Male Sex Drive and the Maintenance of Sex: Evidence from Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The resolution of the paradoxes surrounding the evolutionary origins and maintenance of sexual reproduction has been a major focus in biology. The operation of sexual selection-which is very common among multicellular organisms-has been proposed as an important factor in the maintenance of sex, though in order for this hypothesis to hold, the strength of sexual selection must be stronger in males than in females. Sexual selection poses its own series of evolutionary questions, including how genetic variability is maintained in the face of sustained directional selection (known as the "paradox of the lek"). In this short review, we present evidence obtained from recent comparative genomics projects arguing that 1) the genomic consequences of sexual selection clearly show that its effect is stronger in males and 2) this sustained selection over evolutionary timescales also has an effect of capturing de novo genes and expression patterns influencing male fitness, thus providing a mechanism via which new genetic variation can be input into to male traits. Furthermore, we argue that this latter process of genomic "masculinization" has an additional effect of making males difficult to purge from populations, as evidence from Drosophila indicates that, for example, many male sexually selected seminal fluid factors are required to ensure maximally efficient reproduction. Newly arising parthenogenic mutations would suffer an immediate reproductive rate disadvantage were these proteins lost. We show that recent studies confirm that genomic masculinization, as a result of "male sex drive," has important consequences for the evolution of sexually dimorphic species.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".