, Volume 138, Issue 7, pp 737–744 | Cite as

Influence of co-evolution with a parasite, Nosema whitei, and population size on recombination rates and fitness in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum

  • Michael Greeff
  • Paul Schmid-Hempel
Original Research


The high prevalence of meiotic recombination—an important element of sexual reproduction—represents one of the greatest puzzles in biology. The influence of either selection by a co-evolving parasite alone or in combination with genetic drift on recombination rates was tested in the host-parasite system Tribolium castaneum and Nosema whitei. After eight generations, populations with smaller genetic drift had a lower recombination rate than those with high drift whereas parasites had no effect. Interestingly, changes in recombination rate at one site of the chromosome negatively correlated with changes at the adjacent site on the same chromosome indicating an occurrence of crossover interference. The occurrence of spontaneous or plastic changes in recombination rates could be excluded with a separate experiment.


Tribolium castaneum Nosema whitei Recombination Sex Genetic drift Red Queen Hill-Robertson 



Beetle stocks were kindly provided by R. W. Beeman (USDA), R. Schröder (University of Tübingen), J. Trauner (University of Erlangen), and G. Bucher (University of Göttingen). We thank D. Trujillo-Villegas for his help on counting the beetles and R. Schmid-Hempel for general help. The Swiss National Science Foundation (grant nr. 3100-066733 to PSH), and the Genetic Diversity Centre of ETH supported this study.


  1. Abdullah MFF, Borts RH (2001) Meiotic recombination frequencies are affected by nutritional states in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:14524–14529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong E, Bass LK (1986) Effects of infection by Nosema whitei on the mating frequency and fecundity of Tribolium castaneum. J Invertebr Pathol 47:310–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton N (1995) A general model for the evolution of recombination. Genet Res 65:123–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barton NH, Otto SP (2005) Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169:2353–2370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks LD (1988) The evolution of recombination rates. In: Michod RE, Levin BR (eds) The evolution of sex. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass, pp 87–105Google Scholar
  6. Burt A (2000) Perspective: sex, recombination, and the efficacy of selection—was Weismann right? Evolution 54:337–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewees AA (1975) Genetic modification of recombination rate in Tribolium castaneum. Genetics 81:537–552PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer O, Schmid-Hempel P (2005) Selection by parasites may increase host recombination frequency. Biology Lett 1:193–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grell RF (1978) A comparison of heat and interchromosomal effects on recombination and interference in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 89:65–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hasu T, Valtonen ET, Jokela J (2006) Costs of parasite resistance for female survival and parental care in a freshwater isopod. Oikos 114:322–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillers KJ (2004) Crossover interference. Curr Biol 14:R1036–R1037Google Scholar
  12. Korol AB (1999) Selection for adaptive traits as a factor of recombination evolution: evidence from natural and experimental populations (a review). In: Wasser SP (ed) Evolutionary theory and processes: modern perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 31–53Google Scholar
  13. Kovalchuk I, Kovalchuk O, Kalck V, Boyko V, Filkowski J, Heinlein M, Hohn B (2003) Pathogen-induced systemic plant signal triggers DNA rearrangements. Nature 423:760–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lebel EG, Masson J, Bogucki A, Paszkowski J (1993) Stress-induced intrachromosomal recombination in plant somatic-cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:422–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucht JM, Mauch-Mani B, Steiner H-Y, Metraux J-P, Ryals J, Hohn B (2002) Pathogen stress increases somatic recombination frequency in Arabidposis. Nat Genet 30:311–313CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Milner RJ (1972) Nosema whitei, a microsporidian pathogen of some species of Tribolium. I. Morphology, life cycle, and generation time. J Invertebr Pathol 19:231–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moret Y, Schmid-Hempel P (2000) Survival for immunity: the price of immune system activation for bumblebee workers. Science 290:1166–1168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Neel JV (1941) A relation between larval nutrition and the frequency of crossing over in the third chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 26:506–516PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Otto SP, Barton NH (2001) Selection for recombination in small populations. Evolution 55:1921–1931PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Peters AD, Lively CM (1999) The Red Queen and fluctuating epistasis: a population genetic analysis of antagonistic coevolution. Am Nat 154:393–405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Plough HH (1917) The effect of temperature on crossingover in Drosophila. J Exp Zool 24:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plough HH (1921) Further studies on the effect of temperature on crossing over. J Exp Zool 32:187–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Puchta H, Swoboda P, Hohn B (1995) Induction of intrachromosomal homologous recombination in whole plants. Plant J 7:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rice WR (2002) Experimental tests of the adaptive significance of sexual reproduction. Nat Rev Genet 3:241–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Salathé M, Kouyos RD, Bonhoeffer S (2008) The state of affairs in the kingdom of the Red Queen. Trends Ecol Evol 23:439–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmid-Hempel P (2003) Variation in immune defence as a question of evolutionary ecology. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Veen JE, Hawley RS (2003) Meiosis; when even two is a crowd. Curr Biol 13:R831–R833Google Scholar
  28. Weinstein A (1936) The theory of multiple-strand crossover. Genetics 21:155–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhao HY, Speed TP, Mcpeek MS (1995) Statistical analysis of crossover interference using the Chi-square model. Genetics 139:1045–1056PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH Zurich, Institute of Integrative Biology (IBZ), ETH-Zentrum CHNZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Helmholtz Zentrum MünchenInstitute of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology (MIPS)NeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations