3.8 Article

The holobiont/hologenome as a level of selection: An approach to the evolution of multispecies systems

出版社

SERVICIO EDITORIAL UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAIS VASCO
DOI: 10.1387/theoria.21611

关键词

units/levels of selection; natural selection; interactor; reproducer; hologenome; microbiota; evolutionary theory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The debate on units or levels of selection focuses on which biological systems are stable enough to undergo natural selection, discussing the levels of interaction with the environment and reproduction. Recently, there has been discussion on whether multi-species consortia may act as a unit of selection, but this view has faced criticism.
The units or levels of selection debate concerns the question of what kind of biological systems are stable enough that part of their evolution is a result of the process of natural selection acting at their level Traditionally, the debate has concerned at least two different, though related, questions: the question of the level at which interaction with the environment occurs (which entity acts as an interactor), and the question of the level at which reproduction occurs (which entity acts as a replicator or reproducer). In recent years, biologists and philosophers have discussed a new aspect of this debate, namely the possibility that certain multi-species consortia formed by a host and its microbiome (holobionts/hologenomes) may as as a unit of selection. This thesis, however, has nor been without criticism, as it is doubtful that such consortia could meet the conditions required to achieve the degree of stability that would allow them to experience natural selection. The purpose of this paper is to systematically examine such criticisms and to defend the thesis that the holobiont/hologenome can act as a genuine level of selection both in the form of an interactor and in the form of a reproducer. To do so, it will be argued that the microbiome should be characterized in functional rather than taxonomic terms.

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

3.8
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