
251: Unlike the collapsed curves of Fig.1, now repeated at the left-handed
252: side of Fig.2, the larger chromosome length of $\, L = 1024\, $ shows a runaway
253: from the wild-type genotype ($\, N = 0\, $) towards the random situation ($\,
254: \langle N\rangle \approx L/2\, $). Beyond this length, the wild-type genotype
255: is extinct and the whole population distribution is no longer glued to it. The
256: same behaviour is also observed in many other similar systems, in particular
257: the pioneering Eigen model \cite{eigen}. Beyond a certain limit for the
258: chromosome length $\, L\, $, the scaling properties denoted by the collapse of
259: many curves into a single distribution containing the wild-type genotype no
260: longer hold. The preliminary conclusion at the end of last section is now in
261: check. We need a more detailed analysis, which follows.
262:
263: Let's consider different values for the parameter $\, m\, $, the
264: average number of mutations performed at birth. Fig.3 shows the average genetic
265: load $\, \langle N\rangle/L\, $ as a function of $\, m\, $, for various
266: chromosome lengths $\, L = 32,\, 64,\, 128\, \dots\, $ 2048 (black circles) and
267: 4096 (black squares). In the limit of large enough chromosome lengths, this
268: figure seems to display a first order phase transition. The average genetic
269: load vanishes if the number $\, m\, $ of mutations remains below a certain
270: threshold $\, m_{\rm c}\, $ (here, $\, m_{\rm c} \approx 3\, $). This would be
271: the survival phase, where the population genetic quality is not compromised by
272: too much mutations at birth. On the other hand, for $\, m > m_{\rm c}\, $, one
273: observes the average genetic load suddenly jumping up and approaching the pure
274: random value $\, \langle N\rangle/L = 0.5\, $, where no evolution is possible,
275: as explained in the next two paragraphs.
276:
277:
278: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
279:
280: \begin{center}
281: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig3.eps}
282: \end{center}
283:
284: \caption{Apparent first order phase transition: survival on the left,
285: extinction on the right. For large enough chromosome lengths, the curve
286: approaches a step. Evolution is possible only below this step, on the
287: left-handed side, where the genetic degradation (as measured by the density of
288: ``bad genes'' read on the vertical axis) is far below the random behaviour $\,
289: \langle N\rangle/L \approx 0.5\, $. The number $\, m\, $ of mutations performed
290: at birth should be smaller than the threshold $\, m_{\rm c} \approx 3\, $.
291: Beyond this point, the sudden jump towards the random behaviour forbids
292: evolution to proceed.}
293:
294: \label{fig3}
295: \end{figure}
296:
297:
298: After the runaway observed in Fig.2 for $\, L = 1024\, $, the
299: distribution curves for larger and larger values of $\, L\, $ (not shown in
300: Fig.2 for clarity) would be sharper and sharper, all of them centred near $\,
301: N/L \approx 0.5\, $, reaching $\, N/L\, = 0.5\, $ for $\, L \to \infty\, $.
302: Therefore, within negligible (sub-linear) fluctuations, all individuals share
303: the same phenotype $\, N \approx L/2\, $ and become selectively alike to each
304: other. No selection, no evolution.
305:
306: Technically, by putting such a sharp distribution $\, H(N)\, $ in
307: Eq.(1) one gets the solution $\, x = 1\, $ in the limit of large values of $\,
308: L\, $ (or $\, N\, $). However, this solution is a biological nonsense, because
309: it implies eternal survival for all individuals, again no evolution. In
310: reality, for such sharp distributions far from $\, N/L = 0\, $, the population
311: would undergo a genetic meltdown, and will be eventually extinct. This fate is
312: artificially avoided by our assumption of a constant size population, which no
313: longer holds. We could correct this failure and observe real extinction,
314: simply by imposing some maximum value $\, x_{\rm max}\, $ near but strictly
315: smaller than unity, if the solution $\, x\, $ obtained from Eq.(1) surpasses
316: this limit. However, this procedure is unnecessary because we are interested
317: only in the survival which holds on the left-handed side of Fig.3, where always
318: one gets $\, x < 1\, $ from Eq.(1).
319:
320:
321: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
322:
323: \begin{center}
324: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig4.eps}
325: \end{center}
326:
327: \caption{For a larger population of $\, P = 32000\, $, the apparent transition
328: occurs at a larger threshold $\, m_{\rm c} \approx 5\, $, as compared to
329: Fig.3.}
330:
331: \label{fig4}
332: \end{figure}
333:
334:
335:
336: On the survival side of Fig.3 or Fig.4, the plots correspond to
337: straight lines starting at the origin, whose slopes decrease with increasing
338: $\, L\, $ proportionally to $\, 1/L\, $. Thus, by keeping the same ratio $\,
339: m/L\, $ for increasing values of $\, L\, $, one gets always the same value for
340: $\, \langle N\rangle/L\, $ read on the vertical axis along a plateau, provided
341: $\, m\, $ does not surpass the transition point $\, m_{\rm c}\, $ (i.e.
342: provided $\, L\, $ is not too large). In reality, not only the average $\,
343: \langle N\rangle/L\, $, but the whole distribution of $\, N/L\, $ does not
344: depend on $\, L\, $, as in Fig.1.
345:
346: Is this phase transition genuine? In order to answer this question, we
347: need to consider the so-called thermodynamic limit (the limit of larger and
348: larger populations) and ask whether the (would-be) phase transition remains.
349: According to traditional statistical physics, phase transitions occur only in
350: this limit. We could, for instance, repeat Fig.1 for a larger population, say
351: $\, P = 32000\, $. We do not need to show such a plot, because it is the same
352: as Fig.1. The only difference is that $\, L = 1024\, $ now fits into the same
353: collapsed curve shown in Fig.1, instead of following the runaway observed in
354: Fig.2. In fact, the runaway does not occur if the population size is large
355: enough. Fig.4 corresponds to a larger population of $\, P = 32000\, $, to be
356: compared with the former Fig.3: now, the apparent transition point is located
357: at $\, m_{\rm c} \approx 5\, $, larger than the former value.
358:
359:
360: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
361:
362: \begin{center}
363: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig5.eps}
364: \end{center}
365:
366: \caption{The (would-be) transition occurs at different locations for different
367: population sizes $\, P = 1000,\, 3200,\, 10000,\, 32000\, $ and 100000 from
368: left to right. Squares correspond to $\, L = 2048\, $, and lines to $\, L =
369: 4096\, $.}
370:
371: \label{fig5}
372: \end{figure}
373:
374:
375: Fig.5 shows again the average genetic load $\, \langle N\rangle/L\, $
376: as a function of $\, m\, $, for increasing populations sizes. For clarity, only
377: data corresponding to the two largest chromosome lengths $\, L = 2048\, $
378: (squares) and 4096 (lines) are shown. The larger the population size, the
379: larger the transition point $\, m_{\rm c}\, $. As an estimate for $\, m_{\rm
380: c}\, $, we have taken the crossings of the $\, L = 4096\, $ curves with the
381: horizontal line $\, \langle N\rangle/L = 0.25\, $ (just half-way from the
382: complete order $\, N = 0\, $ towards the complete disorder $\, \langle N\rangle
383: = L/2\, $). The resulting values of $\, m_{\rm c}\, $ obtained from these
384: crossings are plotted against $\, P\, $ in Fig.6. They follow a power-law, and
385: this behaviour indicates that $\, m_{\rm c}\, $ grows indefinitely for larger
386: and larger populations. In this limit $\, P \to \infty\, $ at fixed $\, m/L\,
387: $, only the survival phase exists, no runaway.
388:
389:
390: \begin{figure}[!hbt]
391:
392: \begin{center}
393: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.5]{fig6.eps}
394: \end{center}
395:
396: \caption{The transition point increases for increasing population sizes,
397: following a power-law. The straight line $\, m_{\rm c} \propto P^{0.44}\, $
398: fits very well the data. It means that one needs a minimum population size $\,
399: P_{\rm min} \propto L^{1/0.44} = L^{2.3}\, $ in order to sustain the population
400: survival at a fixed $\, m/L\, $, where $\, L\, $ is the chromosome length.}
401:
402: \label{fig6}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405:
406: The apparent survival-extinction transition shown in plots like Fig.3
407: is not a genuine phase transition, it disappears for large enough population
408: sizes. Therefore, the preliminary conclusion we have stated at the end of last
409: section is not completely wrong. Indeed, in order to keep the same genetic
410: quality of the population for increasing chromosome lengths, one should keep
411: the same rate of errors when each chromosome is copied for reproduction, i.e.
412: the same probability of error {\sl per locus}, $\, m/L\, $. However, this is
413: not a priceless procedure. The population size should also be large enough to
414: avoid the runaway shown in Fig.2. The minimum required population size depends
415: on the largest chromosome length one wants to reach.
416:
417: The current paper deals with asexual populations. In another paper
418: \cite{sex} we have shown that this conclusion does not hold for sexually
419: reproducing populations. In this case, the survival-extinction transition is a
420: genuine one, the transition point $\, m_{\rm c}\, $ does not depend on the
421: population size. When the chromosome length is increased, one should keep the
422: same {\sl absolute} number $\, m\, $ of mutations performed at birth, not the
423: ratio $\, m/L\, $. Therefore, with sex, the price to pay for increasing the
424: chromosome length is higher: one should improve the performance of the chemical
425: DNA copying machinery, in order to keep the same number of errors, in spite of
426: a larger length to be copied.
427:
428: We close this section with a technical comment on the simulations. The
429: evolutionary time one needs to reach genetic stabilisation is very huge,
430: particularly near the jumps shown in plots like Fig.3, Fig.4 or Fig.5. Starting
431: from an initial population with only $\, N = 0\, $ individuals, one needs to
432: evolve the whole population through $\, 10^8\, $ or more time steps in order to
433: reach the runaway shown in Fig.2. In order to control the statistics, we
434: simulated a total of 10 independent populations, taking averages at the end,
435: with error bars. For that reason, our computer program runs for a long time in
436: an Athlon/Opteron 250 processor, up to $\approx 10$ days for each point shown
437: on the rightmost curve on Fig.5.
438:
439:
440:
441: \newpage
442: \section{Conclusions}
443:
444: Based on a very simple model which nevertheless contains both
445: fundamental ingredients which drive Darwin's evolution, namely random mutations
446: performed at birth and natural selection, we have discovered some chromosome
447: length scaling properties. The overall result (valid in the thermodynamic
448: limit) is very simple to state: in order to increase the chromosome length $\,
449: L\, $, one should keep the same mutation rate $\, m/L\, $ {\sl per locus},
450: where $\, m\, $ is the average number of point mutations performed at birth.
451: This result is also in complete agreement with human intuition, since the
452: number $\, m\, $ of errors found in a chromosome copy should be proportional to
453: its length $\, L\, $, when performed by the same chemical DNA copying
454: machinery.
455:
456: However, the issue is not so simple, not so intuitive. The validity of
457: this linear behaviour depends on the population size. It should be large enough
458: to avoid the genetic meltdown characterised by the runaway shown in Fig.2,
459: which means extinction. We have also shown that a minimum population size is
460: required to avoid this, which increases for larger and larger chromosome
461: lengths as
462:
463: $$P_{\rm min} \propto L^\alpha$$
464:
465: \noindent where our numerical estimate for the exponent is $\, \alpha \approx
466: 2.3\, $.
467:
468: By including sex with crossings and recombination, another completely
469: different scaling holds, independent of the population size: $\, m\, $ instead
470: of $\, m/L\, $ should be preserved when a $\, L-$scaling transformation is
471: performed \cite{sex,newbook}.
472:
473:
474:
475: \newpage
476: \begin{thebibliography} {99}
477:
478: \bibitem{sex} P.M.C. de Oliveira {\sl et al}, {\sl Does Sex Induce a Phase
479: Transition?} in preparation (2006).
480:
481: \bibitem{newbook} D. Stauffer, S. Moss de Oliveira, P.M.C. de Oliveira and J.S.
482: S\'a Martins, {\sl Biology, Sociology, Geology by Computational Physicists},
483: pages 49--69, Elsevier, The Netherlands (2006).
484:
485: \bibitem{tb} P.M.C. de Oliveira, {\it Theory in Biosciences} {\bf 120}, 1
486: (2001), also in COND-MAT 0101170.
487:
488: \bibitem{parisi} G. Parisi, {\it Physica} {\bf A263}, 557 (1999).
489:
490: \bibitem{eigen} M. Eigen, {\it Naturwissenschften} {\bf 58}, 465 (1971); M.
491: Eigen, J. McCaskill and P. Schuster, {\it Adv. Chem. Phys.} {\bf 75}, 149
492: (1989).
493:
494: \end{thebibliography}
495:
496: \end{document}
497:
498:
499:
500:
501: \bibitem{pre} P.M.C. de Oliveira, J.S. S\'a Martins, D. Stauffer and S. Moss de
502: Oliveira, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf E70}, 051910 (2004).
503: