long-term response and selection limits
DESCRIPTION
Long-Term Response and Selection limits. Idealized Long-term Response in a Large Population. Additive variance (and hence response) should be roughly constant over the first few generations, giving a nearly linear response. As generations proceed, sufficient allele frequency - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Long-Term Response and Selection limits
![Page 2: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Idealized Long-term Responsein a Large Population
Additive variance (and hence response) should be roughly constant over the first few generations,giving a nearly linear response
As generations proceed, sufficient allele frequencychange should accrue to significantly alter geneticvariances
They can potentially increase or decrease, dependingon starting frequencies
Eventually, all initial standing additive variation is exhausted and a selection limit (or plateau) reached
![Page 3: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1098765432100
25
50
75
100
Generations of selection
Cumulative response to selection
250 loci
mixed
25 loci
10 loci
![Page 4: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
.
4540353025201510500
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
Generations of selection
10 loci
25 loci
mixxed
250 loci
![Page 5: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
.
108642060
75
90
105
120
135
Generation
up-selected line
down-selected line
When the alleles favored by selection are dominant,response slows down considerable as these becomecommon. Response can be so slow as to suggest alimit.
![Page 6: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
This apparent limit caused by inefficient selectionagainst heterozygotes. Inbreeding can increaseefficiency.
Example: Falconer (1971) increased mouse litter sizeAn apparent limit was seen. Four sublines createdand subjected to both inbreeding an selection
A line created by then crossing these inbred-selectedsublines was itself selected. Result was an improvementof 1.5 mice/litter over apparent limit
Falconer’s interpretation: Many recessive allelesdecreasing litter size were segregating in the line,some of which were lost in the sublines.
![Page 7: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Deterministic Single-Locus Theory of Response
Suppose the genotypic values of aa:aA:AA are0: a(1+k) : 2a, and let p = freq(A)
The contribution to the mean trait valuefrom this locus is
m(p) = 2ap[1 + (1-p)k]Thus, the contribution is A is fixed, given itstarts at value p0 is
m(1) - m(p0) =2a(1- p0)(1- p0k)
![Page 8: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
.
1.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.00.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Initial allele frequnecy, p
k = -1
k = 0
k = 1
Total contribution to response for additive(k=0), A dominant (K=1), A recessive (K=-1)
![Page 9: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
.
1.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.00.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Initial allele frequnecy
dominant
recessive
Allele frequency at which half the finalresponse occurs
![Page 10: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Total Contribution
p1/2
A additive (k = 0) 2a(1- p0) (1 + p0)/2
A dominant (k = 1) 2a(1- p0)2 1- [1- p0(2- p0)/2]1/2
A recessive (k = -1) 2a(1- p02) [(1- p0
2)/2]1/2
Total contribution to selection limitand the frequency at which half
this contribution occurs
![Page 11: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Allele frequency Dynamics over time
p ' a iæz
p(1°p)[1+k(1°2p)]
If the selection intensity on the trait is i,the expected (deterministic) change in allelefrequency is
The curves for response under different n number ofloci were generated assuming VE = 100, and
¢pt = a ipt(1 ° pt)æz(t) = a ipt(1 ° pt)pæ2
A(t) +æ2E
' a ipt(1 ° pt)p2na2pt(1 ° pt) +100--
--
![Page 12: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Deterministic time for response
tp0;p ' s °1 lnµp(1 ° p0)
p0(1 ° p)∂- -
-
tp0;p ' s °1 12
∑ln
µ p(1 ° p0)p0(1 ° p)
∂+ 1
1 ° p ° 11 ° p0
∏- °-- - --
tp0;p ' s °1 12
∑ln
µ p(1 ° p0)p0(1 ° p)
∂° 1
p + 1p0
∏- -- -
How long does it take to reach p given start at p0
A additive
A recessive
Adominant
s = (a/z)*i Note time scales as 1/s
![Page 13: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
.
1.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10.00
2
4
6
8
10
12
Initial allele frequnecy
Recessive
DominantAdditive
![Page 14: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
n a R(∞) R(∞)/z(0) t0.5 x i5 6.32 31.6 2.2 1.7
10 4.47 44.7 3.2 2.525 2.82 70.7 5.0 3.950 2.00 100.0 7.1 5.5
100 2.41 141.4 10.0 7.8250 0.89 223.6 15.8 12.3500 0.63 316.2 22.4 17.4
Effect of the number of loci on limit. N equal loci, Each with p0 = 0.5. VA = 100, VE =100,
a value for each locus to give VA = 100. Selection limitLimit in phenotypic SDScaled time forhalf the response
![Page 15: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Estimating Selection Limits and Half-lives
Since a limit is approached asymptotically, a typicalmeasure is the half-life of response.
The limit and half-life are usually estimated from thedata by curve fitting.
James (1965) suggested fitting an exponential curve,
R(t) = a + bSct + e
Alternatively, a quadratic regression can be used General problem with any method: limit is extrapolated from the data.
![Page 16: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Example: Estimated limits/half-lives
Eisen (1972) looked at 22 generations of selectionfor 12-day litter weight in mice.
Both the exponential and quadratic models had r2 = 0.81, so cannot distinguish between models based on differential fit.
Estimate ModelSelection limit Quadratic 5.79 + 0.84
Exponential 8.18 + 0.29Half-life Quadratic 8.58
Exponential 12.48
![Page 17: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
General Features of Long-termSelection Experiments
• Selection routinely results in mean phenotypes far outside of the base-population range.
• Response can be very uneven. Bursts of accelerated response can be seen. Variances (genetic and phenotypic) can increases throughout experiment.
• Reproductive fitness usually declines as selection proceeds.
• Most populations appear to approach a selection limit. (Although this may simply be an artifact of short time scales/small Ne.)
• Considerable additive variation may be present at an apparent selection limit.
![Page 18: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cautionary Notes on Limits
• Scale effects can be important
• It is extremely important to recognize that most long-term experiments are a biased sample
• Controlled experiments over 20 generations typically restricted to a few model organisms.
• Most “long-term” experiments are less than40 generations
![Page 19: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Increases in Variances and Accelerated Responses
Contrary to the expectations of idealized response,phenotypic and additive variance often increase duringthe course of response, resulting in bursts of response.
One obvious source are rare favorable alleleswhose frequency increases under selection,increasing the variance.
For example, consider the response when we have100 loci with a = 0.5 and p = 0.5 plus one majorgene (a = 10) at low frequency (p = 0.05). Assume thislocus is either additive (k = 0) or recessive (k = -1)
![Page 20: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
.
504030201000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Generation
k = -1
k = 0
Note the burst of response as this alleleincreases in frequency
![Page 21: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
.
504030201000.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Generation
k = 0k = -1
h2 increases as this allele becomes more common
![Page 22: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
.
504030201000.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Generation
k = -1
k = 0
Once the allele becomes sufficiently common,its frequency rapidly increases. As it goesto fixation, h2 decreases
Note the delay for the recessive
![Page 23: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Two other potential sources for these burstsin response are:
Major alleles generated by mutation during the experiment.
Yoo (1980) selected for increased abdominal bristlenumber in Drosophila. 5 of 6 replicate lines showedaccelerated response after 20 generations of selection.Yoo was able to correlate many of these bursts withthe appearence of new major alleles that were also lethalas homozygotes.
Accelerated response can also occur whenrecombination joins favorable linked alleles
Thoday selected for increased sternopleural bristlenumber in Drosophila, observing a burst of responsearound 20 generations. He was able to show usingpolygenic mapping that the population initially consistedmainly of -- gametes plus a few + - and - + gametes.selection increased these to the point where + - / - +heterozygotes occurred and recombined to give + +
![Page 24: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Conflicts Between Natural and Artificial Selection
• Selection increases the amount of inbreeding.• Loci favored by artificial selection can be in
linkage disequilibrium with alleles having deleterious effects on fitness.
• Alleles favored by selection can have deleterious effects on fitness.– Direct effects: The trait value favored by artificial
selection is deleterious to natural selection– Pleiotropic effects: Alleles effect both the trait and
also(via other pathways) fitness. The trait value itself has no fitness effects.
![Page 25: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Frankham et al.’s Drosophila experimentFrankham et al. Selected for increased ethanol tolerancein Drosophila. They attempted to reduce the expected declinein mean fitness by culling those pairs showing reducedreproductive fitness.
Their logic is that if deleterious fitness effects duringselection were largely caused by rare recessives (which increaseby inbreeding during selection), then culling a small fractionof the lowest fitness individuals would cull those homozygotesfor these recessives, reducing their effect.
Following artifical selection, adults were placed in vials. Thoseyielding the lowest number of pupae were culled, creating an HS line
The HS line showed the same response as a line without reproductiveculling (ethanol selection only). Further, the HS line showed thesame fitness as the base-population (unselected) line.
![Page 26: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A similar study on 30 years of selection on chickens, wherethe lowest reproducing adults were also culled, showedsimilar results.
The inbreeding effect of selection results from finite populationsize being further exaggerated by selection. These effectsshould not be as pronounced in lines using larger Ne.
However, if fitness declines arise because of linkage disequilibriumbetween naturally and artificially selected loci, or if loci have pleiotropic effects on both fitness and the trait, or if the traititself is under natural selection, the response is expected todecay upon relaxation of selection.
Such a decay upon relaxation is also possible if maternal effectsand/or epistasis has been important to the response. However,we expect an increase in fitness upon relaxation if this reduction inthe mean upon stopping selection is due to natural selection.
![Page 27: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Example: Cruz & Wiley (1980) observations on egg rejectionRates in Weaver Birds on the island of Hispaniola
Village Weaver Bird introduced from Africa 200 years ago.
Studies in Africa show female Weavers recognize their owneggs, and eject foreign eggs
This rejection postulated to occur in response to selectivepressure from the brood parasite, the Didric Cuckoo.
Average African rates of rejection 40-55%. Rejection rateson Hispaniola around 12%
Since Hispaniola (until the 1970’s) free of brood parasites,potential relaxation of response in absence of selective presure
![Page 28: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
What is the nature of selection limits?Changing selection schemes and inbreeding offertwo approaches for characterizing any remainingvariance.
If additive variance is present, lines should show areversed response, when line subjected in oppositedirection
Presence of non-additive variance indicated if the lines show inbreeding depression (change in mean upon inbreeding).
![Page 29: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Reduced thorax length in Drosophila
Exhaustion of VA. No change under inbreeding, no reversed response.
Increased body weight in mice Exhaustion of VA. No reversed response.Egg production in Drosophila Exhaustion of VA. Significant non-additive variance.
Lethals/sterility factors negligibleWing length in Drosophila Significant VA at limit. Segregating lethals and an
overdominant locus for wing lengthReduced body size in mice Opposing natural selection. Reversed response,
relaxation of mean. Reduction in viabilityAbdominal bristles in
DrosophilaSegregating homozygote lethal increases bristles as a
heterozygote
Pupal weight in Tribolium Opposing natural selection. Significant VA at limit. Decay in response under relaxed selection
Shank length in Chickens Opposing natural selection. Trait negatively correlated with hatchability
Litter size in mice Negative genetic correlations btw direct & material effects
Increased mouse body size Negative correlation btw weight & litter sizeIncrease mouse litter size Apparent limit due to slow response from dominant
alleles
Summary of some apparent selection limits
![Page 30: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Long-Term Response in Finite Populations
Fixation probabilities for favorable QTL alleles
U(q0) ~ q0 + 2Nes q0(1- q0) for 2Ne| s | < 1
Selection dominates fixation dynamics when 4Ne s = 4Ne i a /z >> 1 or
4Nei >> z /a = 1/d*
Hence, by increasing 4Nei, favorable alleles of smallereffect (and/or at lower frequencies) becomeincreasing likely to be fixed.
![Page 31: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Selection Limits Under Drift and SelectionThe expected contribution under drift from an alleleat frequency q0 is
= m(q∞) - m(q0)q∞ = 1 w.p. U(q0), else = 0 w.p. 1- U(q0)
Hence, for an additive locus, E [] = 2a[U(q0) - q0]
Recalling for weak selection U(q0) ~ q0 + 2Nes q0(1- q0), s = i a /z
E [] = 4Ne(i a /z ) a q0(1- q0), = 2Ne i [2a2 q0(1- q0)] /z = 2Ne i A
2(0) /z = 2Ne R(1)
![Page 32: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Robertson’s Theory of Selection Limits
The expected selection limit is R(∞) = 2NeR(1)Or 2Ne times the initial response. This result is due toRobertson (1960)More generally, under weak selection,
R(t) ' 2Ne 1 ° e°t=2Ne¢R(1)( )--The expected time until 50% of the response is
t0.5 = 1.4 Ne
![Page 33: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Optimal Long-term ResponseA key result of Robertson’s theory can be seenby writing the limiting response 2NeR(1) as
2Ne i A2(0) /z
This term is fixed Note that increasing idecreases Ne and vise-versaHence, there are tradeoffs between a larger short-
term response (larger i, small Ne) and the optimallong-term response (smaller i, larger Ne).
Robertson showed optimal response is choosing half ofthe individuals, as this maximizes 2Ne i.
![Page 34: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Tests of Robertson’s TheoryRobertson’s theory applies to the expected responsefrom the existing variance in the base population.
It assumes weak selection on the underlying loci. Stronger selection on the underlying loci decreases both R(∞) and t0.5. Hence, it provides upper limits.
Robertson’s theory ignores new mutation input. Hence,tests of its fit typically occur in very small populationswhere the base-population variances is exhaustedbefore new mutational input becomes important.
![Page 35: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Robertson’s Theory predicts that the selectionlimit should increase as we increase Nei. This isgenerally seen.
Ne i R(50)
Ne i R(50) Ne i R(50)
10 1.6 16.3 20 1.7 20.3 40 1.7 31.710 1.3 11.2 20 1.4 14.7 40 1.4 18.810 0.9 8.1 20 1.0 12.2 40 1.0 16.4
For example, Jones et al (1968) looked at increasedabdominal bristle number in Drosophila under differentNe and i values,
For fixed Ne, limit decreases as we decrease iFor fixed i, limit increases as we increase Ne
![Page 36: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Cumulative Response at 50 generations as a function ofNei
Nei
![Page 37: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Weber’s Selection Experiment on Drosophila Flight SpeedPerhaps the largest long-term selection experiment isWeber’s (1996) for improved flight speed in Drosophila.
Over 9,000,000 flies were scored for flight speed intwo replicate populations subjected to over 250 generationsof response.
The resulting Ne was 500 - 1000 with an average i =2.11(p = 0.045 saved)Flight speed at start = 2cm/second. At gen 100, 170 cm/sec.At generation 250, 200-225 cm/sec
Response continued through the first 100+ generations, whilean apparent plateau was reached around 220 - 250 generations
Little slippage in the mean upon relaxation of selection. Fitness ofselected lines decreased only 6-7% (by generations 50 and 85)
![Page 38: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Illinois Long-Term Selection ExperimentStarted in 1896 by Hopkins, and continues today.
Selection for increased and decreased oil and protein content
After 90 generations, a fairly constant response was seenfor increased oil, with 22 A increase.
Selection for low oil was stopped at 87 generations, due todifficulty in selecting individuals with reduced oil.
The line selected for increased protein showed no limitafter 90 generations, with a 27A increase.
The down-selected lines for protein showed an apparentlimit, likely due to scale effects
![Page 39: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Variance in ResponseWhat is the variance about the expected limit?
=Ω2a ° m(q0) withprobability u(q0)
0 ° m(q0) with probability 1 ° u(q0)-
The expected response takes on values
This gives the variance in response as
æ2 [ ] = 4a2u(q0)[1 ° u(q0)]-With weak selection, u(q0) ~ q0, giving
æ2hR( 1 ) i
' 4 X a2q0(1°q0) = 2æ2A(0)-
![Page 40: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Response from Mutational InputThere is strong evidence that new mutations (not presentat the start of selection) significantly contribute toresponse even over the short time scale of most “long-term” experiments
Recall (Lecture 7) that the equilibrium additive varianceunder drift and mutation is just 2Ne2
m , while the additivevariance contributed by mutation in generation t is
æ2A;m(t) ' 2Neæ2
m [1°exp(°t=2Ne)]- -
rm(t) = iæ2A;m(t)æz
' 2Ne iæ2m
æz[1°exp(°t=2Ne)]- -
Hence, the response in generation t from mutational input is
![Page 41: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
For t >> 2Ne, the per-generation response frommutation approaches an asymptotic limit of
erm = 2Ne iæ2m
æz= i eæ2
Aæz
The cumulative response at generation t, includingdecay of the original variance plus new mutationinput is
R(t) = 2Nei
æz°tæ2
m +[1 ° exp(°t=2Ne)]£æ2A(0) ° 2Neæ2
m§¢- - -[( ) ]
Asymptotic responsefrom new mutations
Decay of initial variation
![Page 42: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
When does the response from new mutations equal the response from existing variation?
We can show (see notes) that the solution is t* = 2Ne log(1+), where ¡= h2(1°h2)2Ne(æ2m=æ2E)-
![Page 43: Long-Term Response and Selection limits](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062310/56816014550346895dcf1528/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Example: Yoo’s (1980a) selection experiment on bristle number in Drosophila
80 generations of selection, observing an increase of 0.3 bristleper generation over generations 50 to 80.
Base population had 2E ~ 4, 2
z ~ 5, h2 ~ 0.2. Selectionused i ~ 1.4, with an approximate Ne = 60Taking the average bristle number value of 2
m/2E ~ 0.001
gives 2m ~ 0.004
Equilibrium additive variance is 2Ne 2m ~ 0.48
Asymptotic rate of response ~ i * 0.48/(0.48+4)1/2 ~ 0.40At t = 60, we only see 40% of this, or 0.13At t = 60, response from initial variation is 0.38
Hence, at t = 60, 75% from initial variation, 25% from new mutations