Sex is Good for Evolution, Researcher Says

September 7, 2006

University of British Columbia evolution biologist Sarah Otto has proof that sex is good for you -- and the human species as a whole. Previous evolutionary theories -- typically based on the assumption of an infinite population – have failed to find a clear role for sexual reproduction in evolution.

In a research paper published in today’s edition of the journal Nature, Otto and co-author Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh’s Institute of Evolutionary Biology explain that in real populations -- which are never infinitely large -- reproduction through sex breaks apart harmful mutations and creates new gene combinations, giving species better adaptability.

“If populations were infinitely large, all combinations of genes would already exist and sex would not be much use,” says Otto, a zoology professor at UBC.

“Mutations take place naturally, and some mutations cause illness or physical features that make it harder for individuals to survive and reproduce in their environment,” says Otto.

“Sex – and the recombination of chromosomes that results – places mutations in new contexts, allowing selection to act more or less independently on each mutation. In asexual reproduction, the entire genome is selected upon in one block, which is extremely inefficient. So sex helps species better adjust to their environment, whether the species is a plant, animal, or human.”

Within a species, the number of individuals limits the number of genetic combinations available. Sex can, however, create new combinations from those already present. Otto and Keightley’s work shows that the benefit of sex is really only felt when population sizes are limited.

“In humans, for example, each egg or sperm carries dozens of new mutations not carried by the parents. If some of these mutations cause disease but they are embedded within chromosomes that are otherwise quite healthy, natural selection cannot separate out the bad from the good without sex and recombination,” says Keightley.

“We’ve shown that in finite populations, this model works extremely well,” says Otto. “It provides a solid foundation upon which to base our understanding of evolution, because sexual reproduction is so fundamental.”

Source: University of British Columbia

Explore further: What does it mean to be human?

Related Stories

What does it mean to be human?

March 7, 2017

The Rock of Gibraltar appears out of the plane window as an immense limestone monolith sharply rearing up from the base of Spain into the Mediterranean. One of the ancient Pillars of Hercules, it marked the end of the Earth ...

Why did sex evolve? Prof Laurence Hurst explores

March 1, 2016

The reason why, in terms of evolution, organisms have sex may seem rather obvious – they do it to reproduce. Clearly, natural selection must favour individuals who can reproduce over those who can't. But this is missing ...

Recommended for you

Controlling ice formation

March 24, 2017

(Phys.org)—Researchers have demonstrated that ice crystals will grow along straight lines in a controlled way on microgrooved surfaces. Compared to the random formation of ice crystals on smooth surfaces, the ice on the ...

Study into who is least afraid of death

March 24, 2017

A new study examines all robust, available data on how fearful we are of what happens once we shuffle off this mortal coil. They find that atheists are among those least afraid of dying... and, perhaps not surprisingly, ...

Astronomers identify purest, most massive brown dwarf

March 24, 2017

An international team of astronomers has identified a record breaking brown dwarf (a star too small for nuclear fusion) with the 'purest' composition and the highest mass yet known. The object, known as SDSS J0104+1535, is ...

Inventing a new kind of matter

March 24, 2017

Imagine a liquid that could move on its own. No need for human effort or the pull of gravity. You could put it in a container flat on a table, not touch it in any way, and it would still flow.

In a quantum race everyone is both a winner and a loser

March 24, 2017

Our understanding of the world is mostly built on basic perceptions, such as that events follow each other in a well-defined order. Such definite orders are required in the macroscopic world, for which the laws of classical ...

0 comments

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.