Matuszewski Sebastian, Ormond Louise, Bank Claudia, Jensen Jeffrey D
School of Life Sciences, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland.
Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras 2780-156, Portugal.
Virus Evol. 2017 Mar 2;3(1):vex004. doi: 10.1093/ve/vex004. eCollection 2017 Jan.
The extinction of RNA virus populations upon application of a mutagenic drug is frequently referred to as evidence for the existence of an error threshold, above which the population cannot sustain the mutational load. To explain the extinction process after reaching this threshold, models of lethal mutagenesis have been proposed, in which extinction is described as a deterministic (and thus population size-independent) process. As a separate body of literature, the population genetics community has developed models of mutational meltdown, which focus on the stochastic (and thus population-size dependent) processes governing extinction. However, recent extensions of both models have blurred these boundaries. Here, we first clarify definitions in terms of assumptions, expectations, and relevant parameter spaces, and then assess similarities and differences. As concepts from both fields converge, we argue for a unified theoretical framework that is focused on the evolutionary processes at play, rather than dispute over terminology.
当应用诱变药物时RNA病毒群体的灭绝,常被视为存在错误阈值的证据,超过该阈值群体就无法承受突变负荷。为了解释达到此阈值后的灭绝过程,已提出致死诱变模型,其中灭绝被描述为一个确定性(因此与群体大小无关)的过程。作为另一类文献,群体遗传学领域已开发出突变崩溃模型,该模型关注控制灭绝的随机(因此与群体大小相关)过程。然而,最近这两种模型的扩展模糊了这些界限。在这里,我们首先根据假设、预期和相关参数空间来明确定义,然后评估异同。随着这两个领域的概念趋于一致,我们主张建立一个统一的理论框架,该框架关注正在起作用的进化过程,而非术语之争。