Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited

Why sexual reproduction predominates in nature remains a mystery. The mystery stems in part from the fact that many of the plausible hypotheses for sex have restrictive assumptions. Two decades ago these limitations inspired the formulation of a ‘pluralist’ approach in which standalone hypotheses fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Trends in ecology & evolution (Amsterdam) 2017-08, Vol.32 (8), p.589-600
Hauptverfasser: Neiman, Maurine, Lively, Curtis M., Meirmans, Stephanie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 600
container_issue 8
container_start_page 589
container_title Trends in ecology & evolution (Amsterdam)
container_volume 32
creator Neiman, Maurine
Lively, Curtis M.
Meirmans, Stephanie
description Why sexual reproduction predominates in nature remains a mystery. The mystery stems in part from the fact that many of the plausible hypotheses for sex have restrictive assumptions. Two decades ago these limitations inspired the formulation of a ‘pluralist’ approach in which standalone hypotheses for sex were considered together. Here we review representative literature to address whether this strategy has deepened our understanding of sex. We found surprisingly few papers adopting such an approach, probably reflecting challenges associated with testing multiple mechanisms. Nevertheless, these studies provided new insights, highlighting in particular the potential importance of interaction between parasites and harmful mutations. We conclude with strategies for moving forward, including broader formulations of pluralism and the application of more qualitative types of testing. Why sexual reproduction is so common is the ‘queen of problems’ in evolutionary biology. Pluralist hypotheses that combine multiple mechanisms can in theory counter the major limitations characterizing many if not all standalone hypotheses for sex. We address whether these theoretical expectations are supported by empirical studies. Only a few directly relevant studies exist, but most have positive outcomes and provide new directions. In particular, these study outcomes emphasize the value of a flexible, more qualitative approach to pluralism and the combination of key genetic and ecological factors. We provide empirically focused suggestions for future studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.004
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1909238882</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0169534717301295</els_id><sourcerecordid>1909238882</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-173ed830d8dbe3bea5c1f46491febb9b50cae0ba852e5be98320f422622cf0033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AQ-Sm14SZ3ezyQYEKcUvKCh-4HHZ3UzolrSpu0mx_96UVo_OZS7P-zLzEHJOIaFAs-t50nrEhAHNExAJQHpAhlTmLJZc8kMy7KEiFjzNB-QkhDn0U6TFMRkwmUGWMjEkl5-zTfSG37fROHqpO69rF9povFr5RttZ9IprF1yL5Sk5qnQd8Gy_R-Tj_u598hhPnx-eJuNpbLnI2pjmHEvJoZSlQW5QC0urNEsLWqExhRFgNYLRUjAUBgvJGVQpYxljtgLgfESudr39AV8dhlYtXLBY13qJTRcULaBgXErJepTtUOubEDxWauXdQvuNoqC2gtRcbQWprSAFQvWC-tDFvr8zCyz_Ir9GeuBmB2D_5dqhV8E6XFosnUfbqrJx__X_AJyWdU8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1909238882</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Neiman, Maurine ; Lively, Curtis M. ; Meirmans, Stephanie</creator><creatorcontrib>Neiman, Maurine ; Lively, Curtis M. ; Meirmans, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><description>Why sexual reproduction predominates in nature remains a mystery. The mystery stems in part from the fact that many of the plausible hypotheses for sex have restrictive assumptions. Two decades ago these limitations inspired the formulation of a ‘pluralist’ approach in which standalone hypotheses for sex were considered together. Here we review representative literature to address whether this strategy has deepened our understanding of sex. We found surprisingly few papers adopting such an approach, probably reflecting challenges associated with testing multiple mechanisms. Nevertheless, these studies provided new insights, highlighting in particular the potential importance of interaction between parasites and harmful mutations. We conclude with strategies for moving forward, including broader formulations of pluralism and the application of more qualitative types of testing. Why sexual reproduction is so common is the ‘queen of problems’ in evolutionary biology. Pluralist hypotheses that combine multiple mechanisms can in theory counter the major limitations characterizing many if not all standalone hypotheses for sex. We address whether these theoretical expectations are supported by empirical studies. Only a few directly relevant studies exist, but most have positive outcomes and provide new directions. In particular, these study outcomes emphasize the value of a flexible, more qualitative approach to pluralism and the combination of key genetic and ecological factors. We provide empirically focused suggestions for future studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0169-5347</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-8383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28606425</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animals ; asexuality ; Biological Evolution ; Humans ; Mutation ; mutations ; pluralism ; Reproduction ; sexual reproduction ; stress ; synergism</subject><ispartof>Trends in ecology &amp; evolution (Amsterdam), 2017-08, Vol.32 (8), p.589-600</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-173ed830d8dbe3bea5c1f46491febb9b50cae0ba852e5be98320f422622cf0033</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-173ed830d8dbe3bea5c1f46491febb9b50cae0ba852e5be98320f422622cf0033</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27926,27927,45997</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28606425$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Neiman, Maurine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lively, Curtis M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meirmans, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><title>Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited</title><title>Trends in ecology &amp; evolution (Amsterdam)</title><addtitle>Trends Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Why sexual reproduction predominates in nature remains a mystery. The mystery stems in part from the fact that many of the plausible hypotheses for sex have restrictive assumptions. Two decades ago these limitations inspired the formulation of a ‘pluralist’ approach in which standalone hypotheses for sex were considered together. Here we review representative literature to address whether this strategy has deepened our understanding of sex. We found surprisingly few papers adopting such an approach, probably reflecting challenges associated with testing multiple mechanisms. Nevertheless, these studies provided new insights, highlighting in particular the potential importance of interaction between parasites and harmful mutations. We conclude with strategies for moving forward, including broader formulations of pluralism and the application of more qualitative types of testing. Why sexual reproduction is so common is the ‘queen of problems’ in evolutionary biology. Pluralist hypotheses that combine multiple mechanisms can in theory counter the major limitations characterizing many if not all standalone hypotheses for sex. We address whether these theoretical expectations are supported by empirical studies. Only a few directly relevant studies exist, but most have positive outcomes and provide new directions. In particular, these study outcomes emphasize the value of a flexible, more qualitative approach to pluralism and the combination of key genetic and ecological factors. We provide empirically focused suggestions for future studies.</description><subject>Animals</subject><subject>asexuality</subject><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mutation</subject><subject>mutations</subject><subject>pluralism</subject><subject>Reproduction</subject><subject>sexual reproduction</subject><subject>stress</subject><subject>synergism</subject><issn>0169-5347</issn><issn>1872-8383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AQhhdRbK3-AQ-Sm14SZ3ezyQYEKcUvKCh-4HHZ3UzolrSpu0mx_96UVo_OZS7P-zLzEHJOIaFAs-t50nrEhAHNExAJQHpAhlTmLJZc8kMy7KEiFjzNB-QkhDn0U6TFMRkwmUGWMjEkl5-zTfSG37fROHqpO69rF9povFr5RttZ9IprF1yL5Sk5qnQd8Gy_R-Tj_u598hhPnx-eJuNpbLnI2pjmHEvJoZSlQW5QC0urNEsLWqExhRFgNYLRUjAUBgvJGVQpYxljtgLgfESudr39AV8dhlYtXLBY13qJTRcULaBgXErJepTtUOubEDxWauXdQvuNoqC2gtRcbQWprSAFQvWC-tDFvr8zCyz_Ir9GeuBmB2D_5dqhV8E6XFosnUfbqrJx__X_AJyWdU8</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Neiman, Maurine</creator><creator>Lively, Curtis M.</creator><creator>Meirmans, Stephanie</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited</title><author>Neiman, Maurine ; Lively, Curtis M. ; Meirmans, Stephanie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-173ed830d8dbe3bea5c1f46491febb9b50cae0ba852e5be98320f422622cf0033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Animals</topic><topic>asexuality</topic><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mutation</topic><topic>mutations</topic><topic>pluralism</topic><topic>Reproduction</topic><topic>sexual reproduction</topic><topic>stress</topic><topic>synergism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Neiman, Maurine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lively, Curtis M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meirmans, Stephanie</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Trends in ecology &amp; evolution (Amsterdam)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Neiman, Maurine</au><au>Lively, Curtis M.</au><au>Meirmans, Stephanie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited</atitle><jtitle>Trends in ecology &amp; evolution (Amsterdam)</jtitle><addtitle>Trends Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>589</spage><epage>600</epage><pages>589-600</pages><issn>0169-5347</issn><eissn>1872-8383</eissn><abstract>Why sexual reproduction predominates in nature remains a mystery. The mystery stems in part from the fact that many of the plausible hypotheses for sex have restrictive assumptions. Two decades ago these limitations inspired the formulation of a ‘pluralist’ approach in which standalone hypotheses for sex were considered together. Here we review representative literature to address whether this strategy has deepened our understanding of sex. We found surprisingly few papers adopting such an approach, probably reflecting challenges associated with testing multiple mechanisms. Nevertheless, these studies provided new insights, highlighting in particular the potential importance of interaction between parasites and harmful mutations. We conclude with strategies for moving forward, including broader formulations of pluralism and the application of more qualitative types of testing. Why sexual reproduction is so common is the ‘queen of problems’ in evolutionary biology. Pluralist hypotheses that combine multiple mechanisms can in theory counter the major limitations characterizing many if not all standalone hypotheses for sex. We address whether these theoretical expectations are supported by empirical studies. Only a few directly relevant studies exist, but most have positive outcomes and provide new directions. In particular, these study outcomes emphasize the value of a flexible, more qualitative approach to pluralism and the combination of key genetic and ecological factors. We provide empirically focused suggestions for future studies.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>28606425</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.004</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0169-5347
ispartof Trends in ecology & evolution (Amsterdam), 2017-08, Vol.32 (8), p.589-600
issn 0169-5347
1872-8383
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1909238882
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Animals
asexuality
Biological Evolution
Humans
Mutation
mutations
pluralism
Reproduction
sexual reproduction
stress
synergism
title Why Sex? A Pluralist Approach Revisited
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T10%3A03%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20Sex?%20A%20Pluralist%20Approach%20Revisited&rft.jtitle=Trends%20in%20ecology%20&%20evolution%20(Amsterdam)&rft.au=Neiman,%20Maurine&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=589&rft.epage=600&rft.pages=589-600&rft.issn=0169-5347&rft.eissn=1872-8383&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.tree.2017.05.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1909238882%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1909238882&rft_id=info:pmid/28606425&rft_els_id=S0169534717301295&rfr_iscdi=true