ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
Is meiosis a fundamental cause of inviability among sexual and asexual plants and animals?
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drivers of Mating Type Composition in Tetrahymena thermophila.Genome biology and evolution · 2020Article
- The geography of sex: sexual conflict, environmental gradients and local loss of sex in facultatively parthenogenetic animals.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018Article
- The fitness effects of delayed switching to sex in a facultatively asexual insect.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- How oxygen gave rise to eukaryotic sex.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018Review
- Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Profiling of ATP-Binding Cassette (ABC) Transporter Gene Family in Pineapple (Frontiers in plant science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.