Sex in the wild: How and why field-based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex*

Neiman, Maurine; Meirmans, Patrick G.; Schwander, Tanja; Meirmans, Stephanie

doi:10.1111/evo.13485

Cited by 49 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was therefore not possible to analyze these genome features in the present study. However, the prediction that deleterious mutations accumulate more rapidly in asexual than sexual lineages has been tested in over twenty different groups of asexual species (reviewed in [51], plus four additional studies published since [17,23,52,53]), with results generally supporting the prediction.…”

Section: Mutation Accumulation and Positive Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic features of parthenogenetic animals

Jaroň

Bast²,

Nowell

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolution under asexuality is predicted to impact genomes in numerous ways, but empirical evidence remains unclear. Case studies of individual asexual animals have reported peculiar genomic features which were suggested to be caused by asexuality, including high heterozygosity, a high abundance of horizontally acquired genes, a low transposable element load, or the presence of palindromes. We systematically characterized these genomic features in published genomes of 26 asexual animals representing at least 18 independent transitions to asexuality. Surprisingly, not a single feature is systematically replicated across a majority of these transitions, suggesting that no genomic feature is characteristic of asexuality and that previously reported patterns were lineage specific rather than caused by asexuality. We found that only asexuals of hybrid origin were characterized by high heterozygosity levels. Asexuals that were not of hybrid origin appeared to be largely homozygous, independently of the cellular mechanism underlying asexuality. Overall, despite the importance of recombination rate variation for the evolution of sexual animal genomes, the genome-wide absence of recombination does not appear to have had the dramatic effects which are expected from classical theoretical models. The reasons for this are probably a combination of lineage-specific patterns, impact of the origin of asexuality, and a survivorship bias of asexual lineages. Box 1: Transitions to asexualityMeiotic sex and recombination evolved once in the common ancestor of eukaryotes [41].Asexual animals therefore derive from a sexual ancestor, but how transitions from sexual to asexual reproduction occur can vary and have different expected consequences for the genome [13]. Hybrid origin:Hybridization between sexual species can generate hybrid females that reproduce asexually [13,42]. Asexuality caused by hybridization can generate a highly heterozygous genome, depending on the divergence between the parental sexual species prior to hybridization. Hybridization can also result in a burst of transposable element activity [12]. Intraspecific origins: Endosymbiont infection. Infection with intracellular endosymbionts (such asWolbachia, Cardinium or Rickettsia) can cause asexuality, a pattern that is frequent in species with haplodiploid sex determination [43]. This type of transition often (but not always) results in fully homozygous lineages because induction of asexuality frequently occurs via gamete duplication (see Box 2). Spontaneous mutations/Contagious asexuality. Spontaneous mutations can alsounderlie transitions from sexual to asexual reproduction. In addition, asexual females of some species produce males that mate with females of sexual lineages, and thereby generate new asexual strains (contagious asexuality). In both cases, the genomes of incipient asexual lineages are expected to be very similar to those of their sexual relatives and subsequent changes should be largely driven by the cellular mechanism underlying asexuality (Box 2). an...

show abstract

Section: Mutation Accumulation and Positive Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic features of parthenogenetic animals

Jaroň

Bast²,

Nowell

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the longest running field studies in evolutionary ecology are some of the most productive (Clutton‐Brock & Sheldon, ; in particular their box 3), and there is a growing consensus that long‐term research in ecology and evolution offers unique and important insights (Hughes et al., ; Kuebbing et al., ). Despite the clear value of long‐term studies, there is a real concern that funding schemes will push biological research away from long‐term field‐based work in natural populations towards laboratory‐based research with model organisms, simply because the time frame and feasibility of laboratory‐based research provides a better fit to current funding schemes (see also Kuebbing et al., ; Neiman, Meirmans, Schwander, & Meirmans, ). Clearly, funding strategies need to support both types of research, ideally working together.…”

Section: Distributions Of Fundsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Meirmans

Butlin

Charmantier

et al. 2019

J of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.

show abstract

“…This apparent paradox has stimulated research exploring the potential benefits of sexual reproduction that would explain its prevalence (Barton & Charlesworth, ; Burke & Bonduriansky, ; Otto, ). Where evolutionary lineages that reproduce in different ways are in competition, valuable evidence about the selective advantages of different strategies can be gleaned (van der Kooi & Schwander, ; Neiman, Meirmans, Schwander, & Meirmans, ). For example, the gradual upstream range expansion of sexual Potamopyrgus antipodarum snails recorded over 20 years (Wallace, ), suggests short‐term local competitive advantage of sex in this species that is supported by evidence from parasite infection rates (Gibson, Xu, & Lively, ; Jokela, Dybdahl, & Lively, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maintenance of sexual reproduction in nature has been addressed by contrasting the traits of sexual and related asexual lineages, and ideal study systems have natural replication, with independently derived populations displaying contrasting reproductive strategies (see reviews; Neiman et al, 2018;Neiman & Schwander, 2011). Examples of this circumstance include the snail Potamopyrgus antipodarum whose different clonal lineages are derived from the same sexual species (Gibson et al, 2016;Jokela et al, 2009), and Timema stick insects that contain multiple species pairs of sexual/ asexual lineages (Bast et al, 2018;Schwander & Crespi, 2009;Schwander, Henry, & Crespi, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss and gain of sexual reproduction in the same stick insect

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The outcome of competition between different reproductive strategies within a single species can be used to infer selective advantage of the winning strategy. Where multiple populations have independently lost or gained sexual reproduction it is possible to investigate whether the advantage is contingent on local conditions. In the New Zealand stick insect Clitarchus hookeri, three populations are distinguished by recent change in reproductive strategy and we determine their likely origins. One parthenogenetic population has established in the United Kingdom and we provide evidence that sexual reproduction has been lost in this population. We identify the sexual population from which the parthenogenetic population was derived, but show that the UK females have a post‐mating barrier to fertilisation. We also demonstrate that two sexual populations have recently arisen in New Zealand within the natural range of the mtDNA lineage that otherwise characterizes parthenogenesis in this species. We infer independent origins of males at these two locations using microsatellite genotypes. In one population, a mixture of local and nonlocal alleles suggested males were the result of invasion. Males in another population were most probably the result of loss of an X chromosome that produced a male phenotype in situ. Two successful switches in reproductive strategy suggest local competitive advantage for outcrossing over parthenogenetic reproduction. Clitarchus hookeri provides remarkable evidence of repeated and rapid changes in reproductive strategy, with competitive outcomes dependent on local conditions.

show abstract

Sex in the wild: How and why field-based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex*

Cited by 49 publications

References 111 publications

Genomic features of parthenogenetic animals

Genomic features of parthenogenetic animals

Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

Loss and gain of sexual reproduction in the same stick insect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About