Sexual Selection and Maintenance of Sex: Evidence from Comparisons of Rates of Genomic Accumulation of Mutations and Divergence of Sex-Related Genes in Sexual and Hermaphroditic Species of Caenorhabditis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the persistence of dioecy despite the reproductive advantages conferred to hermaphrodites, including greater efficiency at purging deleterious mutations in the former. Dioecy can benefit from both mutation purging and accelerated evolution by bringing together beneficial mutations in the same individual via recombination and shuffling of genotypes. In addition, mathematical treatment has shown that sexual selection is also capable of mitigating the cost of maintaining separate sexes by increasing the overall fitness of sexual populations, and genomic comparisons have shown that sexual selection can lead to accelerated evolution. Here, we examine the advantages of dioecy versus hermaphroditism by comparing the rate of evolution in sex-related genes and the rate of accumulation of deleterious mutations using a large number of orthologs (11,493) in the dioecious Caenorhabditis remanei and the hermaphroditic Caenorhabditis briggsae. We have used this data set to estimate the deleterious mutation rate per generation, U, in both species and find that although it is significantly higher in hermaphrodites, both species are at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than the value required to explain the persistence of sex by efficiency at purging deleterious mutations alone. We also find that genes expressed in sperm are evolving rapidly in both species; however, they show a greater increase in their rate of evolution relative to genes expressed in other tissues in C. remanei, suggesting stronger sexual selection pressure acting on these genes in dioecious species. Interestingly, the persistence of a signal of rapid evolution of sperm genes in C. briggsae suggests a recent evolutionary origin of hermaphrodism in this lineage. Our results provide empirical evidence of increased sexual selection pressure in dioecious animals, supporting the possibility that sexual selection may play an important role in the maintenance of sexual reproduction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".