Opposites attract? Mate choice for parasite evasion and the evolutionary stability of sex

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 681-689

  Howard, R S ^a   Lively, C M ^b  

^a MIDDLE TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evolution of sex; Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis; Mate choice; Muller's ratchet

Indexed keywords

DISEASE RESISTANCE; EVOLUTIONARILY STABLE STRATEGY; HERMAPHRODITE; MATE CHOICE; OUTCROSSING; PARASITE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; HERMAPHRODITISM; HOST PARASITE INTERACTION; INNATE IMMUNITY; INSECT; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; HERMAPHRODITISM; HOST-PARASITE RELATIONS; IMMUNITY, NATURAL; INSECTS; MALE; PAIR BOND; SELECTION (GENETICS);

ANIMALIA; INSECTA;

EID: 0038269890     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00571.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Agrawal, A.F. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411: 692-695.
2. Agrawal, A. & Lively, C.M. 2001. Parasites and the evolution of self fertilization. Evolution 55: 869-879.
3. Agrawal, A. & Lively, C.M. 2002. Infection genetics: gene-for-gene versus matching-allele models, and all points in between. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4: 1-12.
4. Amos, W., Wilmer, J.W. & Kokko, H. 2001. Do female grey seals select genetically diverse mates? Anim. Behav. 62: 157-164.
5. Antonovics, J. & Ellstrand, N.C. 1984. Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. I. A test of the frequency-dependent selection hypothesis. Evolution 38: 103-115.
6. Baer, B. & Schmid-Hempel, P. 1999. Experimental variation in polyandry affects parasite loads and fitness in a bumble-bee. Nature 397: 161-164.
7. Bell, G. 1982. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. University of California Press, Berkeley.
8. Blomqvist, D., Andersson, M., Küpper, C., Cuthill, I.C., Kis, J., Lanctot, R.B., Sandercock, B.K., Szëkely, T., Wallander, J. & Kempenaers, B. 2002. Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pari parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419: 613-615.
9. Charlesworth, B. 1990. Mutation-selection balance and the evolutionary advantage of sex and recombination. Genet. Res. (Camb.) 55: 199-221.
10. Dybdahl, M.F. & Lively, C.M. 1998. Host-parasite coevolution: evidence for rare advantage and time-lagged selection in a natural population. Evolution 52: 1057-1066.
11. Felsenstein, J. 1965. The effect of linkage on directional selection. Genetics 52: 349-363.
12. Glesener, R.R. & Tilman, D. 1978. Sexuality and the components of environmental uncertainty: clues from geographical parthenogenesis in terrestrial animals. Am. Nat. 112: 659-673.
13. Hamilton, W.D. 1980. Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos 35: 282-290.
14. Hamilton, W.D. & Zuk, M. 1981. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.
15. Hamilton, W.D., Axelrod, R. & Tanese, R. 1990. Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (A review). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 3566-3573.
16. Havens, K. & Delph, L.F. 1996. Differential seed maturation uncouples fertilization and siring success in Oenothera organensis (Onagraceae). Heredity 76: 623-632.
17. Howard, R.S. & Lively, C.M. 1994. Parasitism, mutation accumulation and the maintenance of sex. Nature 367: 554-557. Reprinted figures in Nature 368: 358.
18. Howard, R.S. & Lively, C.M. 1998. The maintenance of sex by parasitism and mutation accumulation under epistatic fitness functions. Evolution 52: 604-610.
19. Howard, R.S. & Lively, C.M. 2002. The ratchet and the Red Queen: the maintenance of sex in parasites. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 648-656.
20. Jaenike, J. 1978. An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evol. Theory 3: 191-194.
21. Jennions, M.D. & Petrie, M. 2000. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75: 21-64.
22. Judson, O.P. 1997. A model of asexuality and clonal diversity: cloning the Red Queen. J. Theoret. Biol. 186: 33-40.
23. Kelley, S.E., Antonovics, J. & Schmitt, J. 1988. A test of the short-term advantage of sexual reproduction. Nature 331: 714-716.
24. Kodric-Brown, A. & Brown, J.H. 1987. Anisogamy, sexual selection, and the evolution and maintenance of sex. Evol. Ecol. 1: 95-105.
25. Lively, C.M. 1992. Parthenogenesis in a freshwater snail: reproductive assurance versus parasitic release. Evolution 46: 907-913.
26. Lively, C.M. & Dybdahl, M.F. 2000. Parasite adaptation to locally common host genotypes. Nature 405: 679-681.
27. Lively, C.M. & Howard, R.S. 1994. Selection by parasites for clonal diversity and mixed mating. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 346: 271-281.
28. Lively, C.M. & Jokela, J. 2002. Temporal and spatial distributions of parasites and sex in a freshwater snail. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4: 219-226.
29. Lively, C.M., Craddock, C. & Vrijenhoek, R.C. 1990. Red Queen hypothesis supported by parasitism in sexual and clonal fish. Nature 344: 864-866.
30. Lythgoe, K.A. 2000. The coevolution of parasites with host-acquired immunity and the evolution of sex. Evolution 54: 1142-1156.
31. Mack, P.D., Hammock, B.A. & Promislow, D.E.L. 2002. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56: 1789-1795.
32. Marshall, D.L. 1988. Postpollination effects on seed paternity: mechanisms in addition to microgametophyte competition operate in wild radish. Evolution 42: 1256-1266.
33. May, R.M. & Anderson, R.M. 1983. Epidemiology and genetics in the coevolution of parasites and hosts. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 219: 281-313.
34. Maynard Smith, J. 1978. The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
35. Ochoa, G. & Jaffé, K. 1999. On sex, mate selection and the Red Queen. J. Theoret. Biol. 199: 1-9.
36. Olsson, M., Shine, R., Madsen, T., Gullberg, A. & Tegelström, H. 1996. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383: 585.
37. Penn, D.J. & Potts, W.K. 1999. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am. Nat. 153: 145-164.
38. Reusch, B.H., Häberli, M.A., Aeschilimann, P.B. & Milinski, M. 2001. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414: 301-302.
39. Schmitt, J. & Antonovics, J. 1986. Experimental studies of the evolutionary significance of sexual reproduction. IV. Effect of neighbor relatedness and aphid infestation on seedling performance. Evolution 40: 830-836.
40. Schrag, S.J., Mooers, A.O., Ndifon, G.T. & Read, A.F. 1994. Ecological correlates of mate outcrossing ability in a simultaneous hermaphrodite snail. Am. Nat. 143: 636-655.
41. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411: 689-692.
42. Siva-Jothy, M.T. 1999. Male wing pigmentation may affect reproductive success via female choice in a calopterygid damselfly (Zygoptera). Behaviour 136: 1365-1377.
43. Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2000. A mechanistic link between parasite resistance and expression of a sexually selected trait in a damselfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 2523-2527.
44. Von Schantz, T., Wittzell, H., Göransson, G., Grahn, M. & Persson, K. 1996. MHC genotype and male ornamentation: genetic evidence for the Hamilton-Zuk model. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263: 265-271.
45. West, S.A., Lively, C.M. & Read, A.F. 1999. A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J. Evol. Biol. 12: 1003-1012.