4.4 Article

A dynamical model for the origin of anisogamy

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 521, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110669

关键词

Anisogamy; Isogamy; Natural selection; Evolution; Evolutionary game theory

资金

  1. National Science Foundation through the program on Research Training Groups in the Mathematical Sciences [1547394]
  2. Northwestern University's Office of Undergraduate Research [URP 758SUMMER1915627, URP 758SUMMER1915476]
  3. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1547394] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vast majority of multi-cellular organisms are anisogamous, with differences in size between male and female sex cells. This asymmetry is believed to have evolved from a symmetric isogamous state, where all gametes were roughly the same size. By using a mathematical model and frequency dependent selection, it was demonstrated that isogamy may naturally lead to anisogamy.
The vast majority of multi-cellular organisms are anisogamous, meaning that male and female sex cells differ in size. It remains an open question how this asymmetric state evolved, presumably from the symmetric isogamous state where all gametes are roughly the same size (drawn from the same distribution). Here, we use tools from the study of nonlinear dynamical systems to develop a simple mathematical model for this phenomenon. Unlike some prior work, we do not assume the existence of mating types. We also model frequency dependent selection via mean-field coupling, whereby the likelihood that a gamete survives is an increasing function of its size relative to the population's mean gamete size. Using theoretical analysis and numerical simulation, we demonstrate that this mean-referenced competition will almost inevitably result in a stable anisogamous equilibrium, and thus isogamy may naturally lead to anisogamy. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据