
AbstractThe sterility and inviability of species hybrids can be explained by between-locus “Dobzhansky-Muller” incompatibilities: alleles that are fit on their “normal” genetic backgrounds sometimes lower fitness when brought together in hybrids. We present a model of two-locus incompatibilities that distinguishes among three types of hybrid interactions: those between heterozygous loci (H0), those between a heterozygous and a homozygous (or hemizygous) locus (H1), and those between homozygous loci (H2). We predict the relative fitnesses of hybrid genotypes by calculating the expected numbers of each type of incompatibility. We use this model to study Haldane's rule and the large effect of X chromosomes on postzygotic isolation. We show that the severity of H0 vs. H1 incompatibilities is key to understanding Haldane's rule, while the severity of H1 vs. H2 incompatibilities must also be considered to explain large X effects. Large X effects are not inevitable in backcross analyses but rather—like Haldane's rule—may often reflect the recessivity of alleles causing postzygotic isolation. We also consider incompatibilities involving the Y (or W) chromosome and maternal effects. Such incompatibilities are common in Drosophila species crosses, and their consequences in male- vs. female-heterogametic taxa may explain the pattern of exceptions to Haldane's rule.
Male, Heterozygote, Models, Genetic, Zygote, Homozygote, Epistasis, Genetic, Species Specificity, Animals, Hybridization, Genetic, Drosophila, Female
Male, Heterozygote, Models, Genetic, Zygote, Homozygote, Epistasis, Genetic, Species Specificity, Animals, Hybridization, Genetic, Drosophila, Female
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 370 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
