Mutation load
How do predicted deleterious mutations explain fitness variation?
In my second PhD thesis chapter, we utilized genomic and bioinformatic advancements to predict deleterious mutations and tested how these mutations relate to sexual trait expression and fitness.
Conservation geneticists are increasingly using bioinformatic tools like GERP++, SnpEff or PhyloP to predict deleterious mutations.
But how well do these predicted mutations explain variation in fitness? Do only (recessive) deleterious mutations in homozygosity contribute to fitness variation, or are mutations in heterozygosity also significant? Are mutations in specific genomic regions more important than others? And do predicted mutations explain more variation in behaviour or in ornamental traits?
Read all about it in our paper published in Nature Ecology & Evolutionand you can find a nice lay summary in our university’s press release.