Why do hybrids turn down sex?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asexual reproduction is ancestral in prokaryotes; the switch to sexuality in eukaryotes is one of the major transitions in the history of life. The study of the maintenance of sex in eukaryotes has raised considerable interest for decades and is still one of evolutionary biology's most prominent question. The observation that many asexual species are of hybrid origin has led some to propose that asexuality in hybrids results from sexual processes being disturbed because of incompatibilities between the two parental species' genomes. However, in some cases, failure to produce asexual F1s in the lab may indicate that this mechanism is not the only road to asexuality in hybrid species. Here, we present a mathematical model and propose an alternative, adaptive route for the evolution of asexuality from previously sexual hybrids. Under some reproductive alterations, we show that asexuality can evolve to rescue hybrids' reproduction. Importantly, we highlight that when incompatibilities only affect the fusion of sperm and egg's genomes, the two traits that characterize asexuality, namely unreduced meiosis and the initiation of embryogenesis without the incorporation of the sperm's pronucleus, can evolve separately, greatly facilitating the overall evolutionary route. Taken together, our results provide an alternative, potentially complementary explanation for the link between asexuality and hybridization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".