Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

On 'fitness,' fruit flies, and gene pools.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

When Sex Sucks

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted November 8, 2006.


On 'fitness,' fruit flies, and gene pools.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Are you hoping that breeding with somebody with "good genes" will help you have a child who is somehow better then you are? So are a lot of creatures. Unfortunately, it looks like some good genes can't be passed on. In fact, the very genes that make your mate seem spicy might actually hinder your kids' success in the mating game later on.

A couple of Canadian biologists at Queens University in Ontario published a study in PLoS Biology (a Public Library of Science journal) a couple of weeks ago that suggests women who pick mates "fitter" than themselves have very little chance of passing that fitness on to their daughters. Same goes for men who mate with women fitter than themselves: sons born from such a union are actually less fit than sons born to low-fitness ladies. In the genetic war between the sexes, genes that are good for one sex aren't necessarily good for the opposite-sex children who inherit them.

Biologists Alison Pischedda and Adam K. Chippindale discovered this by forcing a bunch of fruit flies to have sex in various combinations of fit and unfit. Fitness wasn't measured in sexiness or success in fly politics -- the scientists measured it by how many offspring a fly could have. In other words, fitness equals how much influence a fly will have over the gene pool.

When flies choose mates, they're engaging in a gene crapshoot called sexual selection, the Darwinian process by which the quest for perfect mates influences evolution. Conventional wisdom holds that sexual selection is usually good for a species: it creates babies that are stronger, prettier, fitter. The idea is that sexual creatures tend to be attracted to mates who are fit in one way or another. Maybe that mate is appealing because she's particularly good at surviving in the desert with a bunch of drugged-out hippies, or maybe he's shaped so nicely that he's obviously healthy. If the possible mate is human, it's possible she'll come across as attractive because she's a good problem-solver or skilled at telling jokes. All of these characteristics mean that the creature in question has a higher probability of surviving and spreading his or her genes far and wide by creating fit babies. So sexual selection is the process of picking a mate who will help you in the quest for genetic domination.

But Pischedda and Chippindale wondered if seeking out the perfect mate could ever be detrimental to offspring. The answer is yes.

It turns out that certain fitness genes shared by male and female flies on the X chromosome express themselves differently depending on sex. So a gene on a male's X chromosome might make him an incredibly prolific father, but that same gene expressed in his daughter would prevent her from reproducing in large numbers. Because males only pass along their Y chromosome to male babies, they never pass along their beneficial X genes to sons either.

Why would genes behave like this if they are selfish, as pop geneticist Richard Dawkins puts it? The answer, Pischedda and Chippindale speculate, is that these genes are acting selflessly.

They're keeping the population diverse. Imagine if fit parents bred only fit children. Translated into human terms, let's assume that Britney Spears and K-Fed are fit parents because they keep shooting out babies. If their children inherited the fitness gene from Britney or K-Fed, they would also spawn lots of children. And so would those children. Pretty soon, you'd have a nation of aimless pop stars whose talents lie mostly in the area of gyration.

By cutting off fitness after one generation, we're guaranteed a population whose genes come from a wide variety of sources. That's why we have nerdy kids, sporty kids, and freaky kids, as well as eroticized teenyboppers who sing. If Pischedda and Chippindale are right, their experiment could undermine the idea that sexual selection is purely a selfish process. Sometimes genes work for the good of the species rather than the good of individuals.

Interestingly, the fittest fruit flies come from parents who are not very fit themselves. I like that. If humans are anything like flies, this research confirms my feeling that all those dudes with trophy wives and ladies with himbo arm candy are about to get totally screwed out of the gene pool.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gene pools, fruit flies, sex

Annalee Newitz is a surly media nerd who is focusing her energies on the meme pool rather than the gene pool.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Makes sense! Depends which features you're talking about.
Posted by: medstudgeek on Nov 8, 2006 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly holds for beauty. A large jaw is 'manly' here in the USA. So if there's a version of the jaw gene that increases jaw size, it'll increase the reproductive fitness of men who carry it but not women. So when Mr. Manly Jaw has kids, his female offspring will have larger jaws and this will make them look less attractive.
Or look at shyness, which is 'demure' in a woman but means a man won't get laid until 20.

Given the endlessly stated preference of nerdy guys for smart girls there probably is some assortative mating going on, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Repro Man
Posted by: Plexius on Nov 8, 2006 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It appears that most humans select for other humans like themselves, rather than "better." Hence tall women tend to mate with tall men, producing tall children. And Beautiful People seem to prefer other Beautiful People as mates. I don't personally know anyone who sought out a reproductive partner "fitter" than themselves simply because they wanted to produce superior offspring. Of course, there's G. Gordon Liddy, one of Nixon's right-wing criminal "plumbers," who claimed that he selected his spouse for genetic reasons. Also, most men don't try to bag beautiful women for reproductive purposes. There's a reason why they are called "trophy" wives. And I think women prefer hard male bodies, because they look like they've got good endurance, and will stay hard in the right places.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry.
Posted by: lamar on Nov 8, 2006 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tend to mate with my hand, passing on only dirty jeans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hah hah! Posted by: grumble-bum
» RE: Sorry. Posted by: Benjaminsjw
Extrapolating behavior from genetic studies is always tenuous, at best...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Nov 8, 2006 5:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but extrapolating a logical interpretation of human "fitness" from artificially determined fruit-fly "fitness" is a proposal that sits on far softer ground.

Oh, and Dawkins (an excellent candidate for a study to determine the gene for "arrogant snot") is rather myopic on his view of individual genes acting as the basis for selection, rather than the spectrum of genotypes that give rise to the phenotypes manifest in the organism in which said genes are harbored. If you read his manifesto, you'll find that he moves from "replicators" found in the primordial sludge all the way to aardvarks and elephants, leaving out the bulk of evolution and indeed, the bulk of genes that are and ever have been present on the planet--those of the bacteria.

It's an interesting book, straight from the FAT* press, and in his defense, he does make a more cohesive argument for his theories than your average Wal-Mart shopper does for "intelligent" design. ...

...But I wouldn't bet the family grant on his theories. :)

*FAT: Feudal Academic Throwback

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Predictable target. Posted by: ABetterFuture
DUH!!!
Posted by: CMaciolek on Nov 9, 2006 7:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Silly scientists. Don't they know that 'fitness' is not a choice an individual can make. Only our environment can choose what makes us fit... And, 'fitness' is always changing with the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DUH!!! Posted by: particle
» RE: DUH!!! Posted by: medstudgeek
» Actually.... Posted by: CMaciolek
» RE: Actually.... Posted by: particle
» Agreed, particle. Agreed. Posted by: CMaciolek
Ah, science
Posted by: oregoncharles on Nov 10, 2006 11:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good thing we aren't fruit flies.

Note the definition of "fitness". It's pure fertility. That, in particular, depends on which sex you are.

Most elements of human fitness, like, say, IQ, are both heritable and independent of gender.

&the ones that aren't (say, big breasts. or huge biceps - you fill in the blanks) just aren't expressed in the "wrong" sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when sex sucks in europe
Posted by: richviss on Nov 11, 2006 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Germans had their dreams about the perfect Aryans. They had their LEBENSBORN program, nice blond babies. According the BANGkok Post of november 11 on a meeting of some of the 8000 recorded superbabies there was no sign of superiorityor perfection.
Maybe a wise lesson for the USA be happy donot want to be the richest, biggest, strongest etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: when sex sucks in europe Posted by: medstudgeek
Science
Posted by: cmd on Nov 14, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note that the experiment only tracked sex linked genes. That is, only on the X and Y chromosomes. That means the other seven fly chromosomes are disregarded. The flies inherit more than just sex chromosomes from each parent. It could make a big difference if they were included. Not that it isn't an interesting study, it just doesn't take into account all of the possibilities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scientists Breeding Like Flys
Posted by: hole11 on Nov 16, 2006 2:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can not believe that Canadians or anyone would pay scientists to study the mating habits of flies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]