Is meiosis a fundamental cause of inviability among sexual and asexual plants and animals?

14Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Differences in viability between asexually and sexually generated offspring strongly influence the selective advantage and therefore the prevalence of sexual reproduction (sex). However, no general principle predicts when sexual offspring will be more viable than asexual offspring. We hypothesize that when any kind of reproduction is based on a more complex cellular process, it will encompass more potential failure points, and therefore lower offspring viability. Asexual reproduction (asex) can be simpler than sex, when offspring are generated using only mitosis. However, when asex includes meiosis and meiotic restitution, gamete production is more complex than in sex. We test our hypothesis by comparing the viability of asexual and closely related sexual offspring across a wide range of plants and animals, and demonstrate that meiotic asex does result in lower viability than sex; without meiosis, asex is mechanistically simple and provides higher viability than sex. This phylogenetically robust pattern is supported in 42 of 44 comparisons drawn from diverse plants and animals, and is not explained by the other variables included in our model. Other mechanisms may impact viability, such as effects of reproductive mode on heterozygosity and subsequent viability, but we propose the complexity of cellular processes of reproduction, particularly meiosis, as a fundamental cause of early developmental failure and mortality. Meiosis, the leading cause of inviability in humans, emerges as a likely explanation of offspring inviability among diverse eukaryotes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Levitis, D. A., Zimmerman, K., & Pringle, A. (2017). Is meiosis a fundamental cause of inviability among sexual and asexual plants and animals? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1860). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0939

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free