The Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology

Abstract

Sexual reproduction is widespread amongst higher eukaryotes. But why are there not many more organisms reproducing asexually? After all, an asexual organism avoids making males, can thus in theory reproduce more efficiently, and one asexual mutant should quickly lead to the extinction of a sexual source population. Owing to such arguments, understanding the evolution and maintenance of sexual reproduction has in 1982 been called ‘the queen of problems in evolutionary biology’. In the last four decades, we have gained tremendous insights into this issue: perhaps most importantly, we understand more clearly that the powerful arguments against sex are not fully realised in all species. There are also recent insights into understanding the maintenance of sex in species where the problem is (partially) realised. Experimental evolution studies show that outcrossing can speed up the response to selection, while studies on natural populations emphasise the importance of niche differentiation and parasites.

Key Concepts

  • Sexual organisms dominate amongst higher eukaryotes.
  • Sexuals should in theory suffer from severe costs of sex, such as the cost of males.
  • All else equal, sexual populations should quickly go extinct due to these costs of sex.
  • On the genetic level, sexuality leads to fixed combinations of alleles across loci – also known as linkage disequilibrium (LD) – whereas sexual reproduction tends to break down these combinations to make sure that all combinations are possible, causing the population to be in a state of linkage equilibrium.
  • Since the breakdown of linkage disequilibrium is the most striking genetic effect of sexual reproduction, this has been the focus of most of the proposed benefits for sex.
  • In many species, the costs of sex might not be realised; the exact costs are affected by species‐specific constraints on the evolution of asexuality as well as ecological differentiation between sexuals and asexuals and life‐history traits.

Keywords: maintenance of sex; cost of sex; asexuality; geographic parthenogenesis; response to selection; niche differentiation; mutation accumulation

Figure 1. The cost of males in a dioecious species (Maynard Smith, ). If every female produces on average two offspring, in sexuals this will be approximately equally divided between male and females; asexually reproducing females will, however, be able to produce two female offspring. As a result, the growth rate of the asexuals will be twice as high as that of the sexuals, which translates into a two‐fold cost of sex.
Figure 2. Asexual reproduction sweeping to fixation in an initially mostly sexual population, under a two‐fold cost of sex. The model assumes a very large population and an initial frequency of asexual reproduction of 10−3.
close

References

Aanen D, Beekman M and Kokko H (2016) Weird sex: the underappreciated diversity of sexual reproduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371: 20160262.

Aguilar A, Roemer G, Debenham S, et al., (2004) High MHC diversity maintained by balancing selection in an otherwise genetically monomorphic mammal. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 3490–3494.

Bell G (1982) The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Burt A (2000) Perspective: sex, recombination, and the efficacy of selection ‐ Was Weismann right? Evolution 54: 337–351.

Butlin R, Schön I and Martens K (1999) Origin, age and diversity of clones ‐ Commentary. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 1020–1022.

Case T and Taper M (1986) On the coexistence and coevolution of asexual and sexual competitors. Evolution 40: 366–387.

Crow JF and Kimura M (1965) Evolution in sexual and asexual populations. The American Naturalist 99: 439–450.

Crow J (1999) The omnipresent process of sex. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 1023–1025.

Engelstädter J (2008) Constraints on the evolution of asexual reproduction. BioEssays 30: 1138–1150.

Felsenstein J (1974) The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78: 737–756.

Fisher R (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Gerber N and Kokko H (2018) Abandoning the ship using sex, dispersal or dormancy: multiple escape routes from challenging conditions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373 (1757).

Gerber N, Kokko H, Ebert D and Booksmythe I (2018) Daphnia invest in sexual reproduction when its relative costs are reduced. Proceedings Of The Royal Society B‐Biological Sciences 285 (1871).

Ghiselin M (1974) The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Gibson AK, Delph LF and Lively CM (2017) The two‐fold cost of sex: experimental evidence from a natural system. Evolution Letters 1: 6–15.

Hamilton WD (1980) Sex versus non‐sex versus parasite. Oikos 35: 282–290.

Hartfield M and Keightley PD (2012) Current hypotheses for the evolution of sex and recombination. Integrative Zoology 7: 192–209.

Hill WG and Robertson A (1966) The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genetics Research 8: 269–294.

Howard RS and Lively CM (1994) Parasitism, mutation accumulation and the maintenance of sex. Nature 367: 554–557.

Jaenike J (1978) An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evolutionary Theory 3: 191–194.

Jaron KS, Bast J, Ranallo‐Benavidez TR, Robinson‐Rechavi M and Schwander T (2018) Genomic features of asexual animals. bioRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/497495.

Joshi A and Moody M (1998) The cost of sex revisited: effects of male gamete output of hermaphrodites that are asexsual in their female capacity. Journal of Theoretical Biology 195: 533–542.

Kao KC and Sherlock G (2008) Molecular characterization of clonal interference during adaptive evolution in asexual populations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature Genetics 40: 1499–1504.

Kleiman M and Hadany L (2015) The evolution of obligate sex: the roles of sexual selection and recombination. Ecology and Evolution 5: 2572–2583.

Kondrashov AS (1988) Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336: 435–440.

Kondrashov AS (1993) Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. Journal of Heredity 84: 372–387.

Lenormand T, Engelstaedter J, Johnston SE, Wijnker E and Haag CR (2016) Evolutionary mysteries in meiosis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciencesi 371.

Lewis WM (1987) The cost of sex. In: Stearns SC (ed.) The Evolution of Sex and Its Consequences, pp 33–57. Springer: Basel.

Lively CM and Morran LT (2014) The ecology of sexual reproduction. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 1292–1303.

Lynch M (1984) Destabilizing hybridization, general‐purpose genotypes and geographic parthenogenesis. Quarterly Review of Biology 59: 257–290.

Maynard Smith J (1971) The origin and maintenance of sex. In: Williams GC (ed.) Group Selection, pp 163–175. Aldine Atherton: Chicago.

Maynard Smith J (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

McDonald MJ, Rice DP and Desai MM (2016) Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution. Nature 531: 233.

Meirmans S (2009) The evolution of the problem of sex. In: Schön I, Martens K and Van Dijk PJ (eds) Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis, pp 21–46. Springer: Dordrecht.

Meirmans S, Meirmans PG and Kirkendall LR (2012) The costs of sex: facing real‐world complexities. Quarterly Review of Biology 87: 19–40.

Morran LT, Schmidt OG, Gelarden IA, Parrish RCI and Lively CM (2011) Running with the red queen: host‐parasite coevolution selects for biparental sex. Science 333: 216–218.

Muller HJ (1932) Some genetic aspects of sex. The American Naturalist 66: 118–138.

Muller HJ (1964) The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1: 2–9.

Neiman M, Meirmans S and Meirmans PG (2009) What can asexual lineage age tell us about the maintenance of sex? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 185–200.

Neiman M, Lively CM and Meirmans S (2017) Why sex? A pluralist approach revisited. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 32: 589–600.

Neiman M, Meirmans PG, Schwander T and Meirmans S (2018) Sex in the wild: how and why field‐based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex. Evolution 72: 1194–1203.

Otto SP (2009) The evolutionary enigma of sex. American Naturalist 174: S1–S14.

Rice W (2002) Experimental tests of the adaptive significance of sexual recombination. Nature Reviews Genetics 3: 241–251.

Schön I, Martens K and Van Dijk PJ (2009) Lost Sex: The Evolutionary Biology of Parthenogenesis. Springer: Dordrecht.

Sharp NP and Otto SP (2016) Evolution of sex: using experimental genomics to select among competing theories. BioEssays 38: 751–757.

Simon J, Delmotte F, Rispe C and Crease T (2003) Phylogenetic relationships between parthenogens and their sexual relatives: the possible routes to parthenogenesis in animals. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79: 151–163.

Tilquin A and Kokko H (2016) What does the geography of parthenogenesis teach us about sex? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371: 20150538.

Van Valen L (1973) A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1: 1–30.

Vandel A (1928) La parthénogenèse géographique. Contribution à l'étude biologique et cytologique de la parthénogenèse naturelle. Bulletin biologique de la France et de la Belgique 62: 164–281.

Vrijenhoek R (1979) Factors affecting clonal diversity and coexistence. American Zoologist 19: 787–797.

West S, Lively C and Read A (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12: 1003–1012.

Williams GC (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press: Princeton, US.

Further Reading

Kondrashov AS (2018) Through sex, nature is telling us something important. Trends in Genetics 34: 352–361.

Lehtonen J, Jennions MD and Kokko H (2012) The many costs of sex. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 172–178.

Maynard Smith J (1998) Evolutionary Genetics, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Stelzer C‐P (2015) Does the avoidance of sexual costs increase fitness in asexual invaders? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 8851–8858.

Van der Kooi CJ, Matthey‐Doret C and Schwander T (2017) Evolution and comparative ecology of parthenogenesis in haplodiploid arthropods. Evolution Letters 1: 304–316.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Meirmans, Stephanie, and Meirmans, Patrick G(Aug 2019) The Queen of Problems in Evolutionary Biology. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0028485]