Coerced group collaborative evolution as an explanation for sexual reproduction’s prevalence

Robert J. Lin, Feng Lin

.

DOI: 10.4236/ns.2010.211152                

Abstract

The prevalence of sexual reproduction has long been an outstanding problem of evolutionary biology. Different explanations have been offered to explain the prevalence of sexual reproduction. These explanations mainly focus on the benefits of sexual reproduction’s ability to shuffle and recombine genes. In this paper, we propose an alternative and comprehensive point of view to this important problem. We first hypothesize that sexual reproduction leads to genetic homogeneity and maintains adaptational advantages of organisms. In stable conditions with strong selective pressures, the maintenance of desired adaptational advantages is one benefit of sexual reproduction. We further hypothesize that sexual reproduction provides a mechanism by which entire populations of similar genomes can interact and collaborate with one another in order to improve the population’s average genomic fitness, a phenomena we call coerced collaborative group evolution. We show that groups of individuals will improve as a whole, even though each individual is still operating under their own best interests. We also argue that the so-called ‘two-fold cost of males’ is misguided if we take limited resources in any environment into consideration. Finally, we propose an intuitive and visualized view to connect different theories on sexual reproduction to establish a comprehensive theory to explain sexual reproduction’s prevalence.

Keywords

Evolution; Sexual Reproduction;Genetic Homogeneity; Selective Pressure; Com-puter Simulation

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bell, G. (1982) The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. University of California Press, USA.
[2]	Colegrave, N. (2002) Sex releases the speed limit on evolution. Nature, 420, 664-666.
[3]	Hurst, L.D. and Peck, J.R. (1996) Recent advances in understanding of the evolution and maintenance of sex. TREE, 11, 46-52.
[4]	Misevic, D., Ofria, C. and Lenski, R.E. (2006) Sexual reproduction reshapes the genetic architecture of digital organisms. Proceedings of Royal Society B, 273, 457- 464.
[5]	Agrawal, A.F. (2006) Evolution of sex: Why do organisms shuffle their genotypes. Current Biology, 16, R696-R704.
[6]	Bachtrog, D. (2006) A dynamic view of sex chromosome evolution. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 16, 578-585.
[7]	Chasnov, J.R. (2000) Mutation-selection balance, dominance and the maintenance of sex. Genetics, 156, 1419-1425.
[8]	de Visser, J.A.G.M. and Elena, S.F. (2007) The evolution of sex: Empirical insights into the roles of epistasis and drift. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 139-149.
[9]	Dolgin, E.S. and Otto, S.P. (2003) Segregation and the evolution of sex under overdominant selection. Genetics, 164, 1119-1128.
[10]	Ladle, R.J. (1992) Parasites and sex: catching the red queen. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 7, 405-408.
[11]	Otto, S.P. (2003) The advantages of segregation and the evolution of sex. Genetics, 164, 1099-1118.
[12]	Otto, S.P. and Lenormand, T. (2002) Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 252-261.
[13]	Agrawal, A.F. (2001) Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature, 411, 692-695.
[14]	Agrawal, A.F. and Chasnov, J.R. (2001) Recessive mutations and the maintenance of sex in structured populations. Genetics, 158, 913-917.
[15]	Arkhipova, I. and Meselson, M. (2004) Deleterious transposable elements and the extinction of asexuals. BioEssays, 27, 76-85.
[16]	Barton, N.H. and Charlesworth, B. (1998) Why sex and recombination? Science, 281, 1986-1990.
[17]	Charlesworth, B. (1993) Directional selection and the evolution of sex and recombination. Geneticd Research, 61, 205-224.
[18]	Elena, S.F. and Lenski, R.E. (1997) Test of synergistic interactions among deleterious mutations in bacteria. Nature, 390, 395-398.
[19]	Feldman, M.W., Christiansen, F.B., and Brooks, L.D. (1980) Evolution of recombination in a constant environment. PNAS, 77, 4838-4841.
[20]	Kondrashov, A.S. (1988) Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature, 336, 435-440.
[21]	Lin, R. (2005) A new hypothesis on the evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction. Proceedings of the 8th Joint Conference on Information Sciences (JCIS 2005). Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 21-26 July 2005, 18-21.
[22]	Lin, R. and Lin, F. (2008) Simulation study to explain sexual reproduction’s prevalence. International Journal of Simulation: Systems, Science and Technology, 9, 43- 52.
[23]	Alberts, B., Bray, D., Hopkin, K., et al. (2004) Essential cell biology. 2nd Edition, Garland Science, New York.
[24]	Raven, P.H., Johnson, G.B., Losos, J.B., et al. (2005) Biology. 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
[25]	Maynard Smith, J. (1964) Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 201, 1145-1147
[26]	Hadany, L. and Beker, T. (2007) Sexual selection and the evolution of obligatory sex. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 245.
[27]	Muller, H.J. (1964) The relation of recombination to mutational advantage, Mutat. Res., 1, 2-9.
[28]	Elena, S.F., Carrasco, P., et al. (2005) Mechanisms of genetic robustness in RNA viruses. European Molecular Biology Organization 7, 168-173.
[29]	Hamilton, W.D., et al. (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites. PNAS 87, 3566-3573
[30]	Kondrashov A.S. (1994) Muller’s ratchet under epistatic selection. Genetics 136, 1469-1473.
[31]	Heng, H.H. (2007) Elimination of altered karyotypes by sexual reproduction preserves species identity. NRC Canada Genome 50, 517-524.
[32]	Ridley M. (1997) Evolution. Oxford University Press.
[33]	Zeyl, C. and Bell, G. (1997) The advantage of sex in evolving yeast populations. Nature 388, 465-468.
[34]	Hoekstra, R.F. (2005) Why sex is good. Nature 434, 571-573.