ALTHOUGH we do not know why sex evolved, the twofold cost of meiosis for females provides a standard against which postulated benefits of sex can be evaluated1. The most reliable benefit is sex's ability to reduce the impact of deleterious mutations2,3. But deleterious mutations may themselves generate a large and previously overlooked female-specific cost of sex. DNA sequence comparisons have confirmed Haldane's suggestion that most mutations arise in the male germ line4,5; recent estimates of α, the ratio of male to female mutation rates, are ten, six and two in humans, primates and rodents, respectively6–8. Consequently, male gametes may give progeny more mutations than the associated sexual recombination eliminates. Here I describe computer simulations showing that the cost of male mutations can easily exceed the benefits of recombination, causing females to produce fitter progeny by parthenogenesis than by mating. The persistence of sexual reproduction by females thus becomes even more problematic.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Maynard Smith, J. The Evolution of Sex (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1978).
Kondrashov, A. S. Nature 336, 435–440 (1988).
Charlesworth, B. Genet. Res., Camb. 55, 199–221 (1990).
Haldane, J. B. S. Ann. Eugen. 13, 262–271 (1947).
Miyata, T., Hayashida, H., Kuma, K., Mitsuyasu, K. & Yasunaga, T. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 52, 863–867 (1987).
Montandon, A. J. et al. Hum. Genet. 89, 319–322 (1992).
Shimmin, L. C., Chang, B. H.-J. & Li, W.-H. Nature 362, 745–747 (1993).
Chang, B. H.-J., Shimmin, L., Shyue, S.-K., Hewett-Emmett, D. & Li, W.-H. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 827–831 (1994).
Crow, J. F. in Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.) 128–177 (Springer, Berlin, 1970).
Haldane, J. B. S. Am. Nat. 71, 337–349 (1937).
Kimura, M. & Maruyama, T. Genetics 54, 1303–1312 (1966).
Maynard Smith, J. Am. Nat. 102, 469–473 (1968).
Mukai, T. Genetics 81, 749–761 (1969).
Muller, H. J. Mutat. Res. 1, 2–9 (1964).
Kondrashov, A. S. Genet. Res., Camb. 44, 199–217 (1984).
Kondrashov, A. S. & Crow, J. F. Hum. Mutat. 2, 229–234 (1993).
Hamilton, W.D., Axelrod, R. & Tanese, R. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. USA. 87, 3566–3573 (1990).
Howard, R. S. & Lively, C. M. Nature 367, 554–557 (1994).
About this article
Cite this article
Redfield, R. Male mutation rates and the cost of sex for females. Nature 369, 145–147 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1038/369145a0
Nature Ecology & Evolution (2018)
acta ethologica (2011)
Journal of Fish Biology (2011)
Conservation Biology (2010)
Genome analyses and modelling the relationships between coding density, recombination rate and chromosome length
Journal of Theoretical Biology (2010)