全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2009 

Sex Is Always Well Worth Its Two-Fold Cost

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006012

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Sex is considered as an evolutionary paradox, since its positive contribution to Darwinian fitness remains unverified for some species. Defenses against unpredictable threats (parasites, fluctuating environment and deleterious mutations) are indeed significantly improved by wider genetic variability and by positive epistasis gained by sexual reproduction. The corresponding evolutionary advantages, however, do not overcome universally the barrier of the two-fold cost for sharing half of one's offspring genome with another member of the population. Here we show that sexual reproduction emerges and is maintained even when its Darwinian fitness is twice as low as the fitness of asexuals. We also show that more than two sexes (inheritance of genetic material from three or even more parents) are always evolutionary unstable. Our approach generalizes the evolutionary game theory to analyze species whose members are able to sense the sexual state of their conspecifics and to adapt their own sex consequently, either by switching or by taxis towards the highest concentration of the complementary sex. The widespread emergence and maintenance of sex follows therefore from its co-evolution with the even more widespread environmental sensing abilities.

References

[1]  Butlin R (2002) The costs and benefits of sex: new insights from old asexual lineages. Nat Rev Genet 3: 311–317. Butlin2002.
[2]  Munday PL, Buston PM, Warner RR (2006) Diversity and flexibility of sex-change strategies in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 21: 89–95.
[3]  Smith JM (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press.
[4]  Stearns SC, editor. (1988) The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences. Birkhauser.
[5]  West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12: 1003–1012.
[6]  Goddard MR, Charles H, Godfray J, Burt A (2005) Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations. Nature 434: 636–640.
[7]  Paland S, Lynch M (2006) Transitions to asexuality result in excess amino acid substitutions. Science 311: 990–992.
[8]  Kondrashov AS (1988) Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336: 435–440.
[9]  Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1998) Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986–1990.
[10]  Hamilton WD (1980) Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35: 282–290.
[11]  Lively CM (1987) Evidence from a New-Zealand snail for the maintenance of sex by parasitism. Nature 328: 519–521.
[12]  Otto SP, Barton NH (1997) The evolution of recombination: Removing the limits to natural selection. Genetics 147: 879–906.
[13]  Colegrave N (2002) Sex releases the speed limit on evolution. Nature 420: 664–666.
[14]  Nunney L (1989) The maintenance of sex by group selection. Evolution 43: 245–257.
[15]  Peck JR, Waxman D (2000) Mutation and sex in a competitive world. Nature 406: 399–404.
[16]  de Visser J, Elena SF (2007) The evolution of sex: empirical insights into the roles of epistasis and drift. Nat Rev Genet 8: 139–149.
[17]  Keightley PD, Caballero A, Garcia-Dorado A (1998) Population genetics: Surviving under mutation pressure. Curr Biol 8: 235.
[18]  Nielsen R (2006) Evolution - why sex? Science 311: 960–961.
[19]  Hayden EC (2008) Evolution: Scandal! sex-starved and still surviving. Nature 452: 678–680.
[20]  Nowak MA (2006) Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314: 1560–1563.
[21]  Smith JM (1982) Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press.
[22]  Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW (1983) Paradox of the evolution of communication and of social interactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80: 2017–2021.
[23]  Eshel I, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1982) Assortment of encounters and evolution of cooperativeness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 79: 1331–1335.
[24]  Brennan PA, Kendrick KM (2006) Mammalian social odours: attraction and individual recognition. Phil Tran Royal Soc B 361: 2061–2078.
[25]  Kaupp UB, Kashikar ND, Weyand I (2008) Mechanisms of sperm chemotaxis. Annual Review of Physiology 70: 93–117.
[26]  Nowak M, Sigmund K (1990) The evolution of stochastic strategies in the prisoners-dilemma. Acta Appl Math 20: 247–265.
[27]  Skyrms B (2002) Altruism, inclusive fitness, and “the logic of decision”. Philos Sci 69: S104–S111.
[28]  Bergstrom T (2003) The algebra of assortative encounters and the evolution of cooperation. Int Game Theor Rev 5: 211–228.
[29]  Kussell E, Leibler S (2005) Phenotypic diversity,population growth,and information in fluctuating environments. Science 309: 2075–2078.
[30]  Camperio Ciani A, Cermelli P, Zanzotto G (2008) Sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality. PLoS ONE 3: e2282.
[31]  van Doorn GS, Kirkpatrick M (2007) Turnover of sex chromosomes induced by sexual conflict. Nature 449: 909–912.
[32]  Jaffe K (1996) The dynamics of the evolution of sex: Why the sexes are, in fact, always two? Interciencia 21: 259–267.
[33]  Hurst LD, Hamilton WD (1992) Cytoplasmic fusion and the nature of sexes. Proc Royal Soc of London B 247: 189–194.
[34]  Parker JD (2004) A major evolutionary transition to more than two sexes? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 83–86.
[35]  Wolinska J, Lively CM (2008) The cost of males in daphnia pulex. Oikos 117: 1637–1646.
[36]  Feigel A (2008) Essential conditions for evolution of communication within a species. J Theor Biol 254: 768–774.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133