The Price Equation and the Mathematics of Selection∗
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GENERAL ARTICLE The Price Equation and the Mathematics of Selection∗ Amitabh Joshi Fifty years ago, a small one and a half page paper without a single reference was published in the leading journal Na- ture. The paper laid out the most general mathematical for- mulation of natural selection that would work for all kinds of selection processes and under any form of inheritance (not just biological evolution and Mendelian genes), although the paper discussed the issue in a genetical framework. Writ- ten by a maverick American expatriate in England, with no prior background of studying evolution or genetics, the paper Amitabh Joshi studies and had initially been turned down by the editor of Nature as too teaches evolutionary biology and population ecology at ffi di cult to understand. Largely ignored by the evolutionary JNCASR, Bengaluru. He also biology community till the 1990s, the Price Equation is now has serious interests in poetry, widely recognized as an extremely useful conceptualization, history and philosophy, permitting the incorporation of non-genetic inheritance into especially the history and philosophy of genetics and evolutionary models, serving to clarify the relationship be- evolution. tween kin-selection and group-selection, unifying varied ap- proaches used in the past to model evolutionary change, and forming the foundation of multi-level selection theory. Background: Charles Darwin, Natural Selection, and Popu- lation Genetics To fully understand the significance of the Price Equation, we need to step back over a century and a half to Charles Darwin and the principle of natural selection. Darwin derived his concept of natural selection by analogy to plant and animal breeding, in which varieties of domesticated organisms with desired charac- teristics could be developed merely by choosing individuals with Keywords certain desired traits to breed from, generation after generation. Non-genic inheritance. Darwin realized that the ecological struggle for existence in na- ∗Vol.25, No.4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-020-0967-1 RESONANCE | April 2020 495 GENERAL ARTICLE ture, as a result of competition for limiting resources, would act as a natural analogue of the breeder selecting which individuals Darwin saw that if got to reproduce, based on whether they had the desirable traits, offspring were relatively or not. Thus, individuals with traits that enabled them to func- more likely to carry trait tion well in their environment would tend to be more successful variations identical or ff very similar to their at surviving to breed, and eventually produce more o spring than parents, and if individuals that had traits less suited to the environment. The individuals with certain connection between greater reproductive success in the struggle trait variations were to for existence to longer term evolutionary change was provided routinely produce more ff offspring than others, by heredity, which implied that o spring would tend to resemble then eventually those their parents. Selection, therefore, involved both the differential ‘favourable’ trait survival and reproduction of certain individuals, and the similarity variations would become in traits between those individuals and their offspring. Of course, more common in the population, resulting in Darwin did not know the mechanisms of either the generation or adaptive evolutionary the inheritance of trait variations. Yet, he saw the important im- change. plication that, if offspring were relatively more likely to carry trait variations identical or very similar to their parents, and if individ- uals with certain trait variations were to routinely produce more offspring than others, then eventually those ‘favourable’ trait vari- ations would become more common in the population, resulting in adaptive evolutionary change. After the ‘rediscovery’ of Mendel’s Laws in 1900, a major fo- cus of theoretical research in evolutionary biology was to rec- oncile the mechanism of natural selection with the principles of Mendelian inheritance, especially since it had been widely be- lieved that natural selection would not be effective in mediating 1See Resonance, No.9, pp.3– change in the face of the conservative force of heredity1.This 5, 2000 and Resonance, No.6, naturally led to a focus on genic inheritance, leading to popula- pp.525–548, 2017; Boxes 1,2 tion genetic models of the process of adaptive changes in popula- After the ‘rediscovery’ tions under the influence of natural selection. These were clas- of Mendel’s Laws in sic models of dynamic systems, making a number of simplifying 1900, a major focus of assumptions, and focussing mechanistically on how genotype or theoretical research in evolutionary biology was allele frequencies would change over generations under the in- to reconcile the fluence of various evolutionary forces like mutation, migration, mechanism of natural selection, and random genetic drift. It was this blending of pop- selection with the ulation genetics with the principle of selection that largely made principles of Mendelian inheritance. 496 RESONANCE | April 2020 GENERAL ARTICLE up the so-called Neo-Darwinian Synthesis. The Price Equation took a very different approach, and sought to ask why various systems under selection changed in the manner they did, over The Price Equation generations, rather than focussing on how they changed. Thanks sought to ask why to this shift in focus, and its avoidance of traditional mechanistic various systems under selection changed in the modelling aimed at prediction, the Price Equation threw light on manner they did, over the underlying mathematical structure of selection itself, yielding generations, rather than insights of great originality and profundity into the evolutionary focussing on how they process. changed. Thanks to this shift in focus, and its avoidance of traditional mechanistic modelling What is the Price Equation? aimed at prediction, the Price Equation threw The Price Equation is simple and elegant, constituting a theorem light on the underlying encapsulating evolutionary change. In one of its commonly en- mathematical structure countered forms, it is presented as of selection itself. 1 Δφ¯ = cov(W,φ) + E(Wδ¯) W¯ Here, in the familiar context of biological evolution by natural selection, W is Darwinian fitness (the number of offspring an in- dividual having a particular phenotype leaves in the next time step), W¯ is the population mean fitness i.e., the mean number of offspring produced per individual in the population, φ is the phenotype, δ¯ is the population mean of the difference between an individual’s phenotype and the mean phenotype of its offspring, and Δφ¯ is the change in the mean phenotype in the population after one round of selection. Before we get into examining what exactly this equation means, and why, let us see where it is com- ing from. There are several different ways in which one can de- rive the Price Equation. We will follow the derivation in Chapter 6 of Rice (2004). Therefore, the notations used here are differ- ent from those originally used by Price, which are shown in the accompanying Article-in-a-box. Consider a set of N individuals in the parental generation, and let φi denote the phenotype of the ith individual (0 < i ≤ N). Then, φ¯ denotes the population mean phenotype in the parental gener- RESONANCE | April 2020 497 GENERAL ARTICLE ation. Let δi, j denote the difference in phenotype between the parental individual i and its jth offspring. Then, δ¯i is the differ- ence between the phenotype of parental individual i and the mean phenotype of all its offspring. Finally, let Wi denote the number of offspring of parental individual i,andW¯ the mean number of off- spring produced by individuals of the parental generation. Given the above, the phenotype of the jth offspring of the ith parent is given by φi + δi, j. The mean phenotype of all individuals in the offspring generation, φ¯, is thus given by N Wi = = φi + δi, j φ¯ = i 1 j 1 N i=1 Wi The numerator in this equation adds up the phenotype of all off- spring of all N parents, and the denominator is the total number of all offspring. Let us next examine the various summations in the above expres- sion. Since the individual phenotype of the ith parent, φi,isfirst being summed over its own Wi number of offspring, rather than over the i = 1...N parents, we can simply write this sum as the product of Wi and φi. Wi φi = Wiφi . j=1 Similarly, the summation of the difference in phenotype between each of the Wi offspring of the ith parent with the parental pheno- type (δi, j) can be written as the product of the number of offspring of the ith parent (Wi)andthedifference between their mean phe- notype and that of the parent (δ¯i), as Wi δi, j = Wiδ¯i . j=1 498 RESONANCE | April 2020 GENERAL ARTICLE And, finally, the summation of offspring number per parent over all N parents in the denominator can be written as N Wi = NW¯ . i=1 Substituting these three values into the equation for φ¯,weget ⎡ ⎤ ⎢N N ⎥ 1 ⎢ ⎥ φ¯ = ⎣⎢ Wiφi + Wiδ¯i⎦⎥ NW¯ i=1 i=1 1 = E(Wφ) + E(Wδ¯) . W¯ Let us briefly examine what these terms on the right hand side are. Within the square brackets are two expectations. If you are not quite familiar with the concept of an ‘expectation’ of a random variable, it is essentially very similar to the arithmetic mean (for details, see Resonance, February 1996 pp.55–68). For example, the first term in the square brackets is the expectation of the product of number of offspring (W) and phenotype (φ), which is equivalent to the mean of the offspring number × pheno- type (product of fitness and phenotype) in the parental generation. Similarly, the second expectation is essentially the mean, in the parental generation, of the product of fitness and the difference between an individual’s own phenotype and the mean phenotype of all its offspring.