Advertisement

Journal of Genetics

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 1–10 | Cite as

The evolutionary maintenance of sexual reproduction: The solutions proposed for a longstanding problem

  • Stephen C. Stearns
Article

Abstract

The evolutionary maintenance of mixis is one of the major unsolved problems in modern biology. This paper reviews the phenoraenon of sex, the hypotheses for its maintenance, and recent evidence bearing on the hypotheses. One elegant experiment supports the idea that bacterial transformation, an analogue and possible forerunner of eukaryolic mixis, functions as a repair mechanism. All mechanisms that produce a short-term advantage for sex in eukaryotes and that are supported by experimental results rely on strong genotype by environment interactions for fitness. While many environmental factors are involved, most prominently parasites, disease, and coarse-grained environmental heterogeneity of other sorts, each is effective only insofar as it is involved in a genotype by environment interaction for fitness.

Keywords

Sexual reproduction genotype by environment interaction mixis evolution of sex 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander H. M. 1989 An experimental field study of anther-smut disease ofSilene alba caused byUstilago violacea: genotypic variation and disease resistance.Evolution 43: 835–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonovics J. and Ellstrand N. C. 1984 Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sex. I. A test of the frequency-dependent selection hypothesis.Evolution 38: 103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G. 1982The masterpiece of nature (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press)Google Scholar
  4. Bell G. and Maynard Smith J. 1987 Short-term selection for recombination among mutually antagonistic species.Nature (London) 328: 66–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengtsson B. O. 1985 Biased conversion as the primary function of recombination.Genet. Res. Camb. 47: 77–80Google Scholar
  6. Bierzychudek P. 1987 Pollinators increase the cost of sex by avoiding female flowers.Ecology 68: 444–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradbury J. W. and Andersson M. B. (eds) 1987Sexual selection: Testing the alternatives (Dahlem Workshop Report) (New York: John Wiley)Google Scholar
  8. Bremermann H. J. 1980 Sex and polymorphism and strategies of host-pathogen interactions.J. Theor. Biol. 87: 641–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Browne R. A. 1980 Compedtion experiments between parthenogenetic and sexual strains of the brine shrimp,Artemia salina.Ecology 61: 471–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bull J. J. 1983Evolution of sex determining mechanisms (Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings)Google Scholar
  11. Bull J. J. 1987 Sex-determining mechanisms: an evolutionary perspective. InThe evolution of sex and its consequences (ed.) S. C. Stearns (Basel: Birkhäuser) pp. 93–116Google Scholar
  12. Case T. J. and Taper M. L. 1986 On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors.Evolution 40: 366–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charnov E. L. 1982The theory of sex allocation (Princeton: University Press)Google Scholar
  14. Cohen J. E. and Newman C. M. 1989 Host-parasite relations and random zero-sum games: the stabilizing effect of strategy diversification.Am. Nat. 133: 533–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crow J. F. and Kimura M. 1965 Evolution in sexual and asexual populations.Am. Nat. 99: 439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elgar M. A. and Crozier R. H. 1988 Sex with dead cells may be better than no sex at all.Trends Ecol. Evol. 3: 249–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellstrand N. C. and Antonovics J. 1985 Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sex. II. A test of the density-dependent selection hypothesis.Evolution 39: 657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher R. A. 1930The genetic theory of natural selection (Oxford: Clarendon)Google Scholar
  19. Futuyma D. 1986Evolutionary biology 2nd edn (Sunderland: Sinauer)Google Scholar
  20. Ghisclin M. T. 1974The economy of nature and the evolution of sex (Berkeley: University of California Press)Google Scholar
  21. Hamilton W. D. 1980 Sex vs. non-sex vs. parasite.Oikos 35: 282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton W. D., Axelrod R. and Tanese R. 1990 Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Hedrick P. W. and Whittam T. S. 1989 Sex in diploids.Nature (London) 342: 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoekstra R. H. 1987 The evolution of sexes. InThe evolution of sex and its consequences (ed.) S. C. Stearns (Basel: Birkhäuser) pp. 59–91Google Scholar
  25. Innes D. J. and Hebert P. D. N. 1988 The origin and genetic basis of olbligate parthenogenesis inDaphnia pulex.Evolution 42: 1024–1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iwasa Y and Sasaki A 1987 Evolution of the number of sexes.Evolution 41: 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaenike J. 1978 A hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations.Evol. Theor. 3: 191–194Google Scholar
  28. Jayakar S. D. 1987 Some two-locus models for the evolution of sex determining mechanisms.Theor. Popul. Biol. 32: 188–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jayakàr S. D. and Spurway H. 1966 Sex ratios of some mason wasps.Nature (London) 212: 306–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelley S. E., Antonovics J. and Schmitt. J. 1988 A test of the short-term advantage of sexuat reproduction.Nature (London) 331: 714–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirkpatrick M. and Jenkins C. D. 1989a Genetic segretation and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.Nature (London) 339: 300–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkpatrick M. and Jenkins C. D. 1989b Sex in diploids.Nature (London) 342: 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koella J. C 1988 The tangled bank: The maintenance of sexual reproduction through competitive interactions.J. Evol. Biol. 1: 95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kondrashov A. S. 1988 Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction.Nature (London) 336: 435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kozlowski J. and Stearns S. C. 1989 Hypotheses for the production of excess zygotes: Models of bethedging and selective abortion.Evolution 43: 1369–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levin D. A. 1975 Pest pressure and recombination systems in plants.Am. Nat. 109: 437–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis W. M. Jr. 1987 The cost of sex. InThe evolution of sex and its consequences (ed.) S. C. Stearns (Basel: Birkhäuser) pp. 33–58Google Scholar
  38. Lively C. M. 1987 Evidence from a New Zealand snail for the maintenance of sex by parasitism.Nature (London) 328: 519–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Margulis L. 1981Symbiosis in cell evolution (San Francisco: Freeman)Google Scholar
  40. Maynard Smith J. 1971 What use is sex?J. Theor. Biol. 30: 319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maynard Smith J. 1978The evolution of sex (Cambridge: University Press)Google Scholar
  42. Michod R. E. and Levin B. R. (eds) 1988The evolution of sex (Sunderland: Sinauer)Google Scholar
  43. Michod R. E., Wodjciechowski M. F. and Hoelzer M. A. 1988Genetics 118: 31–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Muller H. J. 1932 Some genetic aspects of sex.Am. Nat. 66: 118–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parker M. A. 1988 Genetic uniformity and disease resistance in a clonal plant.Am. Nat. 132: 538–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pollock G. B. 1989 Suspending disbelief-of Wynne-Edwards and his reception.J. Evol. Biol. 2: 205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rossignol J.-L. 1969 Existence of homogeneous categories of mutants exhibiling various conversion patterns in gene 75 ofAscobolus immersus.Genetics 63: 795–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rossignol J.-L., Paquette N. and Nicolas A. 1978 Aberrant 4:4 asci, disparity in the direction of conversion, and frequencies of conversion inAscobolus immersus.Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 43: 1343–1352Google Scholar
  49. Stearns S. C. (ed.) 1987The evolution of sex and its consequences (Basel: Birkhäuser)Google Scholar
  50. Weismann A. 1913Vorträge über Deszendenztheorie (Jena: Gustav Fischer)Google Scholar
  51. Williams G. C. 1966Adaptation and natural selection (Princeton: University Press)Google Scholar
  52. Wiliiams G. C. 1975Sex and evolution (Princeton: University Press)Google Scholar
  53. Williaras G. C. and Mitton J. B. 1973 Why reproduce sexuaily?J. Theor. Biol. 39: 545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson D. S. 1983 The group selection controversy: history and current status.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14: 159–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wynne-Edwards V. C. 1962Animal dispersion in relation to social behavior (London: Oliver and Boyd)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Stearns
    • 1
  1. 1.Zoology InstituteBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations