UCLA biologists reveal potential 'fatal flaw' in iconic sexual selection study

Jun 26, 2012 By Kim DeRose
A new sexual selection study replicates an iconic 1948 study and finds it flawed. The graphic shows that children of fruit fly parents with different mutations have an equal chance of inheriting just the mother's mutation, just the father's mutation, both mutations or neither mutation. (Credit: Kim DeRose)

(Phys.org) -- A classic study from more than 60 years ago suggesting that males are more promiscuous and females more choosy in selecting mates may, in fact, be wrong, say life scientists who are the first to repeat the historic experiment using the same methods as the original.

In 1948, English geneticist Angus John Bateman published a study showing that male fruit flies gain an evolutionary advantage from having multiple mates, while their female counterparts do not. Bateman's conclusions have informed and influenced an entire sub-field of evolutionary biology for decades.

"Bateman's 1948 study is the most-cited experimental paper in sexual selection today because of its conclusions about how the number of mates influences fitness in males and ," said Patricia Adair Gowaty, a distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA. "Yet despite its important status, the experiment has never been repeated with the methods that Bateman himself originally used, until now.

"Our team repeated Bateman's experiment and found that what some accepted as bedrock may actually be quicksand. It is possible that Bateman's paper should never have been published."

Gowaty's study was published June 11 in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and is scheduled for publication in an upcoming print edition.

The original experiment on Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly, was performed by creating multiple, isolated populations with either five males and five females or three of each gender in a jar. The insects mated freely in the experimental populations, and Bateman examined the children that made it to adulthood. To count the number of adult offspring engendered by each of his original insect subjects, Bateman needed a reliable way to match parents with children.

Nowadays, modern geneticists would use molecular evidence to determine the genetic parentage of each child, but DNA analysis was not available in the 1940s. Instead, Bateman chose his initial specimens carefully, selecting D. melanogaster flies that each had a unique, visible mutation that could be transferred from parent to child, Gowaty said.

The mutations were extreme. Some of the flies had curly wings, others thick bristles, and still others had eyes reduced in size to narrow slits. The outward differences in each breeding subject allowed Bateman to work backward to determine the parentage of some of the fly progeny and to document each mating pair among the original insects. A child with curly wings and thick bristles, for example, could only have come from one possible pairing.

Yet Bateman's method, which was cutting-edge for its time, had a "fatal flaw," according to Gowaty.

Imagine the child of a curly-winged mother and an eyeless father. The child has an equal chance of having both mutations, only the father's mutation, only the mother's mutation or no mutation at all. In order to know who mated with whom, Bateman used only the children with two mutations, because these were the only ones for which he could specifically identify both the mother and father. But by counting only the children with two mutations, Bateman probably got a skewed sample, Gowaty said. In repeating Bateman's experiment, she and her colleagues found that the flies with two severe mutations are less likely to survive into adulthood.

Flies use their wings not only to hover but also to sing during courtship, which is why curly wings present a huge disadvantage. Specimens with deformed eyes might have an even tougher time surviving. The 25 percent of children born with both mutations were even more likely to die before being counted by Bateman or Gowaty.

"It's not surprising that the kids died like flies when they got one dramatic mutation from mom and another dramatic mutation from dad," she said.

Gowaty found that the fraction of double-mutant offspring was significantly below the expected 25 percent, which means Bateman would have been unable to accurately quantify the number of mates for each adult subject. Further, his methodology resulted in more offspring being assigned to fathers than mothers, something that is impossible when each child must have both a father and a mother, Gowaty said.

Bateman concluded that male fruit flies produce many more viable offspring when they have multiple mates but that females produce the same number of adult children whether they have one mate or many. But Gowaty and her colleagues, by performing the same experiment, found that the data were decidedly inconclusive.

In their repetition — and possibly in Bateman's original study — the data failed to match a fundamental assumption of genetic parentage assignments. Specifically, the markers used to identify individual subjects were influencing the parameters being measured (the number of mates and the number of offspring). When offspring die from inherited marker mutations, the results become biased, indicating that the method is unable to reliably address the relationship between the number of mates and the number of offspring, said Gowaty. Nonetheless, Bateman's figures are featured in numerous biology textbooks, and the paper has been cited in nearly 2,000 other scientific studies.

"Here was a classic paper that has been read by legions of graduate students, any one of whom is competent enough to see this error," Gowaty said. "Bateman's results were believed so wholeheartedly that the paper characterized what is and isn't worth investigating in the biology of female behavior."

Repeating key studies is a tenet of science, which is why Bateman's methodology should have been retried as soon as it became important in the 1970s, she said. Those who blindly accept that females are choosy while males are promiscuous might be missing a big piece of the puzzle.

"Our worldviews constrain our imaginations," Gowaty said. "For some people, Bateman's result was so comforting that it wasn't worth challenging. I think people just accepted it."

Shaking the foundation

Biologists studying sexual selection examine mating habits of organisms ranging from fruit flies to gorillas, both in the lab and in the wild, in order to better understand how certain traits or behaviors confer evolutionary advantages.

Sexual selection began as a discipline following Charles Darwin's publication of "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," considered Darwin's defense against critics of his theory of evolution through natural selection. He argued that while the unwieldy, colorful tails of peacocks hindered flight and made males easy targets for hungry tigers, the flamboyant plumage served a vital role in attracting potential mates. The overdressed birds had an unexpected evolutionary advantage that did not help when it came to escaping predators but did help when it came to producing offspring through , said Gowaty.

Darwin, and later Bateman, cleaved to the notion that females of a species tended to be discriminating and passive, while the far more promiscuous males competed for their attentions. In the last few decades, however, evolutionary biologists have shown that the story is far more complicated. Gowaty, who has been interested in female mating habits in insects and birds since the beginning of her career, spent 30 years in the field studying Eastern bluebirds. She published the first molecular genetics study showing that females in a socially monogamous species mated outside their traditional pairs regularly.

Gowaty describes the benefits of multiple mates as an answer to the never-ending evolutionary struggle against what may be the world's greatest predator: disease.

"Our pathogens have much shorter generation times than we do as the hosts, and they evolve offenses much more rapidly than we can evolve defenses," she said. "One of the rules of nature is that our pathogens are going to get us."

In this illness-driven arms race, organisms that produce offspring from multiple mates are more likely to produce some children with the right antibodies to survive the next generation of viruses, bacteria and parasites. Fruit fly males are likely to give females the additional variation in the genome that they need to build strong immune systems in their kids, Gowaty said.

For Gowaty, there are many open questions remaining when it comes to female mating habits, whether in fruit flies or other organisms. Yet shaking the bedrock of the Bateman paradigm may help the field examine new perspectives.

"Paradigms are like glue, they constrain what you can see," she said. "It's like being stuck in sludge — it's hard to lift your foot out and take a step in a new direction."

This study was federally funded by the National Science Foundation. Other co-authors included Wyatt Anderson, a professor of genetics at the University of Georgia and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and Yong-Kyu Kim, a research scientist  at Emory University.

Explore further: Prehistoric conflict hastened human brain's capacity for collaboration, study says

Related Stories

European dung-fly females all aflutter for large males

Apr 13, 2012

European and North American black scavenger flies – also called dung flies as their larvae develop in the feces of vertebrates and thus break them down – belong to the same species. Nevertheless, ...

Why do we choose our mates? Ask Charles Darwin, prof says

Jun 16, 2009

Charles Darwin wrote about it 150 years ago: animals don't pick their mates by pure chance - it's a process that is deliberate and involves numerous factors. After decades of examining his work, experts agree that he pretty ...

Recommended for you

Brain folding

19 hours ago

The neocortex is the part of the brain that enables us to speak, dream, or think. The underlying mechanism that led to the expansion of this brain region during evolution, however, is not yet understood. ...

User comments : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

_ilbud
1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2012
I wonder what some creatard no mark has to say on the matter? Any scripture nonsense after all it's all in the bibble or the koran. Sudden silence seems odd.
AWaB
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2012
Thus the reason why we keep going back and more accurately performing the double slit experiment, among many others.
El_Nose
3 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2012
@ilbud

Do you need someone else to be a troll -- you were doing just fine by yourself

@everyone else

It seems biology is a science that constantly needs older beliefs reexamined to today's standards. As this field increases its tools get logarithmicly more powerful. Such as this study points out. I agree that most of biology is good science but what possibly needs to be questioned are the studies that have never been validated by two other independent groups. A lot of science comes from the age where if it was printed it was true, and scientists fell prey to people with ambition and less morals... that was not the case here, just a bad approach to a statistical claim
tadchem
5 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2012
Critical Thinking, as the heart of empirical science, is outlined in the word FiLCHeRS, which stands for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency.
The failure of any one of these rules, such as 'replicability', can compromise the integrity of an empirical finding.
This is why all results must be duplicated by independent investigators. This is also why all investigators must open their data and methods to public scrutiny.
I do not blame Bateman, who was doing the best he could with the tools he had available. His tools simply were not up to the job he put them to.
Time to redesign this experiment, then.
davhaywood
4.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2012
Darwin and Bateman were likely using a "Victorian Lens" in how they viewed sexual selection. They weren't entirely wrong, but were only seeing part of the picture, perhaps selectively to buttress already held beliefs about how sexuality should be. As the article suggests, studies of animals in the wild has been complicating this narrow view and this experiment just goes to solidify that complication. If it's bad, revise it or throw it out. This is the greatest advantage of science.
freethinking
2.4 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2012
We are told the science has been settled in so many area's.

People who say that the science has been settled are always shown to be morons.
julianpenrod
2.8 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2012
Some salient points.
The original study as presented was not fatally flawed, it was multiply significantly flawed. And each of those flaws in retrospect seem so obvious. And yet, even after presumed peer review, it was touted as a landmark of reason, its "analysis" sound and unassailable! Just like all the rest of the "scientific" research being put out that so many devotees hang their hats on and use to attack those without a lot of letters after their names. And, despite its flaws, the original material was counted as the basis for an indirectly proved by later experiemnts based on it! How confident is anyone that the "reasoning" that proves "dark matter" or even "relativity" is so sound? And how many are saying, Oh, that's just fruit flies, "relativity" is absolutely proved by phenomena that no one outside of "laboratories" ever sees but that we are ordered to believe is taking place?
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2012
juilian: The basis of this article is to show that experiments should be confirmed by other organizations. Relativity has been tested at all scales and found to be correct by multiple organizations. Your argument that people are "ordered to believe" relativity is flawed in that people are constantly attempting to falsify it. Quantum mechanics is another area constantly being tested. Dark matter has everyone uncomfortable and it is constantly being tested - but it has not been falsified. Why are you attacking science when this is about a subset of science that should have been replicated. Are you against modern science or are you just trolling?
wealthychef
5 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2012
I would also raise the obvious question whether the sexual habits of flies really maps well onto humans. There may easily be emergent properties that occurs in more conscious beings that cause different sexual behaviors to be beneficial.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2012
The article admits that the methodology of the fruit fly study was faulty at best. Even though, at the time, it was deemed as eminently legitimate and valid! The "logic" of the techniques were accepted as faultless, yet, now, is portrayed and full of holes. And yet, such as thermodynamics is still willing to accept that the methods of "experiments" that "proved" "relativity" are necessarily legitimate and valid! That the "logic" behind it all is absolutely flawless and perfect. That the failure to disprove "relativity", first of all, isn't a lie and that any claimed failure is reliable evidence of its veracity. What is thermodynamics' verification that the methods that "proved", or at least failed to invalidate, "relativity" are legitimate?
slayerwulfe
not rated yet Jun 26, 2012
thank you! i responded a few months earlier to a discussion biased toward previous studies. nice work.
davhaywood
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2012
Philosophy can be informative, but it can also inform and reinforce delusion, as in the case of Penrod.
frajo
4 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2012
The article admits that the methodology of the fruit fly study was faulty at best. Even though, at the time, it was deemed as eminently legitimate and valid! The "logic" of the techniques were accepted as faultless, yet, now, is portrayed and full of holes. And yet, such as thermodynamics is still willing to accept that the methods of "experiments" that "proved" "relativity" are necessarily legitimate and valid!

Please note that thermodynamics didn't use the word "proved". It's important to understand the difference between "confirmed" and "proved". A scientific theory may be confirmed one thousand times, but that doesn't mean it's irrefutable truth. It always is and will be falsifiable.
But the level of certainty increases with every confirmation.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.