Theory in Biosciences

, 128:249 | Cite as

Diploidy and the selective advantage for sexual reproduction in unicellular organisms

Original Paper


This article develops mathematical models describing the evolutionary dynamics of both asexually and sexually reproducing populations of diploid unicellular organisms. The asexual and sexual life cycles are based on the asexual and sexual life cycles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Baker’s yeast, which normally reproduces by asexual budding, but switches to sexual reproduction when stressed. The mathematical models consider three reproduction pathways: (1) Asexual reproduction, (2) self-fertilization, and (3) sexual reproduction. We also consider two forms of genome organization. In the first case, we assume that the genome consists of two multi-gene chromosomes, whereas in the second case, we consider the opposite extreme and assume that each gene defines a separate chromosome, which we call the multi-chromosome genome. These two cases are considered to explore the role that recombination has on the mutation-selection balance and the selective advantage of the various reproduction strategies. We assume that the purpose of diploidy is to provide redundancy, so that damage to a gene may be repaired using the other, presumably undamaged copy (a process known as homologous recombination repair). As a result, we assume that the fitness of the organism only depends on the number of homologous gene pairs that contain at least one functional copy of a given gene. If the organism has at least one functional copy of every gene in the genome, we assume a fitness of 1. In general, if the organism has l homologous pairs that lack a functional copy of the given gene, then the fitness of the organism is κ l . The κ l are assumed to be monotonically decreasing, so that κ0 = 1 > κ1 > κ2 > ⋯ > κ = 0. For nearly all of the reproduction strategies we consider, we find, in the limit of large N, that the mean fitness at mutation-selection balance is \(\hbox{max}\{2 e^{-\mu}-1, 0\} ,\) where N is the number of genes in the haploid set of the genome, ε is the probability that a given DNA template strand of a given gene produces a mutated daughter during replication, and μ = Nε. The only exception is the sexual reproduction pathway for the multi-chromosomed genome. Assuming a multiplicative fitness landscape where κ l  = α l for α ∈ (0, 1), this strategy is found to have a mean fitness that exceeds the mean fitness of all the other strategies. Furthermore, while other reproduction strategies experience a total loss of viability due to the steady accumulation of deleterious mutations once μ exceeds \(\ln 2 ,\) no such transition occurs in the sexual pathway. Indeed, in the limit as α → 1 for the multiplicative landscape, we can show that the mean fitness for the sexual pathway with the multi-chromosomed genome converges to e −2μ, which is always positive. We explicitly allow for mitotic recombination in this study, which, in contrast to previous studies using different models, does not have any advantage over other asexual reproduction strategies. The results of this article provide a basis for understanding the selective advantage of the specific meiotic pathway that is employed by sexually reproducing organisms. The results of this article also suggest an explanation for why unicellular organisms such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Baker’s yeast) switch to a sexual mode of reproduction when stressed. While the results of this article are based on modeling mutation-propagation in unicellular organisms, they nevertheless suggest that, in more complex organisms with significantly larger genomes, sex is necessary to prevent the loss of viability of a population due to genetic drift. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the results of this article demonstrate a selective advantage for sexual reproduction with fewer and much less restrictive assumptions than those of previous studies.


Sexual reproduction Diploid Haploid Recombination 



This research was supported by a Start-Up Grant from the United States—Israel Binational Science Foundation, and by an Alon Fellowship from the Israel Science Foundation.


  1. Agrawal AF (2006) Evolution of sex: why do organisms shuffle their genotypes? Curr Biol 16:R696–R704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barton NH, Otto SP (2005) Evolution of recombination due to random drift. Genetics 169:2353–2370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell G (1982) The masterpiece of nature: the evolution and genetics of sexuality. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein H, Byerly HC, Hopf FA, Michod RE (1984) Origin of sex. J Theor Biol 110:323–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruggeman J, Debets AJM, Wijngaarden PJ, de Visser JAGM, Hoekstra RF (2003) Sex slows down the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the homothallic fungus Aspergillus nidulans. Genetics 164:479–485PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bull JJ, Wilke CO (2008) Lethal mutagenesis of bacteria. Genetics 180:1061–1070CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bull JJ, Meyers LA, Lachmann M (2005) Quasispecies made simple. PLoS Comput Biol 1:e61CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Crow JF, Kimura M (1965) Evolution in sexual and asexual populations. Am Nat 99:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Massy B, Baudat F, Nicolas A (1994) Initiation of recombination in Saccharmocyes cerevisiae haploid meiosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:11929–11933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. de Visser JAGM, Elena SF (2007) The evolution of sex: empirical insights into the roles of epistasis and drift. Nat Genet 8:139–149Google Scholar
  11. Eigen M (1971) Self-organisation of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules. Naturwissenschaften 58:465–523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herskowitz I (1988) Life cycle of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Rev 52:536–553PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard RS, Lively CM (1994) Parasitism, mutation accumulation, and the maintenance of sex. Nature (Lond) 367:554–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hurst LD, Peck JR (1996) Recent advances in understanding of the evolution and maintenance of sex. Trends Evol Ecol 11:46–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamp C, Bornholdt S (2002) Co-evolution of quasispecies: B-cell mutation rates maximize viral error catastrophes. Phys Rev Lett 88:068104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Keightley PD, Otto SP (2006) Interference among deleterious mutations favours sex and recombination in finite populations. Nature (Lond) 443:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kondrashov AS (1988) Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature (Lond) 336:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kondrashov AS, Crow JF (1991) Haploidy or diploidy: which is better? Nature (Lond) 351:314–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mable BK, Otto SP (1998) The evolution of life cycles with haploid and diploid phases. BioEssays 20:435–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mandegar MA, Otto SP (2007) Mitotic recombination counteracts the benefits of genetic segregation. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274:1301–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard-Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Michod RE (1995) Eros and evolution: a natural philosophy of sex. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Muller JH (1964) The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutat Res 1:2–9Google Scholar
  25. Nedelcu AM, Marcu O, Michod RE (2004) Sex as a response to oxidative stress: a two-fold increase in cellular reactive oxygen species activates sex genes. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 271:1591–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paland S, Lynch M (2006) Transitions to asexuality result in excess amino-acid substitutions. Science 311:990–992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Perrot V, Richerd S, Valero M (1991) Transition from haploidy to diploidy. Nature (Lond) 351:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roeder GS (1995) Sex and the single cell: meiosis in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:10450–10456CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tannenbaum E, Fontanari JF (2008) A quasispecies approach to the evolution of sexual replication in unicellular organisms. Theor Biosci 127:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tannenbaum E, Shakhnovich EI (2005) Semiconservative replication, genetic repair, and many-gened genomes: extending the quasispecies paradigm to living systems. Phys Life Rev 2:290–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilf HS (2006) Generatingfunctionology. A.K. Peters, Ltd., WellesleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilke CO (2005) Quasispecies theory in the context of population genetics. BMC Evol Biol 5:44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Zeldovich KB, Chen P, Shakhnovich EI (2007) Protein stability imposes limits on organism complexity and speed of molecular evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:16152–16157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ChemistryBen-Gurion University of the NegevBe’er-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations