Study finds role for parasites in evolution of sex
July 6, 2009What's so great about sex? From an evolutionary perspective, the answer is not as obvious as one might think. An article published in the July issue of the American Naturalist suggests that sex may have evolved in part as a defense against parasites.
Despite its central role in biology, sex is a bit of an evolutionary mystery. Reproducing without sex—like microbes, some plants and even a few reptiles—would seem like a better way to go. Every individual in an asexual species has the ability to reproduce on its own. But in sexual species, two individuals have to combine in order to reproduce one offspring. That gives each generation of asexuals twice the reproductive capacity of sexuals. Why then is sex the dominant strategy when the do-it-yourself approach is so much more efficient?
One hypothesis is that parasites keep asexual organisms from getting too plentiful. When an asexual creature reproduces, it makes clones--exact genetic copies of itself. Since each clone has the same genes, each has the same genetic vulnerabilities to parasites. If a parasite emerges that can exploit those vulnerabilities, it can wipe out the whole population. On the other hand, sexual offspring are genetically unique, often with different parasite vulnerabilities. So a parasite that can destroy some can't necessarily destroy all. That, in theory, should help sexual populations maintain stability, while asexual populations face extinction at the hands of parasites.
The scenario works on mathematical models, but there have been few attempts to see if it holds in nature.
Enter Potamopyrgus antipodarum, a snail common in fresh water lakes in New Zealand. What makes these snails interesting is that there are sexual and asexual versions. They provide scientists with an opportunity to compare the two versions side-by-side in nature.
Jukka Jokela of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Mark Dybdahl of the University of Washington and Curtis Lively of Indian University, Bloomington began observing several populations of these snails for ten years starting in 1994. They monitored the number of sexuals, the number asexuals, and the rates of parasite infection for both.
The team found that clones that were plentiful at the beginning of the study became more susceptible to parasites over time. As parasite infections increased, the once plentiful clones dwindled dramatically in number. Some clonal types disappeared entirely. Meanwhile, sexual snail populations remained much more stable over time. This, the authors say, is exactly the pattern predicted by the parasite hypothesis.
"The rise and fall of these female-only lineages was surprisingly fast and consistent with the prediction of the parasite hypothesis for sex," Jokela said. "These results suggest that sexual reproduction provides an evolutionary advantage in parasite rich environments."
So we may well have to thank parasites—in spite of their nasty reputation—for the joy of sex.
-
Sex: Why bother? Scientists probe evolutionary mysteries
Mar 02, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
The benefits of 80 million years without sex
Oct 11, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Simplest known animals engage in sex
Oct 10, 2005 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Sex is Good for Evolution, Researcher Says
Sep 07, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Sex: It's costly but worth it. Just ask a microbe
Feb 08, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Stem cell question.
Feb 10, 2012
-
Protease cleavage
Feb 10, 2012
-
Pertubance in a model
Feb 10, 2012
-
Cancer drugs and Alzheimer's, Oh my!
Feb 09, 2012
-
Squishing cells
Feb 09, 2012
-
Any books/articles for evolutionary stable strategy models in humans?
Feb 09, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Biology
More news stories
Entire genome of extinct human decoded from fossil
(PhysOrg.com) -- In 2010, Svante Pääbo and his colleagues presented a draft version of the genome from a small fragment of a human finger bone discovered in Denisova Cave in southern Siberia. The ...
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.7 / 5 (58) |
44
|
Why are there so few fish in the Earth's oceans?
(PhysOrg.com) -- A Stony Brook University researcher has found that, contrary to popular belief, there are not plenty of fish in the sea.
Feb 08, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (17) |
26
|
Miami battling invasion of giant African snails
No one knows how they got there. But an invasion of African giant snails has southern Florida in a panic over potential crop damage, disease and general yuckiness surrounding the slimy gastropods.
Feb 10, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (2) |
5
Deciding to go left or right: Researchers use device to determine that lower animals can navigate too
For decades, scientists have associated binary decision making opting to go left or right with higher-ranking animals, including humans. A team of Harvard researchers, however, is rewriting that ...
Feb 09, 2012 |
4 / 5 (1) |
4
|
Study shows chimps able to understand needs of others
(PhysOrg.com) -- By setting up a unique experiment, a small team of researchers has found that chimpanzees are able to understand need in other chimps, despite their general disinclination to offer aid when ...
Google might launch Drive for cloud storage soon
(PhysOrg.com) -- Google's next big move, according to the Wall Street Journal, is a cloud storage service called Drive. Hardly first to the plate, Google is simply catching up to introducing its cloud reposi ...
Latin America mining boom clashes with conservation
Latin America is experiencing a mining boom as prices rise fuelled by a hike in global demand, but the region is also being hit by a wave of violent protests, strikes and rallies by environmentalists.
Love a click away in Indonesia's Twitter Republic
He was a geeky kid from Yogyakarta, she a glamorous city girl in Jakarta. In a country with one of the world's most vibrant social networking scenes they fell in love on Twitter.
Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)
(PhysOrg.com) -- The Walney wind farm on the Irish Sea--characterized by high tides, waves and windy weather--officially opened this week. The farm is treated in the press as a very big deal as the Walney ...
GPS court ruling leaves US phone tracking unclear
A US Supreme Court decision requiring a warrant to place a GPS device on the car of a criminal suspect leaves unresolved the bigger issue of police tracking using mobile phones, legal experts say.
Europeans protest controversial Internet pact
Tens of thousands of people marched in protests in more than a dozen European cities Saturday against a controversial anti-online piracy pact that critics say could curtail Internet freedom.
Jul 06, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Jul 07, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
((Like telling a gun is more lethal than a chemical, if what you would give in the chemical category, is only a tolerable dose of the chemical. That comparison is not fair.))
Furthermore, the species is not only the children of one bacteria. If all of the offsprings of one bacteria are killable (in the niches they have), some other of the same species, might live. Those subspecies which find their niche, keep living on. Statistically, presumable that, the subspecies that is massively reproducing, and some of those find some fitting niche, will live. That keeps the species up, statistically.
Concerning "evolution" vs. creation: Whatever is statistical (having gaps in our knowledge), will boil down to, praying to your favorite god-of-the-gaps. Evolutionists believe in the mutationgod, I believe in Allah, the Creator. (Their mutationgod is strictly a god-of-the-gaps. When data are in, that supports the creation, I witness. Such as the "convergent/parallel-evolutions" (sequential contradictions) obviating the "trees" of evolution.)
To summarize so far, potency/resilience/versatility, and variability are key points. If "sexual" is having more variability or more resilient subspecies, then the key is not sexualness.
Furthermore, bacteria have the capacity of gene graft, too. Actually, they have been known to having that a lot. For humans, that is the gene-therapy notion. Again, I think that is nothing to make new species, but allow the species to actualize its gene-expression flexibilities (toward subspecies that genome is capable of having). I told the spiderman example in
http://www.I-slam...nsky.htm
And in terms of bytes,
http://www.imame....-frz.htm
Jul 07, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Perhaps sexual reproduction is just how most species have over come the dimishing returns?
Jul 08, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
If your comment is to me (rather than to what the news is telling),
There is no "return" (feedback) that a subspecies that is gone to some other niche, would give to the species. But the species would be surviving. (In that case, that is a tree-search, with no backtracking.)
Otherwise, if they are living together, then gene graft would do what sexual-reproduction is having. (With their tiny existence, that is massive. A white man, marrying a black woman, might have middle of the two. Bacteria have that through graft. Then, keep replicating.)
The point is that we either have some genetic flexibility or not. (Evolutionists believe in the mutationgod bringing up such variation, I believe in Allah allowing the subspecies to vary.) So far as that genome has the capability of varying (for example, like gene-therapy would successfully hack), is what is happenable.
Jul 08, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
No.
There's nothing magic about sex. Mutations occur in sexually reproducing organisms as well as in asexually reproducing organisms. Deliterious mutations are eventually weeded out by competition for resources if they aren't caught early(e.g. miscarriage).
If one person has a gene that allows tolerance to cow milk and another person has a tolerance to plague bacteria, both those genes can end up in a single offspring due to sexual recombination. With clones, those genes will never meet in a single individual but need to be rediscovered in each line of clones. Without sexual reproduction, good genes cannot escape a background of bad genes; it's the total package that is selected against, not just the bad genes.
Jul 14, 2009
Rank: not rated yet
Each-line-of-clones might not be encountering all illnesses, any way. Why bother having the tolerance gene, then?
Gene-transfer is available for asexual organisms, too. That is known.
Besides, with that logic of guessing sexual reproduction to have some mighty potential, why would we, humanity, not have the species-wide tolerance to malaria? There is probably few or no such genetic tolerance. (But, vice versa. Mothers transmit immunity to their babies [through milk] -- but that is lastiing only for their first few months, after that they have to develop immunity.) In contrast, a clone is naturally the thing itself, thus presumably, no need to "re-"immune itself, nor any need to get that from elsewhere.
Thus, the stable illnesses are nullifiable by clones, both by keeping the old strengths and by extra transfers of genes. That is, the logic of
(1) "living forever" by multiplying itself, and
(2) the capability to have gene-hacks to confuse invaders
Presumably, the strongest of asexual subspecies,
(1) multiply the most
(2) if there is the need, likely to get the genes from other strong subspecies. Thus, if you would be so optimistic like you are in the case of sexual reproduction, then you would expect that, the two strongest subspecies would swap their strongets genes, because, statistically, they had been the two most widely available subspecies (because of having strengths to fight against various illnesses). But again, I might spoil that optimism a bit, because like we know about Windows, when something is popular, more hackers try to hack that. Likewise, when some subspecies is so widely available, some invader would hone its skills to traget their plentiful resource.
BTW, I forgot the statistics about the thing (if I knew): Is there that guarantee that good genes are dominant? In lots of mental illnesses, having someone in the family, is sufficient, as a risk factor to have the illness (not having that int the other parent, is not the final cure). What makes you so optimistic about the good genes having the high command?
(Let alone the problem that, with sexual reproduction, you have the chance of total loss of the good genes, too. Like, if both of your parents have genes for both brown- & blue-eyes, then half the chance is that, either the blue or the brown genes will not be in the offspring, at all. And if not in the offspring, not selectable.)