Bianca De Sanctis, Hilde Schneemann, John J. WelchPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"
<p>When divergent populations interbreed, the outcome will be affected by the genomic and phenotypic differences that they have accumulated. In this way, the mode of evolutionary divergence between populations may have predictable consequences for the fitness of their hybrids, and so for the progress of speciation. To investigate these connections, we present a new analysis of hybridization under Fisher's geometric model, making few assumptions about the allelic effects that differentiate the hybridizing populations. Results show that the strength and form of postzygotic reproductive isolation (RI) depend on just two properties of the evolutionary changes, which we call the ``total amount'' and ``net effect'' of change, and whose difference quantifies the similarity of the changes at different loci, or their tendency to act in the same phenotypic direction. It follows from our results that identical patterns of RI can arise in different ways, since different evolutionary histories can lead to the same total amount and net effect of change. Nevertheless, we show how these estimable quantities do contain some information about the history of divergence, and that -- thanks to Haldane's Sieve -- the dominance and additive effects contain complementary information.</p>
Fisher's geometric model, hybridization, hybrid fitness, reproductive isolation
Adaptation, Evolutionary Theory, Hybridization / Introgression, Population Genetics / Genomics, Speciation
Luis-Miguel Chevin, [luis-miguel.chevin@cefe.cnrs.fr], Roger Butlin, [r.k.butlin@sheffield.ac.uk], Claudia Bank, [claudia.bank@iee.unibe.ch], Sally Otto, [otto@zoology.ubc.ca], Guy Sella, [gs2747@columbia.edu], Sam Yeaman, [samuel.yeaman@ucalgary.ca]
No need for them to be recommenders of PCIEvolBiol. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct
