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 Biology  2006 

Similarity Selection and the Evolution of Sex: Revisiting the Red Queen

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040265

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

For over 25 years, many evolutionary ecologists have believed that sexual reproduction occurs because it allows hosts to change genotypes each generation and thereby evade their coevolving parasites. However, recent influential theoretical analyses suggest that, though parasites can select for sex under some conditions, they often select against it. These models assume that encounters between hosts and parasites are completely random. Because of this assumption, the fitness of a host depends only on its own genotype (“genotypic selection”). If a host is even slightly more likely to encounter a parasite transmitted by its mother than expected by random chance, then the fitness of a host also depends on its genetic similarity to its mother (“similarity selection”). A population genetic model is presented here that includes both genotypic and similarity selection, allowing them to be directly compared in the same framework. It is shown that similarity selection is a much more potent force with respect to the evolution of sex than is genotypic selection. Consequently, similarity selection can drive the evolution of sex even if it is much weaker than genotypic selection with respect to fitness. Examination of explicit coevolutionary models reveals that even a small degree of mother–offspring parasite transmission can cause parasites to favor sex rather than oppose it. In contrast to previous predictions, the model shows that weakly virulent parasites are more likely to favor sex than are highly virulent ones. Parasites have figured prominently in discussions of the evolution of sex, but recent models suggest that parasites often select against sex rather than for it. With the inclusion of small and realistic exposure biases, parasites are much more likely to favor sex. Though parasites alone may not provide a complete explanation for sex, the results presented here expand the potential for parasites to contribute to the maintenance of sex rather than act against it.

References

[1]  Burt A, Bell G (1987) Mammalian chiasma frequencies as a test of two theories of recombination. Nature 326: 803–805.
[2]  Busch JW, Neiman M, Koslow JM (2004) Evidence for maintenance of sex by pathogens in plants. Evolution 58: 2584–2590.
[3]  Kumpulainen T, Grapputo A, Mappes J (2004) Parasites and sexual reproduction in psychid moths. Evolution 58: 1511–1520.
[4]  Lively CM (1987) Evidence from a New Zealand snail for the maintenance of sex by parasitism. Nature 328: 519–521.
[5]  Lively CM, Craddock C, Vrijenhoek RC (1990) Red Queen hypothesis supported by parasitism in sexual and clonal fish. Nature 344: 864–866.
[6]  Fischer O, Schmid-Hempel P (2005) Selection by parasites may increase host recombination frequency. Biol Lett 1: 193–195.
[7]  Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: The evolution and genetics of sexuality. Berkley: University of California Press. 635 p.
[8]  Bremermann HJ (1980) Sex and polymorphism as strategies in host-pathogen interactions. J Theor Biol 87: 671–702.
[9]  Hamilton WD (1980) Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35: 282–290.
[10]  Jaenike J (1978) An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evol Theory 3: 191–194.
[11]  Agrawal AF, Otto SP (2006) Host-parasite coevolution and selection on sex through the effects of segregation. Am Nat. In press.
[12]  Otto SP, Nuismer SL (2004) Species interactions and the evolution of sex. Science 304: 1018–1020.
[13]  Peters AD, Lively CM (1999) The red queen and fluctuating epistasis: A population genetic analysis of antagonistic coevolution. Am Nat 154: 393–405.
[14]  Barton NH (1995) A general-model for the evolution of recombination. Genet Res 65: 123–144.
[15]  Otto SP (2003) The advantages of segregation and the evolution of sex. Genetics 164: 1099–1118.
[16]  Schuster ML, Coyne DP (1974) Survival mechanisms of phytopathogenic bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 12: 199–221.
[17]  Rice WR (1983) Parent-offspring pathogen transmission: A selective agent promoting sexual reproduction. Am Nat 121: 187–203.
[18]  Tooby J (1982) Pathogens, polymorphism, and the evolution of sex. J Theor Biol 97: 557–576.
[19]  Kimura M (1965) Attainment of quasi linkage equilibrium when gene frequencies are changing by natural selection. Genetics 52: 875–890.
[20]  Barton NH, Turelli M (1991) Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127: 229–255.
[21]  Feldman MW, Otto SP, Christiansen FB (1997) Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. Annu Rev Genet 30: 261–295.
[22]  Agrawal AF (2006) Evolution of sex: Why do organisms shuffle their genotypes? Curr Biol. In press.
[23]  Bell G (1997) Selection: The mechanism of evolution. New York: Chapman and Hall. 699 p.
[24]  Barton NH, Otto SP (2005) Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169: 2353–2370.
[25]  Roze D, Lenormand T (2005) Self-fertilization and the evolution of recombination. Genetics 170: 841–857.
[26]  Parker MA (1994) Pathogens and sex in plants. Evol Ecol 8: 560–584.
[27]  Parker MA (1996) The nature of plant-parasite specificity. Evol Ecol 10: 319–322.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133