Recombination difference between sexes: a role for haploid selection.
Why the autosomal recombination rate differs between female and male meiosis in most species has been a genetic enigma since the early study of meiosis. Some hypotheses have been put forward to explain this widespread phenomenon and, up to now, only one fact has emerged clearly: In species in which meiosis is achiasmate in one sex, it is the heterogametic one. This pattern, known as the Haldane-Huxley rule, is thought to be a side effect, on autosomes, of the suppression of recombination between the sex chromosomes. However, this rule does not hold for heterochiasmate species (i.e., species in which recombination is present in both sexes but varies quantitatively between sexes) and does not apply to species lacking sex chromosomes, such as hermaphroditic plants. In this paper, we show that in plants, heterochiasmy is due to a male-female difference in gametic selection and is not influenced by the presence of heteromorphic sex chromosomes. This finding provides strong empirical support in favour of a population genetic explanation for the evolution of heterochiasmy and, more broadly, for the evolution of sex and recombination.
Lenormand
Thomas
T
UMR 5175, Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, Montpellier, France. thomas.lenormand@cefe.cnrs.fr <thomas.lenormand@cefe.cnrs.fr>
Dutheil
Julien
J
D000818:Animals; D002874:Chromosome Mapping; D003433:Crosses, Genetic; D005260:Female; D006238:Haploidy; D008297:Male; D008957:Models, Genetic; D010944:Plants / Q000235:genetics; D011995:Recombination, Genetic; D012730:Sex Chromosomes
Theor Appl Genet. 1995 Oct;91(5):744-6
24169910
Genetics. 1969 Nov;63(3):681-99
5399255
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Feb 17;101(7):1904-9
14766971
Mol Biol Evol. 2000 May;17(5):773-81
10779538
Genetics. 1984 May;107(1):117-30
17246210
Theor Appl Genet. 1991 Dec;83(2):173-8
24202355
Genetics. 1999 Jan;151(1):321-30
9872970
Genome. 2002 Aug;45(4):670-8
12175070
Theor Appl Genet. 1996 Mar;92(3-4):363-7
24166258
Genome. 2001 Aug;44(4):589-96
11550892
Am J Hum Genet. 1998 Sep;63(3):861-9
9718341
Genome Biol. 2002 Aug 30;3(9):reviews1026
12225592
Genomics. 1994 Nov 15;24(2):342-50
7698757
Genomics. 1995 Jul 20;28(2):251-4
8530033
Genetics. 1972 Nov;72(3):525-30
17248586
Genetics. 2004 Jan;166(1):307-29
15020427
Science. 2004 Feb 13;303(5660):971-5
14963320
Mamm Genome. 1997 Jan;8(1):21-8
9021143
Genome. 1997 Feb;40(1):49-56
18464807
Genomics. 1998 Apr 15;49(2):265-74
9598314
Genet Res. 1967 Apr;9(2):211-20
6042717
Genetics. 1999 Feb;151(2):803-20
9927471
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1958;23:365-78
13635568
Genome. 1996 Aug;39(4):611-21
18469920
Genetics. 1984 Jan;106(1):109-22
6693021
Genetics. 2003 Nov;165(3):1629-32
14733198
Genetics. 1964 Sep;50(3):491-6
17248222
Genetics. 1920 May;5(3):325-43
17245945
Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Dec;105(8):1207-1214
12582900
Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Oct;105(5):726-735
12582486
Genome. 1997 Apr;40(2):180-7
18464817
Theor Appl Genet. 1994 Dec;89(7-8):1007-13
24178117
Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Feb;104(2-3):379-387
12582710
Am Nat. 2004 May;163(5):672-91
15122486
Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Oct;105(5):780-795
12582493
Genome. 2002 Jun;45(3):541-55
12033623
Genetics. 2000 Jul;155(3):1331-45
10880492
Nat Genet. 2002 Jul;31(3):241-7
12053178
Genetics. 2002 Feb;160(2):649-57
11861568
Genetics. 2003 Feb;163(2):811-22
12618416
Mol Gen Genet. 1995 Dec 20;249(6):600-8
8544825
Mamm Genome. 1995 Mar;6(3):157-75
7749223
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1977 Mar 21;277(955):227-33
16286
Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Oct;105(5):716-725
12582485
Theor Appl Genet. 1995 Feb;90(2):242-6
24173897
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1958;23:337-63
13635567
Genetics. 2002 Sep;162(1):321-30
12242243
Genet Res. 1996 Feb;67(1):27-41
8919888
Genome. 1995 Apr;38(2):255-64
18470165
J Theor Biol. 2002 Sep 21;218(2):175-85
12381290
Genome Res. 2001 Jul;11(7):1275-89
11435411