title: Influence of co-evolution with a parasite, Nosema whitei, and population size on recombination rates and fitness in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum.
abstract: The high prevalence of meiotic recombination-an important element of sexual reproduction-represents one of the greatest puzzles in biology. The influence of either selection by a co-evolving parasite alone or in combination with genetic drift on recombination rates was tested in the host-parasite system Tribolium castaneum and Nosema whitei. After eight generations, populations with smaller genetic drift had a lower recombination rate than those with high drift whereas parasites had no effect. Interestingly, changes in recombination rate at one site of the chromosome negatively correlated with changes at the adjacent site on the same chromosome indicating an occurrence of crossover interference. The occurrence of spontaneous or plastic changes in recombination rates could be excluded with a separate experiment.
authors.affiliation: ETH Zurich, Institute of Integrative Biology (IBZ), ETH-Zentrum CHN, Universitätsstrasse 16, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Greeff
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Schmid-Hempel
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000818:Animals; D005075:Biological Evolution; D005260:Female; D040961:Genetic Drift; D006790:Host-Parasite Interactions; D008297:Male; D016818:Nosema / Q000502:physiology*; D011156:Population Density; D011995:Recombination, Genetic / Q000235:genetics*; D012641:Selection, Genetic; D014231:Tribolium / Q000235:genetics* / Q000469:parasitology*
references.citation: Genetics. 1941 Sep;26(5):506-16
references.pmid: 17247020
references.citation: Evolution. 2000 Apr;54(2):337-51
references.pmid: 10937212
references.citation: Evolution. 2001 Oct;55(10):1921-31
references.pmid: 11761054
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Jun 12;423(6941):760-2
references.pmid: 12802336
references.citation: Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Apr;3(4):241-51
references.pmid: 11967549
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jan 15;90(2):422-6
references.pmid: 11607349
references.citation: Am Nat. 1999 Oct;154(4):393-405
references.pmid: 10523486
references.citation: Science. 2000 Nov 10;290(5494):1166-8
references.pmid: 11073456
references.citation: Biol Lett. 2005 Jun 22;1(2):193-5
references.pmid: 17148164
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2002 Mar;30(3):311-4
references.pmid: 11836502
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2004 Dec 29;14(24):R1036-7
references.pmid: 15620632
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Dec 4;98(25):14524-9
references.pmid: 11724920
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2003 Oct 28;13(21):R831-3
references.pmid: 14588258
references.citation: Genetics. 1936 May;21(3):155-99
references.pmid: 17246790
references.citation: Genetics. 1975 Nov;81(3):537-52
references.pmid: 1205134
references.citation: Genetics. 2005 Apr;169(4):2353-70
references.pmid: 15687279
references.citation: Genetics. 1978 May;89(1):65-77
references.pmid: 17248833
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 22;270(1513):357-66
references.pmid: 12639314
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Aug;23(8):439-45
references.pmid: 18597889
references.citation: Genet Res. 1995 Apr;65(2):123-45
references.pmid: 7605514
references.citation: Genetics. 1995 Feb;139(2):1045-56
references.pmid: 7713407