Abstract
ALTHOUGH the evolutionary advantages of sexual reproduction have been extensively discussed1–3, much less attention has been paid to haploid and diploid phases of the sexual life cycle. The relative lengths of these phases differ greatly in various taxa, including as extremes those with one or the other phase reduced to a single cell. Here we consider the efficiency of elimination of deleterious mutations as an evolutionary force and compare the mutation loads under haploid and diploid selection, Ln and L2n. With truncation-like selection, partial dominance, and heterozygous effect of a mutation less than about 1/4 its hemizygous effect, L2n < Ln ; otherwise L2n > Ln. The difference becomes important when the genomic deleterious mutation rate exceeds about 1 per genome. This suggests that the mutation rate, degree of dominance and mode of selection can be important in life-cycle evolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Michod, R. E. & Levin, B. R. The Evolution of Sex (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachussetts, 1988).
Kondrashov, A. S. Nature 334, 435–440 (1988).
Charlesworth, B. Genet. Res. 55, 199–221 (1990).
Crow, J. F. & Kimura, M. Am. Nat. 99, 439–450 (1965).
Haldane, J. B. S. Am. Nat. 71, 337–349 (1937).
Crow, J. F. in Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K. I.) 128–177 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1970).
Kimura, M. Jap. J. Genet. 36S, 179–190 (1961).
Milkman, R. Genetics 88, 391–403 (1978).
Crow, J. F. & Kimura, M. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76, 396–399 (1979).
Crow, J. F. & Simmons, M. J. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila Vol. 3c (ed. Ashburner, M., Carson, H. L. & Thompson, J. N.) 1–35 (Academic, London, 1983).
Efroimson, V. P. J. de Biologie 1, 87–102 (1932, in Russian).
Karlin, S. & McGregor, J. Theor. Pop. Biol. 5, 59–103 (1974).
Charlesworth, B., Charlesworth, D. & Morgan, M. T. Nature 347, 380–382 (1990).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kondrashov, A., Crow, J. Haploidy or diploidy: which is better?. Nature 351, 314–315 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1038/351314a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/351314a0
This article is cited by
-
The population genomics of within-host Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Heredity (2021)
-
Flux balance analysis with or without molecular crowding fails to predict two thirds of experimentally observed epistasis in yeast
Scientific Reports (2019)
-
Magnitude and sign epistasis among deleterious mutations in a positive-sense plant RNA virus
Heredity (2012)
-
Fuzzy genetic sharing for dynamic optimization
International Journal of Automation and Computing (2012)
-
Why do RNA viruses recombine?
Nature Reviews Microbiology (2011)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.