The Advantages of Segregation and the Evolution of Sex

Corresponding author: Sarah P. Otto, 6270 University Blvd., University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada., otto{at}zoology.ubc.ca (E-mail)

Communicating editor: M. K. UYENOYAMA

In diploids, sexual reproduction promotes both the segregation of alleles at the same locus and the recombination of alleles at different loci. This article is the first to investigate the possibility that sex might have evolved and been maintained to promote segregation, using a model that incorporates both a general selection regime and modifier alleles that alter an individual's allocation to sexual vs. asexual reproduction. The fate of different modifier alleles was found to depend strongly on the strength of selection at fitness loci and on the presence of inbreeding among individuals undergoing sexual reproduction. When selection is weak and mating occurs randomly among sexually produced gametes, reductions in the occurrence of sex are favored, but the genome-wide strength of selection is extremely small. In contrast, when selection is weak and some inbreeding occurs among gametes, increased allocation to sexual reproduction is expected as long as deleterious mutations are partially recessive and/or beneficial mutations are partially dominant. Under strong selection, the conditions under which increased allocation to sex evolves are reversed. Because deleterious mutations are typically considered to be partially recessive and weakly selected and because most populations exhibit some degree of inbreeding, this model predicts that higher frequencies of sex would evolve and be maintained as a consequence of the effects of segregation. Even with low levels of inbreeding, selection is stronger on a modifier that promotes segregation than on a modifier that promotes recombination, suggesting that the benefits of segregation are more likely than the benefits of recombination to have driven the evolution of sexual reproduction in diploids.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Cailleau, P.-O. Cheptou, and T. Lenormand Ploidy and the Evolution of Endosperm of Flowering Plants Genetics, February 1, 2010; 184(2): 439 - 453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. R. Haag and D. Roze Genetic Load in Sexual and Asexual Diploids: Segregation, Dominance and Genetic Drift Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1663 - 1678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Hadany and S. P. Otto The Evolution of Condition-Dependent Sex in the Face of High Costs Genetics, July 1, 2007; 176(3): 1713 - 1727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A Mandegar and S. P Otto Mitotic recombination counteracts the benefits of genetic segregation Proc R Soc B, May 22, 2007; 274(1615): 1301 - 1307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Martin, S. P. Otto, and T. Lenormand Selection for Recombination in Structured Populations Genetics, January 1, 2006; 172(1): 593 - 609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Fernandez, A. Garcia-Dorado, and A. Caballero The Effect of Antagonistic Pleiotropy on the Estimation of the Average Coefficient of Dominance of Deleterious Mutations Genetics, December 1, 2005; 171(4): 2097 - 2112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Roux, C. Camilleri, S. Giancola, D. Brunel, and X. Reboud Epistatic Interactions Among Herbicide Resistances in Arabidopsis thaliana: The Fitness Cost of Multiresistance Genetics, November 1, 2005; 171(3): 1277 - 1288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. F. Agrawal, L. Hadany, and S. P. Otto The Evolution of Plastic Recombination Genetics, October 1, 2005; 171(2): 803 - 812. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Roze and T. Lenormand Self-Fertilization and the Evolution of Recombination Genetics, June 1, 2005; 170(2): 841 - 857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Fernandez, A. Garcia-Dorado, and A. Caballero Analysis of the Estimators of the Average Coefficient of Dominance of Deleterious Mutations Genetics, October 1, 2004; 168(2): 1053 - 1069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Dolgin and S. P. Otto Segregation and the Evolution of Sex Under Overdominant Selection Genetics, July 1, 2003; 164(3): 1119 - 1128. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]