Higher rates of sex evolve in spatially heterogeneous environments

Nature

Volumn 468, Issue 7320, 2010, Pages 89-92

  Becks, Lutz ^a,b   Agrawal, Aneil F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC DRIFT; HABITAT QUALITY; HETEROGENEITY; RECOMBINATION; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL REPRODUCTION; VERTEBRATE;

ARTICLE; ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION; COST; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; FEMALE; FOOD; GENETIC DRIFT; HABITAT; MALE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NONHUMAN; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTION; ROTIFERA; SEX;

ANIMAL MIGRATION; ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DIET; ECOSYSTEM; FEMALE; FOOD; GENETIC DRIFT; MALE; MEIOSIS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; OVUM; POPULATION DENSITY; REPRODUCTION; REPRODUCTION, ASEXUAL; ROTIFERA; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX;

BRACHIONUS CALYCIFLORUS; ROTIFERA;

EID: 78149281090     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature09449     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bell, G. The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (University of California Press, 1982).
2. Maynard Smith, J. The Evolution of Sex (Cambridge University Press, 1978).
3. Otto, S. P. The evolutionary enigma of sex. Am. Nat. 174, S1-S14 (2009).
4. Agrawal, A. F. Evolution of sex: why door ganisms shuffle their genotypes? Curr. Biol. 16, R696-R704 (2006).
5. Kondrashov, A. S. Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. J. Hered. 84, 372-387 (1993).
6. Colegrave, N. Sex releasesthespeedlimitonevolution. Nature420, 664-666 (2002).
7. Goddard, M. R., Godfray, H. C. J. & Burt, A. Sex increases the efficacy of natural selection in experimental yeast populations. Nature 434, 636-640 (2005).
8. Poon, A. & Chao, L. Drift increases the advantage of sex in RNA bacteriophage Phi 6. Genetics 166, 19-24 (2004).
9. Korol, A. B. & Iliadi, K. G. Increased recombination frequencies resulting from directional selection for geotaxis in Drosophila. Heredity 72, 64-68 (1994).
10. Otto, S. P. & Barton, N. H. Selection for recombination in small populations. Evolution 55, 1921-1931 (2001).
11. Morran, L. T., Parmenter, M. D. & Phillips, P. C. Mutation load and rapid adaptation favour outcrossing over self-fertilization. Nature 462, 350-352 (2009).
12. Wolf, H. G., Wohrmann, K. & Tomiuk, J. Experimental evidence for the adaptative value of sexual reproduction. Genetica 72, 151-159 (1987).
13. Lenormand, T. & Otto, S. P. The evolution of recombination in a heterogeneous environment. Genetics 156, 423-438 (2000).
14. Agrawal, A. F. Spatial heterogeneity and the evolution of sex in diploids. Am. Nat. 174, S54-S70 (2009).
15. Pylkov, K. V., Zhivotovsky, L. A. & Feldman, M. W. Migration versus mutation in the evolution of recombination under multilocus selection. Genet. Res. 71, 247-256 (1998).
16. Felsenstein, J. & Yokoyama, S. Evolutionary advantage of recombination. 2. Individual selection for recombination. Genetics 83, 845-859 (1976).
17. Keightley, P. D. & Otto, S. P. Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations. Nature 443, 89-92 (2006).
18. Roze, D. & Michod, R. D. Deleterious mutations and selection for sex infinite diploid populations. Genetics 184, 1095-1112 (2010).
19. Kondrashov, A. S. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. 1. The advantage of recombination. Genet. Res. 44, 199-217 (1984).
20. Agrawal, A. F. Differences between selection on sex versus recombination in Red Queen models with diploid hosts. Evolution 63, 2131-2141 (2009).
21. Otto, S. P. & Nuismer, S. L. Species interactions and the evolution of sex. Science 304, 1018-1020 (2004).
22. Peters, A. D. & Lively, C. M. Short-and long-term benefits and detriments to recombination under antagonistic coevolution. J. Evol. Biol. 20, 1206-1217 (2007).
23. Hedrick, P. W. Genetic-polymorphism in heterogeneous environment a decade later. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17, 535-566 (1986).
24. Felsenstein, J. Theoretical population-genetics ofvariable selection and migration. Annu. Rev. Genet. 10, 253-280 (1976).
25. Feldman, M. W., Otto, S. P. & Christiansen, F. B. Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. Annu. Rev. Genet. 30, 261-295 (1997).
26. Gilbert, J. J. Specificity of crowding response that induces sexuality in the rotifer Brachionus. Limnol. Oceanogr. 48, 1297-1303 (2003).
27. Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. Effects of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 8, 269-294 (1966).
28. Williams, G. C. Sex and Evolution (Princeton University Press, 1975).
29. Hadany, L. & Otto, S. P. The evolution ofcondition-dependent sex inthe face ofhigh costs. Genetics 176, 1713-1727 (2007).
30. Fussmann, G. F., Ellner, S. P., Shertzer, K. W. & Hairston, N. G. Jr. Crossing the Hopf bifurcation in a live predator-prey system. Science 290, 1358-1360 (2000).
31. Team, R. D. C. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, 2009).
32. Bates, D. & Maechler, M. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R package version 0. 999375-31 Æhttp://CRAN. R-project. org/package5lme4æ (2009).