Abstract
Relating to our recent Review (The pleiotropic structure of the genotype–phenotype map: the evolvability of complex organisms. Nature Reviews Genetics 12, 204–213 (2011))1, Hill and Zhang argue in their Correspondence (Assessing pleiotropy and its evolutionary consequences: pleiotropy is not necessarily limited, nor need it hinder the evolution of complexity. Nature Reviews Genetics 21 Feb 2012 (doi:10.1038/nrg2949-c1))2 that the experimental data summarized and discussed in our article are unable to reject the hypothesis of universal pleiotropy (HUP), which asserts that every mutation (or gene) affects every trait. This influential idea originated from Fisher's geometric model of evolution3. Hill and Zhang2 argue that any empirical detection of a gene effect relies on some statistical significance threshold and is thus likely to underestimate the true degree of pleiotropy. We agree with the substance of this argument and have discussed its implications in our paper1. However, we disagree with the conclusion that the HUP is a viable model of genetic architecture. We think this disagreement has deeper methodological roots, which we discuss below.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.