Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T04:38:22.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A theoretical test of the DNA repair hypothesis for the maintenance of sex in eukaryotes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Eörs Szathmáry  and
Szilvia Kövér
Eörs Szathmáry
Affiliation:
Ecological Modelling Research Group, Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, H-1083 Budapest, Kun Béla tér 2, Hungary
Szilvia Kövér
Affiliation:
Ecological Modelling Research Group, Department of Plant Taxonomy and Ecology, Eötvös University, H-1083 Budapest, Kun Béla tér 2, Hungary
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The DNA repair hypothesis for the maintenance of sex states that recombination is necessary for the repair of double-strand DNA damage. In a closed (mitotic) genetic system crossing-over generates homozygosity. This reduces fitness if deleterious recessive alleles become expressed. Thus, outcrossing is required to restore heterozygosity destroyed by recombination. The repair hypothesis is tested by comparing outcrossing sexuality with a hypothetical parthenogenic strategy (the Prudent Reparator) which destroys as little heterozygosity during repair as possible. In the Prudent Reparator, repair of double-strand DNA damage results in a small amount of homozygosity due to gene conversion only, since this process does not render outside markers homozygous. Diploidy, deleterious recessives, multiplicative fitness and linkage equilibrium in mutation-selection balance are assumed. The average fitness of this population increases, and complementation (i.e. masking of recessives in heterozygous form) decreases with the rate of damage per locus. The equilibrium fitness of the Prudent Reparator can be well above that of the sexual population. A lower complementation ability of parthenogens may not be an impenetrable barrier to their successful establishment if the invader's genome is relatively uncontaminated by mutant alleles: there are always such genotypes in the sexual population. Thus, the Prudent Reparator could solve the problem of repairing damage as well as that of invading an existing outcrossing population. As we do not see this strategy widely adopted instead of sexuality, the repair hypothesis is likely to miss some essential feature of the evolution of sex.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 157 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

Alberts, B. M. (1987). Prokaryotic DNA replication mechanisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 317, 395–420.Google ScholarPubMed
Bell, G. (1982). The Masterpiece of Nature. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bernstein, H. (1977). Germ line recombination may be primarily a manifestation of DNA repair processes. Journal of Theoretical Biology 69, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, H., Byerly, H. C., Hopf, F. A. & Michod, R. (1985). Genetic damage, mutation, and the evolution of sex. Science 229, 1277–1281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, H., Byers, G. S. & Michod, R. (1981). Evolution of sexual reproduction: importance of DNA repair, complementation, and variation. American Naturalist 117, 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, H., Hopf, F. A. & Michod, R. E. (1988). Is meiotic recombination an adaptation for repairing DNA, producing genetic variation, or both? In The Evolution of Sex: and Examination of Current Ideas (ed. Michod, R. E. and Levin, B. R.), pp. 139–160. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Bernstein, C. & Johns, V. (1989). Sexual reproduction as a response to H2O2 damage in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Journal of Bacteriology 171, 1893–1897.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boris, R. H. & Haber, J. E. (1989). Length and distribution of meiotic gene conversion tracts and crossovers in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 123, 69–80.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. B. (1986). The interdependence of mating structure and inbreeding depression. Theoretical Population Biology 30, 232–244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. & Charlesworth, D. (1975). An experiment on recombination load in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 25, 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, D., Morgan, M. T. & Charlesworth, B. (1990). Inbreeding depression, genetic load, and the evolution of outcrossing rates in a multilocus system with no linkage. Evolution 44, 1469–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crow, J. F. (1970). Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection. In Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.), pp. 128–177. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumpacker, D. W. (1967). Genetic loads in maize (Zea mays L.) and other cross-fertilized plants and animals. Evolutionary Biology 1, 306–423.Google Scholar
Dougherty, E. C. (1955). Comparative evolution and the origin of sexuality. Systemaic Zoology 4, 149–169.Google Scholar
Fasullo, M. T. & Davis, R. V. (1987). Recombinational substrates designed to study recombination between unique and repetitive sequences in vivo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 84, 6215–6219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haigh, J. (1978). The accumulation of deleterious genes in a population – Muller's ratchet. Theoretical Population Biology 14, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, R. & Maynard, Smith J. (1979). Does Muller's ratchet work with selfing? Genetical Research 32, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopf, F. A., Michod, R. E. & Sanderson, M. J. (1988). The effect of the reproductive system on mutation load. Theoretical Population Biology 33, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kondrashov, A. S. (1988). Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature 336, 435–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krieber, M. & Rose, M. R. (1986). Males, parthenogenesis, and the maintenance of anisogamous sex. Journal of Theoretical Biology 122, 421–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. & Schemske, D. W. (1985). The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants I. Genetic models. Evolution 39, 24–40.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewis, J. & Wolpert, L. (1979). Diploidy, evolution and sex. Journal of Theoretical Biology 78, 425–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynard, Smith J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1988). The evolution of recombination. In The Evolution of Sex: an Examination of Current Ideas (ed. Michod, R. E. and Levin, B. R.), pp. 106–125. Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Maynard, Smith J. (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Michod, R. E., Wojciechowski, M. F. & Hoelzer, M. A. (1988). DNA repair and the evolution of transformation in the bacterium Bacillus subtilis. Genetics 118, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moran, P. A. P. (1962). The Statistical Processes of Evolutionary Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1964). The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1, 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohta, T. & Cockerham, C. C. (1974). Detrimental genes with partial selfing and effects on a neutral locus. Genetical Research 23, 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr-Weaver, T. L. & Szostak, J. W. (1985). Fungal recombination. Microbiological Reviews 49, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayssiguier, C., Thaler, D. S. & Radman, M. (1989). The barrier to recombination between Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium is disrupted in mismatch-repair mutants. Nature 342, 396–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Resnick, M. A. (1976). The repair of double-strand breaks in DNA: a model involving recombination. Journal of Theoretical Biology 59, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, H. & Ruzinski, M. M. (1990). Mechanisms of gene conversion in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics 124, 7–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughgarden, J. (1979). Theory of Population Genetics and Evolutionary Ecology, an Introduction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simmons, M. J. & Crow, J. F. (1977). Mutations affecting fitness in Drosophila populations. Annual Reviews in Genetics 11, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sun, H., Treco, D., Schultes, N. P. & Szostak, J. W. (1989). Double-strand breaks at an initiation site for meiotic gene conversion. Nature 338, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, I. (1978). The evolution of sexual reproduction as a repair mechanism. Part I A model for self-repair and its biological implications. Acta Biotheoretica 27, 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, I. & Williams, R. M. (1976). The evolution of the cooperative group. Acta Biotheoretica 25, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, M. J. D. (1973). Animal Cytology and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
White, M. J. D. (1978). Modes of Speciation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Williams, R. M. & Walker, I. (1978). The evolution of sexual reproduction as a repair mechanism. Part II. Mathematical treatment of the wheel model and its significance for real systems. Acta Biotheoretica 27, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed