Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Jun 7;265(1400):1017–1023. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0393

The effect of sex on adaptation to high temperature in heterozygous and homozygous yeast.

D Greig 1, R H Borts 1, E J Louis 1
PMCID: PMC1689156  PMID: 9675910

Abstract

Most explanations for the evolutionary maintenance of sex depend on the assumption that sex produces variation by recombining parental haplotypes in the offspring. Therefore, meiosis is expected to be useful only in heterozygotes. We tested this assumption by competing sexual strains of yeast against constitutive asexuals in a hot (37 degrees C) culture for 500 generations, in either heterozygous or homozygous genetic backgrounds. We found that there was an initial cost of sex for all the sexual strains, which was indicated by a sharp increase in the proportion of asexuals after the induction of sex. The cost was larger in the heterozygotes than in the homozygotes, probably because of recombinational load. However, in two of the three heterozygote backgrounds, after the initial success of the asexuals, the remaining sexuals eventually drove them out of the population. These two heterozygotes also suffered the largest initial cost of sex. In the other heterozygote and in the three homozygote backgrounds it appeared to be a matter of chance whether sexuals or asexuals won. The average relative fitness increased in all the strains, but the increase was largest in the two strains that showed both the clearest advantage and the largest cost of sex. We conclude that these results are consistent with the traditional view that sex has a short-term cost but a long-term benefit.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (245.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baganz F., Hayes A., Marren D., Gardner D. C., Oliver S. G. Suitability of replacement markers for functional analysis studies in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast. 1997 Dec;13(16):1563–1573. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(199712)13:16<1563::AID-YEA240>3.0.CO;2-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Birdsell J., Wills C. Significant competitive advantage conferred by meiosis and syngamy in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jan 23;93(2):908–912. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.2.908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hamilton W. D., Axelrod R., Tanese R. Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 May;87(9):3566–3573. doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.9.3566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Kane S. M., Roth R. Carbohydrate metabolism during ascospore development in yeast. J Bacteriol. 1974 Apr;118(1):8–14. doi: 10.1128/jb.118.1.8-14.1974. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kondrashov A. S. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. doi: 10.1038/336435a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lenski R. E., Travisano M. Dynamics of adaptation and diversification: a 10,000-generation experiment with bacterial populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jul 19;91(15):6808–6814. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.15.6808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lyons E. J. Evolutionary biology. Sex and synergism. Nature. 1997 Nov 6;390(6655):19–21. doi: 10.1038/36213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. MULLER H. J. THE RELATION OF RECOMBINATION TO MUTATIONAL ADVANCE. Mutat Res. 1964 May;106:2–9. doi: 10.1016/0027-5107(64)90047-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McCusker J. H., Haber J. E. Cycloheximide-resistant temperature-sensitive lethal mutations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genetics. 1988 Jun;119(2):303–315. doi: 10.1093/genetics/119.2.303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mitchell A. P. Control of meiotic gene expression in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Rev. 1994 Mar;58(1):56–70. doi: 10.1128/mr.58.1.56-70.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Mortimer R. K., Johnston J. R. Genealogy of principal strains of the yeast genetic stock center. Genetics. 1986 May;113(1):35–43. doi: 10.1093/genetics/113.1.35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Orr-Weaver T. L., Szostak J. W., Rothstein R. J. Genetic applications of yeast transformation with linear and gapped plasmids. Methods Enzymol. 1983;101:228–245. doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(83)01017-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Wach A., Brachat A., Pöhlmann R., Philippsen P. New heterologous modules for classical or PCR-based gene disruptions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast. 1994 Dec;10(13):1793–1808. doi: 10.1002/yea.320101310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Zeyl C., Bell G. The advantage of sex in evolving yeast populations. Nature. 1997 Jul 31;388(6641):465–468. doi: 10.1038/41312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES