Prospects & Overviews

Problems & Paradigms

No amicable divorce? Challenging the notion that sexual antagonism drives sex chromosome evolution
Joseph E. Ironside Introduction
Sex chromosomes with large non-recombining regions have evolved independently in organisms belonging to a wide range of plant and animal groups, including bryophytes, owering plants, vertebrates and invertebrates [1]. Once recombination between a pair of homologous chromosomes has ceased, they are free to follow separate evolutionary trajectories, independently accumulating deletions, insertions, duplications and rearrangements. These changes can alter the relative length, gene content and chromatin structure of the sex chromosomes. Hence, suppression of homologous recombination plays a key role in the divergence in shape (heteromorphy) that characterises many sex chromosome pairs [2, 3]. The non-recombining regions of sex chromosomes appear to be produced by a range of different processes, acting singly or in concert. In mammals, for example, recombination between the sex chromosomes appears to have been suppressed through a combination of inversions, translocations and suppression of crossing over by local modiers [46]. In mammals, birds and some owering plants, genetic divergence between the sex chromosomes decreases with distance from the sex-determination locus, with discontinuities producing evolutionary strata [5, 7, 8]. Although strata may be caused by variation in the rate of gene conversion along the sex chromosomes [4], they are usually interpreted as evidence that recombination has been restricted in several stages [5, 6]. This suggests that non-recombining regions have gradually expanded through cumulative recombination-suppressing events. In contrast to sex chromosomes, the genomes remaining chromosomes (known as autosomes) are rarely heteromorphic. This apparent association between the function of sex determination and suppression of recombination has led to the suggestion that restricted recombination in sex chromosomes evolves due to selection to resolve sexually antagonistic genetic interactions [2, 911]. This sexual antagonism hypothesis has assumed the status of conventional wisdom, to the extent that, in many recent publications, sexual antagonism is the only hypothesis suggested to account for restricted recombination in sex chromosomes [1, 6, 1222]. However, empirical

Although sexual antagonism may have played a role in forming some sex chromosome systems, there appears to be little empirical or theoretical justication in assuming that it is the driving force in all cases of sex chromosome evolution. In many species, sex chromosomes have diverged in size and shape through the accumulation of mutations in regions of suppressed recombination. It is commonly assumed that recombination is suppressed in sex chromosomes due to selection to resolve sexually antagonistic pleiotropy. However, the requirement for a sex chromosome-specic mechanism for suppressing recombination is questionable, since more general models of recombination suppression on autosomes also appear to be applicable to sex chromosomes. Direct tests of the predictions of the sexual antagonism hypothesis offer only limited support in specic sex chromosome systems and circumstantial evidence remains open to interpretation. Keywords: antagonism; chromosomes; heteromorphy; recombination; sex

DOI 10.1002/bies.200900124
Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, UK Corresponding author: Dr. Joseph E. Ironside E-mail: jei@aber.ac.uk

718

www.bioessays-journal.com

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

....

Prospects & Overviews

J. E. Ironside

support for the sexual antagonism hypothesis is equivocal [1]. The aim of this review is to evaluate the evidence for sexual antagonism as a cause of restricted recombination in sex chromosomes, to suggest alternative hypotheses and to highlight areas that require further research. This review begins with a description of the sexual antagonism hypothesis for restricted recombination in sex chromosomes. This is followed by a discussion of more general hypotheses for suppression of recombination, originally proposed to explain the spread of inversions on autosomes. These can also be applied to sex chromosomes, providing alternative hypotheses to sexual antagonism. Empirical evidence for sexual antagonism is then reviewed, beginning with direct tests of the sexual antagonism hypothesis predictions. Circumstantial evidence for and against the role of sexual antagonism in causing the initial establishment and subsequent expansion of nonrecombining regions in sex chromosomes is also discussed.

Problems & Paradigms

The sexual antagonism hypothesis

The sexual antagonism hypothesis for restricted recombination in sex chromosomes was originally proposed by Sir Ronald Fisher in 1931 [10] to explain the overrepresentation of genes for male ornamentation in close linkage to the sexdetermination locus of the guppy Poecilia reticulata [23]. In this and many other species, males and females differ in morphology and behaviour and so natural selection upon traits associated with survival and reproduction is expected to favour different optima in the two sexes. However, responses to selection are often correlated between males and females, with the result that opposing selection pressures reduce the average tness of both sexes [24, 25]. One cause of these deleterious intersexual genetic correlations is sexually antagonistic pleiotropy [2628]. This occurs when an allele that is benecial when expressed in one sex is detrimental when expressed in the other. For example, in P. reticulata conspicuous colour patterns increase the risk of predation in both sexes while apparently increasing the reproductive success of males only [29,30]. Hence alleles producing conspicuous colour patterns produce a net benet to males and a net detriment to females; they are sexually antagonistic. In theory, an autosomal sexually antagonistic allele can increase in frequency only if its benet to one sex is greater than its detriment to the other [9,31]. However, a sex-linked sexually antagonistic allele can increase even when its detriment in one sex is several times greater than its benet in the other [11]. This applies even when linkage between the sexually antagonistic locus and sex-determination locus is incomplete, generating selection for translocation of sexually antagonistic genes from autosomes to sex chromosomes [9, 11]. However, as long as linkage remains incomplete, recombinant individuals are produced bearing sexually antagonistic alleles that are deleterious to members of their sex. This generates positive selection upon mutations that suppress recombination between sexually antagonistic loci and the sex-determination locus. Linkage is thereby increased between the sex locus and more distant loci, leading to recruitment of additional sexually antagonistic alleles further from the sex-determination locus and hence to selection for further suppression of

Figure 1. The sexual antagonism hypothesis for the evolution of restricted recombination in sex chromosomes. In this example, it is assumed that recombination between X and Y chromosomes is suppressed by inversions. However, the process illustrated by this model is equally applicable to other forms of recombination suppression. Solid lines indicate chromosomes with the letters X and Y denoting X and Y sex chromosomes, respectively. Open and triple lines indicate inverted chromosome regions. Double-headed arrows indicate recombination. Open circles indicate a dominant sex-determination allele. Diamonds indicate sexually antagonistic alleles. Where sexual antagonism is resolved by sex-linked inheritance, diamonds are open. Where sexual antagonism is unresolved, diamonds are shaded.

recombination. This produces a genetic chain reaction [11] that expands the region of restricted recombination along the length of the sex chromosomes (Fig. 1). These models indicate that sexually antagonistic alleles are more likely to spread if they are tightly linked to a sexdetermination locus. These models also indicate that a mutation suppressing recombination between a sex-determination locus and a second locus is more likely to spread if the second locus contains sexually antagonistic alleles. However, to infer from this that the non-recombining regions of sex chromosomes spread due to sexual antagonism assumes that suppression of recombination on sex chromosomes always results from selection acting directly upon the sexdetermination locus to reduce its rate of recombination with other loci. If the sex-determination locus is allowed to play a passive role in the initial spread of the non-recombining region then alternative hypotheses are possible.

Alternative hypotheses for the evolution of non-recombining regions

Three alternative mechanisms are proposed to explain the spread of non-recombining regions on sex chromosomes. The rst is that mutations or rearrangements causing

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

719

J. E. Ironside

Prospects & Overviews

....

suppression of recombination on sex chromosomes spread by genetic drift [32]. The second is that suppression of recombination is selected because it prevents homozygosity of deleterious recessive genes, particularly in populations with inbreeding [33]. A third hypothesis is that non-recombining regions spread due to selection against recombination within a supergene formed by two loosely linked genes with a positive epistatic effect upon tness. The capacity of these mechanisms to generate nonrecombining regions in autosomes has been explored in the large body of theoretical research modelling the spread and maintenance of polymorphic chromosomal rearrangements such as inversions, centric fusions and reciprocal translocations [34]. These chromosomal rearrangements tend to reduce recombination when heterozygous due to reduced pairing and crossing over and to selection against recombinant gametes that contain meiotic abnormalities [35]. In most such theoretical studies, it is the recombination-suppressing property of chromosomal rearrangements that is modelled as the character under selection [34]. The models can therefore be extended to encompass the spread and maintenance of any nonrecombining region, whether it originated through a rearrangement or not. Furthermore, there is evidence that rearrangements, particularly inversions, are often responsible for initiating suppression of recombination between sex chromosomes. This appears to be the case in 10 of 34 neotropical sh species [36], in spiny eels [37], in Dysdercus bugs [38] and in humans [6]. The hypothesis that chromosomal rearrangements invade through genetic drift in small populations [39] receives some empirical support from studies of inversions in water beetles [40] and blackies [41], which show no deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, suggesting that they are selectively neutral. Although it is theoretically plausible for a chromosomal rearrangement to become xed in a small population by drift, it is more challenging to model the spread of the rearrangement beyond a single, isolated population [42]. Attempts to do so have invoked metapopulation dynamics in which populations carrying the rearrangement colonise habitat patches left vacant by local extinctions [42] or colonise new areas of habitat generated by climate change [43]. The hypothesis that chromosomal rearrangements spread through selection to prevent homozygosity of deleterious recessive genes at multiple loci was proposed by Charlesworth and Wall [33]. Their models demonstrate that, in populations with moderate levels of inbreeding, selection to maintain heterozygosity at two loci can favour the spread of neo-sex chromosomes generated by centric fusions or reciprocal translocations. The third (supergene) hypothesis was originally suggested by Dobzhansky [44, 45] to explain the spread of inversions in Drosophila. In this case, alleles at two loci contained within a non-recombining region have a joint effect upon tness that is greater than the sum of their effects when either allele is present in the absence of the other (the two alleles are said to form a coadapted gene complex or supergene). A classic example of suppression of recombination between autosomal loci containing co-adapted alleles is supergene control of Batesian mimicry in the buttery Papilio dardanus [46]. In this case, tness epistasis occurs because specic combinations of linked alleles

allow different individuals to accurately mimic different toxic model species. Fitness epistasis, in the extreme guise of balanced lethal alleles, also appears to underlie the formation of large, non-recombining regions in the heteromorphic autosomes of Triturus newts (discussed in more detail below). Dobzhanskys [45] co-adaptation hypothesis assumes the special case of overdominance in which the inversion heterozygote is tter than either homozygote, allowing the maintenance of a non-recombining region. The superior tness of the inversion heterozygote advantage may be conferred by additive interactions between genes or by epistasis [39, 47]. As noted by Charlesworth [48], the sexual antagonism hypothesis for suppression of recombination on sex chromosomes is actually a special case of supergene evolution. In this case, tness epistasis occurs between alleles at the sexdetermination locus and at the sexually antagonistic locus because the sexually antagonistic allele increases tness when present in one sex and decreases tness when present in the other. However, the models described above indicate that inversions and other suppressors of recombination can even spread in the absence of sexual antagonism. Although it need not be involved in the initial spread of a non-recombining region, the presence of a sex-determination locus will have important consequences for the subsequent evolution of the region. Non-recombining regions that occur on non-sex chromosomes are generally small and short-lived in comparison to those of sex chromosomes [4951]. Presumably such autosomal non-recombining regions tend to be destroyed by the xation of one karyotype and the extinction of the other, since recombination is only suppressed when the region is heterozygous (Fig. 2A). Heterozygosity at the sex-determination locus is also required for suppression of recombination between sex chromosomes even in the absence of heteromorphy, otherwise recombination would also be suppressed in the homogametic sex. However, a sex-linked non-recombining region is prevented from spreading to xation because frequencydependent selection operates against the most common sex [52] (Fig. 2B). This process is equivalent to the protected polymorphism observed due to frequency-dependent selection upon certain inversions and supergenes on non-sex chromosomes [53]. However, sex-linked non-recombining regions are exceptional in that the mechanism of sex determination, which is the cause of balancing selection upon sex-linked loci, tends to persist for long periods of evolutionary time. In this, it differs from other causes of balancing selection upon inversions, such as environmental gradients [54] and hostparasite co-evolution [55], which are relatively ephemeral selective agents, rarely persisting beyond the lifetime of a species. In contrast, a sex-linked inversion is held in a balanced polymorphic state until the function of sex determination shifts to another locus. The protracted period of time during which sex-linked regions can remain non-recombining may explain why such regions tend to spread. Any mutation that suppresses recombination over a region including all or part of the original non-recombining region may, if it avoids extinction, increase in frequency until it becomes xed relative to the sexdetermining allele. However, it too will then become subject to balancing selection exerted by the sex ratio, holding it in a

Problems & Paradigms

720

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

....

Prospects & Overviews

J. E. Ironside

Figure 2. The fate of non-recombining regions in autosomes and sex chromosomes. A non-recombining region is more likely to persist and expand if it contains a sex-determination locus. In this example, it is assumed that recombination between X and Y chromosomes is suppressed by inversions. However, the process illustrated by this model is equally applicable to other forms of recombination suppression. Solid lines indicate chromosomes with the letter A denoting an autosome and the letters X and Y denoting X and Y sex chromosomes, respectively. Open and triple lines indicate inverted chromosome regions. Double-headed arrows indicate recombination. Open circles indicate a dominant sexdetermination allele. A: In the absence of balancing selection, the fate of inversion polymorphisms on autosomes is either xation or extinction. In either case, recombination is restored to the inverted region. B: If an inversion occurs in a region containing a dominant sex-determination allele and avoids extinction, it can only be xed in one sex. This generates a permanent region of suppressed recombination between X- and Y-chromosomes. C: Any subsequent inversions that overlap the non-recombining region of a sex chromosome will expand the non-recombining region if they avoid extinction.

Problems & Paradigms

interactions between the sex-determination locus and other, loosely linked loci may select for expansion of the nonrecombining region. However, epistatic interactions between any locus within the non-recombining region and loci loosely linked to it will have the same effect. Such interactions may result from non-sexually antagonistic supergene effects or from selection for heterozygosity in an inbreeding population. Sexual antagonism may be sufcient to produce and expand the non-recombining region but it does not appear to be necessary.

Tests of the sexual antagonism hypothesis

The sexual antagonism hypothesis offers the testable prediction that sexually antagonistic genes should accumulate in the recombining (pseudoautosomal) region (PAR) of the sex chromosomes, prior to suppression of recombination [31]. In particular, recessive, sexually antagonistic genes that benet males should be more likely to accumulate on the X chromosome because they are expressed in the hemizygous sex [31, 56]. In a series of experiments on the fruit y Drosophila melanogaster, the majority of the genome was articially constrained to be inherited solely though males [24, 28, 57, 58]. Within lines with male-limited inheritance, male tness increased, while that of females decreased. Furthermore, the majority of the sexually antagonistic genetic variations revealed in these experiments occurs in the X chromosome [57]. However, because the sexually antagonistic loci detected in these experiments occur within the region of the X chromosome that does not recombine with the Y, they may have accumulated after recombination had already been suppressed. These results therefore provide only weak support for a causal link between sexual antagonism and restriction of recombination in sex chromosomes. Evidence from selection experiments on the dioecious plant Silene latifolia is also equivocal. Analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for ower size indicates that the PAR of the sex chromosomes of Silene latifolia plays a disproportionate role in the control of variation in sexually dimorphic traits,

polymorphic state. In this way, overlapping regions of suppressed recombination can accumulate on the sex chromosomes, each increasing the size of the non-recombining region through an evolutionary ratchet mechanism (Fig. 2C). At this stage, sexual antagonism may play a role, since epistatic

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

721

J. E. Ironside

Prospects & Overviews

....

including sexually antagonistic traits [25, 59]. The position of these genes in the PAR shows that they accumulated prior to suppression of recombination. However, they are expressed only in one sex and so are not functionally sexually antagonistic. In the guppy P. reticulata, some sexually antagonistic genes for conspicuous colour patterns occur in the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome, while others are only partially sex linked [60], indicating that they occur on the PAR of the sex chromosomes. Furthermore, some of these genes recombine between X and Y in small, low-predation populations but are exclusively Y-linked in large, high-predation populations where selection by predators against conspicuous colour patterns is greater [61]. These ndings are taken to imply that differences in Y-linkage of male colour pattern traits between guppy populations are caused by sexually antagonistic selection. However, the Y-linked colour pattern genes of guppies are frequently deleterious or lethal when homozygous, even though YY individuals otherwise show normal fertility and viability [62,63]. Suppression of recombination between conspicuous colour pattern genes on the pseudoautosomal and non-recombining regions of the Y chromosome may therefore occur due to selection to resolve non-sexual tness epistasis rather than through sexual antagonism. Furthermore, the colour pattern genes associated with trait variation are not normally expressed in females. Selection for increased Y-linkage in large populations of P. reticulata [61] is therefore difcult to explain by selection to resolve sexual antagonism at these pseudoautosomal loci because sexual antagonism has already been resolved through sex-limited expression. A second line of research aims to test the prediction that sexual antagonism results in the accumulation on the sex chromosomes of genes with sex-limited expression. Natural selection can resolve intralocus sexual antagonism by linking the sexually antagonistic locus to a sex chromosome (sexlinked inheritance) or by down-regulating expression of the sexually antagonistic locus in the appropriate sex (sex-limited expression) [64]. It follows that, with the exception of genes whose tissue specicity limits them to one sex (e.g. testisspecic genes), sex-limited genes would be sexually antagonistic if expressed in both sexes [65]. Furthermore, it is suggested that sex-limited expression evolves more slowly than sex linkage [59, 64] because sex-limited expression is a complex adaptation [64] requiring the evolution of specic regulatory sequences. This reasoning leads to the testable prediction that sex chromosomes should contain high densities of sex-limited genes in comparison to autosomes. However, empirical evidence for the accumulation of genes with sex differences in expression on sex chromosomes is also equivocal. Proles of genome expression indicate enrichment of female-limited genes on the X chromosome of D. melanogaster [66], Drosophila simulans [67] and the mouse [68] and of malelimited genes on the Z chromosome of the chicken [65]. However, genes with male-biased expression are underrepresented on the X chromosomes of Drosophila and Caenorhabditis elegans [66, 67, 69] and on the Z chromosome of the chicken [65]. Furthermore, the mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows no evidence that male- or female-limited genes are enriched on the sex chromosomes [70]. Overall, the mixed

Problems & Paradigms

results of these genomic surveys do not offer consistent support for the sexual antagonism hypothesis. The assumption that sex linkage evolves before sexlimitation is also questionable. While there is evidence for rapid evolution of suppressed recombination in D. melanogaster [7173], comparisons of gene regulation between natural D. melanogaster strains indicate that sexbiased expression can also evolve very rapidly [74]. Furthermore, transitions from bisexual to sex-limited expression need not involve complex adaptations. For example, androgen regulation of the sex-limited protein (Slp) gene of mice evolved simply through the insertion of an endogenous provirus upstream of the gene [75]. Finally, other factors such as dominance, dosage compensation and X-inactivation are also predicted to inuence the tendency of sex-limited genes to accumulate on sex chromosomes [76, 77].

Initial establishment of the non-recombining region

It is proposed that the evolution of dioecy from hermaphroditism requires the suppression of recombination between segregating genes for male sterility and female sterility [78]. Under selection for dioecy, loci with alleles for male and female sterility are clearly subject to sexually antagonistic pleiotropy since, if both occur in the same individual, sterility results, and if neither is present, hermaphrodites are produced. This generates selection for suppression of recombination between loci containing male-sterility and femalesterility alleles, producing a non-recombining region with a sex-determination function [79]. In owering plants, dioecy appears to have evolved from hermaphroditism on many separate occasions via gynodioecy or, more rarely, via androdioecy [4]. The existence of these transitional states implies that alleles causing male sterility and female sterility occur at separate loci [78]. This scenario also derives empirical support from the dioecious owering plants Silene latifolia, Fragaria virginiana and Sagittaria latifolia [19, 80, 81]. These three plants possess heteromorphic sex chromosomes in which the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome contains separate factors for male fertility and female sterility. In contrast, evidence to support this scenario for the initiation of sex chromosome formation is absent in animals. Although heteromorphic sex chromosomes are common in animals, separate loci containing male- and female-sterility alleles have never been detected. Furthermore, although dioecy is widespread in animals, the putative transitional stages of gynodioecy and androdioecy are rare. Gynodioecy occurs in cnidarians [8284] but is unknown in triploblastic animals. Androdioecy is slightly more common, occurring in branchiopod crustaceans [85], rhabditid nematodes [86] and a single vertebrate species, the mangrove killish [87], but these androdioecious species appear to have evolved from dioecious ancestors rather than from hermaphrodites [88]. Androdioecy also occurs in barnacles where it is unclear whether it evolved from hermaphroditism or from dioecy [89]. In fact, few of the genetic sex-determination systems studied in dioecious animals appear to have evolved directly

722

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

....

Prospects & Overviews

J. E. Ironside

from hermaphroditism. In most cases a transition to genetic sex determination from environmental sex determination (ESD) or a switch from a pre-existing system of genetic sex determination appears to have occurred [90, 91]. These transitions in sex determination do not appear to require the evolution of new male- and female-sterility loci. A likely explanation for this is that genetic control of sexual development in animals is regulated globally by a single gene of the doublesex-mab-3 (DM) family [92]. This highly conserved system indicates an ancient homology of animal sex determination, predating the divergence of nematodes and arthropods [93]. Subsequently, the various groups of animals have evolved diverse mechanisms for triggering sex determination through the addition of regulatory genes upstream of the DM regulator. These upstream regulatory genes are highly diverse, differing between closely related animal species and even within species. Whenever a new upstream regulatory gene is added to the apex of the cascade, the chromosome pair containing this new apical gene becomes the new sex chromosomes. Many switches of sex chromosome pair are therefore likely to have occurred between the initial transition from hermaphroditism to dioecy and the establishment of the current sex chromosomes of a given animal species. Because its target is a single, global regulatory gene, there is no reason in theory why the apical sex-determination factor of an animal should not be a single gene itself. Such appears to be the case in therian mammals where the dominant Y-linked sex-determination gene Sry operates by regulating expression of the autosomal gene Sox 9 [94] and hence controls the entire sex-determination cascade. The absence of Sry from non-mammalian vertebrates and from egg-laying mammals [95] indicates that this mechanism of sex determination, and hence the therian Y chromosome, was acquired relatively recently. A single, Y-linked dominant gene DMY also determines sex in the medaka sh Oryzias latipes [96] but is absent from closely related species [97], indicating recent acquisition of a novel sex-determination system. In birds, the Z-linked gene DMRT1 forms a strong candidate for dosage-dependent single-gene sex determination [98], although the possibility that DMRT1 is regulated by upstream factors cannot be excluded. The fact that a single, recently acquired sex-determination gene such as Sry can be associated with heteromorphic sex chromosomes [99] indicates that multiple, segregating sexdetermination loci are not necessary for suppression of recombination to be initiated. Nonetheless, interactions with a sexually antagonistic locus might still be involved in the establishment of a new apical gene for sex determination [21]. In such cases, selection for tighter linkage between the new sex-determination gene and the sexually antagonistic locus could select for suppression of recombination. However, such a relationship between sexual antagonism and switches in sex-determination system cannot be assumed because other factors may also facilitate the spread of a sex-determination usurper. For example, a new sex-determination allele may invade a dioecious population under positive selection if it counteracts a pre-existing sex ratio bias in the population [100, 101]. This appears to have occurred in the wrinkled frog Rana rugosa, in which evidence from population genetics and experimental crosses suggests that sex ratio bias resulting

from the hybridisation of two male-heterogametic populations drove the invasion of a new, female-heterogametic sexdetermination locus [102, 103]. Similarly, in populations of the female-heterogametic isopod crustacean Armadillidium vulgare, sex ratio bias caused by the bacterium Wolbachia can drive the W chromosome to extinction [104, 105]. In some populations, this has selected for the spread of a dominant gene for maleness, correcting the sex ratio and rendering the populations male-heterogametic [106].

Problems & Paradigms

Expansion of the non-recombining region

The sexual antagonism hypothesis proposes that restriction of recombination spreads deterministically along the sex chromosomes through the recruitment of sexually antagonistic loci that are progressively distant from the sexdetermination locus [11]. As previously stated, this mechanism is exclusive to sex chromosomes. However, expansion of nonrecombining regions is occasionally observed in autosomes and such cases can demonstrate properties that are remarkably similar to those of sex chromosomes. In the newts Triturus cristatus and Triturus marmoratus, chromosome 1 is heteromorphic in all individuals of both sexes [107]. Heteromorphism is maintained by overdominance, with balanced lethal alleles at two loci causing the death of all embryos that are homozygous for either heterosome [107, 108]. Differences in the degree of heteromorphy between the two species and the occurrence of evolutionary strata [107, 108] suggest that the non-recombining region has expanded beyond the region containing the two lethal alleles. In this case, expansion of the non-recombining region cannot be attributed to sexual antagonism because the heterosomes occur in all individuals of both sexes. The hermaphroditic trematode Megalodiscus temperatus also possesses heteromorphic autosomes [109], demonstrating that chromosomal heteromorphy can occur even in animals without separate sexes. Expanded regions of suppressed recombination also occur on the mating type chromosomes of some protists and fungi. Fungi differ from animals and plants in that they are isogamous and remain haploid for the majority of their life cycles. However, in many cases, each haploid individual has a mating type, genetically determined by the mating type locus, and individuals must be of opposite mating types to mate successfully. In fungi such as Neurospora tetrasperma, Microbotryum violaceum and Cryptococcus neoformans, each haploid genome contains a single copy of the mating type locus and meiotic recombination within the mating type locus is suppressed [110112]. In these fungal mating type chromosomes, recombination is suppressed over a region extending far beyond the mating type genes. Although they do not show the levels of gross heteromorphy observed in some animal and plant sex chromosomes, the occurrence of strata [111,112] indicates that expansion of the non-recombining region in these fungal chromosomes has occurred in several stages. In the absence of distinct sexes, expansion of the nonrecombining regions of fungal mating type chromosomes cannot be attributed to sexual antagonism as such, although, in theory, antagonistic processes may occur due to differences in

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

723

J. E. Ironside

Prospects & Overviews

....

Problems & Paradigms

tness optima between fungal mating types. However, developmental, morphological and ecological differences between mating types in these fungi appear minor when compared with differences between sexes in dioecious animals and plants. The inuence of antagonistic processes upon the suppression of recombination between mating type chromosomes is therefore predicted to be correspondingly minor.

Conclusions
Sexual antagonism provides a mechanism for the evolution of restricted recombination on sex chromosomes that is theoretically plausible. However, hypotheses based on sexual antagonism can explain restriction of recombination only in sex chromosomes. Alternative hypotheses, originally developed to explain the spread of inversions, are sufciently general to explain restriction of recombination on sex chromosomes and autosomes. Expansion and differentiation of the non-recombining region to produce heteromorphy is a cumulative process that requires only that non-recombining regions are maintained for extended periods of time. This is demonstrated by evidence of expansion and heteromorphy in non-recombining regions of autosomes in newts, atworms and fungi. In sex chromosomes, selection against the more common sex maintains heterozygosity at the sex-determination locus, and hence maintains sex-linked non-recombining regions for extended time periods, irrespective of sexual antagonism. The higher incidence of heteromorphy in sex chromosomes than in autosomes does not therefore require a mechanism for suppression of recombination that is specic to sex chromosomes. Selection experiments and genomic surveys of loci with sex-limited expression indicate that sexual antagonism is a signicant evolutionary force and that sexually antagonistic genes tend to accumulate on the X chromosome. However, support for the hypothesis that sexual antagonism drives restriction of recombination in sex chromosomes is weak. Stronger tests of this hypothesis should demonstrate that the accumulation of sexually antagonistic genes occurs in regions of the sex chromosomes that have not yet ceased recombining. Future tests of the sexual antagonism hypothesis should also involve loci that are expressed in both sexes. Sex-limited genes are not a good proxy for sexually antagonistic genes because it cannot be ascertained whether sex limitation evolved before or after linkage to the sex-determination locus.

Acknowledgments Thanks to Katy Peat, Andrew Moore, Deborah Charlesworth and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript.

References
1. Bergero R, Charlesworth D. 2009. The evolution of restricted recombination in sex chromosomes. Trends Ecol Evol 24: 94102.

2. Muller HJ. 1964. The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutat Res 106: 29. 3. Ohno S. 1967. Sex Chromosomes and Sex-Linked Genes. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 4. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B, Marais G. 2005. Steps in the evolution of heteromorphic sex chromosomes. Heredity 95: 11828. 5. Lahn BT, Page DC. 1999. Four evolutionary strata on the human X chromosome. Science 286: 9647. 6. Lemaitre C, Braga MDV, Gautier C, et al. 2009. Footprints of inversions at present and past pseudoautosomal boundaries in human sex chromosomes. Genome Biol Evol 2009: 5666. 7. Handley LL, Ceplitis H, Ellegren H. 2004. Evolutionary strata on the chicken Z chromosome: implications for sex chromosome evolution. Genetics 167: 36776. 8. Nicolas M, Marais G, Hykelova V, et al. 2005. A gradual process of recombination restriction in the evolutionary history of the sex chromosomes in dioecious plants. PLoS Biol 3: 4756. 9. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. 1980. Sex differences in tness and selection for centric fusions between sex chromosomes and autosomes. Genet Res 35: 20514. 10. Fisher RA. 1931. The evolution of dominance. Biol Rev 6: 34568. 11. Rice WR. 1987. The accumulation of sexually antagonistic genes as a selective agent promoting the evolution of reduced recombination between primitive sex chromosomes. Evolution 41: 9114. 12. Bergero R, Charlesworth D, Filatov DA, et al. 2008. Dening regions and rearrangements of the Silene latifolia Y chromosome. Genetics 178: 204553. 13. Charlesworth B. 2002. The evolution of chromosomal sex determination. Novartis Found Symp 244: 20724. 14. Ellegren H, Carmichael A. 2001. Multiple and independent cessation of recombination between avian sex chromosomes. Genetics 158: 32531. 15. Filatov DA. 2005. Sticklebacks view of sex chromosome evolution. Heredity 94: 2756. 16. Kitano J, Ross JA, Mori S, et al. 2009. A role for a neo-sex chromosome in stickleback speciation. Nature 461: 107983. 17. Peichel CL, Ross JA, Matson CK, et al. 2004. The master sex-determination locus in threespine sticklebacks is on a nascent Y chromosome. Curr Biol 14: 141624. 18. Ross JA, Urton JR, Boland J, et al. 2009. Turnover of sex chromosomes in the stickleback shes (Gasterosteidae). PLoS Genet 5: e1000391. 19. Spigler RB, Lewers KS, Main DS, et al. 2008. Genetic mapping of sex determination in a wild strawberry, Fragaria virginiana, reveals earliest form of sex chromosome. Heredity 101: 50717. 20. Steinemann S, Steinemann M. 2001. Biased distribution of repetitive elements: a landmark for neo-Y chromosome evolution in Drosophila miranda. Cytogenet Cell Genet 93: 22833. 21. van Doorn GS, Kirkpatrick M. 2007. Turnover of sex chromosomes induced by sexual conict. Nature 449: 90912. 22. Wilson MA, Makova KD. 2009. Genomic analyses of sex chromosome evolution. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 10: 33354. 23. Winge O. 1927. The location of eighteen genes in Lebistes reticulatus. J Genet 18: 143. 24. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult tness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 16715. 25. Delph LF, Gehring JL, Frey FM, et al. 2004. Genetic constraints on oral evolution in a sexually dimorphic plant revealed by articial selection. Evolution 58: 193646. 26. Cox RM, Calsbeek R. 2009. Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conict. Am Nat 173: 17687. 27. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292305. 28. Rice WR, Chippindale AK. 2001. Intersexual ontogenetic conict. J Evol Biol 14: 68593. 29. Godin JGJ, McDonough HE. 2003. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav Ecol 14: 194200. 30. Endler JA. 1983. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in poeciliid shes. Environ Biol Fishes 9: 17390. 31. Rice WR. 1984. Sex-chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 73542. 32. Charlesworth B, Coyne JA, Barton NH. 1987. The relative rates of evolution of sex-chromosomes and autosomes. Am Nat 130: 113 46.

724

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

....

Prospects & Overviews

J. E. Ironside

33. Charlesworth B, Wall JD. 1999. Inbreeding, heterozygote advantage and the evolution of neo-X and neo-Y sex chromosomes. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266: 5156. 34. Hoffmann AA, Rieseberg LH. 2008. Revisiting the impact of inversions in evolution: from population genetic markers to drivers of adaptive shifts and speciation? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39: 2142. 35. Navarro A, Betran E, Barbadilla A, et al. 1997. Recombination and gene ux caused by gene conversion and crossing over in inversion heterokaryotypes. Genetics 146: 695709. 36. Rosa R, Bellafronte E, Filho O, et al. 2006. Constitutive heterochromatin, 5S and 18S rDNA genes in Apareiodon sp. (Characiformes, Parodontidae) with a ZZ/ZW sex chromosome system. Genetica 128: 15966. 37. Liu JD, Yi MS, Zhao G, et al. 2002. Sex chromosomes in the spiny eel (Mastacembelus aculeatus) revealed by mitotic and meiotic analysis. Cytogenet Genome Res 98: 29197. 38. Bressa M, Papeschi A, Mola L, et al. 1999. Meiotic studies in Dysdercus Guerin Meneville 1831 (Heteroptera: Pyrrhocoridae). I. Neo-XY in Dysdercus albofasciatus Berg 1878, a new sex chromosome determining system in Heteroptera. Chromosome Res 7: 50308. 39. Sperlich D, Pfriem P. 1986. Chromosomal polymorphism in natural and experimental populations. In: Ashburner M, Carson HL, Thompson JN, eds; The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila, Volume 3e. New York: Academic Press. p 257309. 40. Aradottir GI, Angus RB. 2004. A chromosomal analysis of some water beetle species recently transferred from Agabus leach to Ilybius Erichson, with particular reference to the variation in chromosome number shown by I. montanus Stephens (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Hereditas 140: 18592. 41. Kuvangkadilok C, Boonkemtong C, Phayuhasena S, et al. 2003. Larval polytene chromosomes of black ies (Simulium) from Thailand. Genetica 118: 6981. 42. Lande R. 1979. Effective deme sizes during long-term evolution estimated from rates of chromosomal rearrangement. Evolution 33: 23451. 43. Hewitt GM. 1988. Hybrid zonesnatural laboratories for evolutionary studies. Trends Ecol Evol 3: 15867. 44. Dobzhansky T. 1952. Nature and origin of heterosis. In: Gowen JW, ed; Heterosis. New York: Hafner. p 21823. 45. Dobzhansky T. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press. 46. Clarke CA, Sheppard PM. 1960. Super-genes and mimicry. Heredity 14: 17585. 47. Kirkpatrick M, Barton N. 2006. Chromosome inversions, local adaptation and speciation. Genetics 173: 41934. 48. Charlesworth B. 2004. Sex determination: primitive Y chromosomes in sh. Curr Biol 14: R7457. 49. Ranz JM, Segarra C, Ruiz A. 1997. Chromosomal homology and molecular organization of Mullers elements D and E in the Drosophila repleta species group. Genetics 145: 28195. 50. Hasson E, Eanes WF. 1996. Contrasting histories of three gene regions associated with In(3L)Payne of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 144: 156575. 51. Andolfatto P, Wall JD, Kreitman M. 1999. Unusual haplotype structure at the proximal breakpoint of In(2L)t in a natural population of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 153: 1297311. 52. Fisher RA. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. New York: Dover. 53. Alvarez-Castro JM, Alvarez G. 2005. Models of general frequencydependent selection and mating-interaction effects and the analysis of selection patterns in Drosophila inversion polymorphisms. Genetics 170: 116779. 54. Ananina G, Peixoto AA, Bitner-Mathe BC, et al. 2004. Chromosomal inversion polymorphism in Drosophila mediopunctata: seasonal, altitudinal, and latitudinal variation. Genet Mol Biol 27: 619. 55. Charlesworth D. 2006. Balancing selection and its effects on sequences in nearby genome regions. PLoS Genet 2: 37984. 56. Patten MM, Haig D. 2009. Maintenance or loss of genetic variation under sexual and parental antagonism at a sex-linked locus. Evolution 63: 288895. 57. Gibson JR, Chippindale AK, Rice WR. 2002. The X chromosome is a hot spot for sexually antagonistic tness variation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269: 499505. 58. Prasad NG, Bedhomme S, Day T, et al. 2007. An evolutionary cost of separate genders revealed by male-limited evolution. Am Nat 169: 2937.

59. Scotti I, Delph LF. 2006. Selective trade-offs and sex-chromosome evolution in Silene latifolia. Evolution 60: 1793800. 60. Lindholm A, Breden F. 2002. Sex chromosomes and sexual selection in poeciliid shes. Am Nat 160: S21424. 61. Haskins CP, Haskins EF, McLaughlin JJA, et al. 1961. Polymorphism and population structure in Lebistes reticulatus, an ecological study. In: Blair WF, ed; Vertebrate Speciation. Austin: University of Texas Press. 62. Winge O, Ditlevsen E. 1938. A lethal gene in the Y-chromosome of Lebistes. CR Trav Lab Carlsberg Ser Physiol 22: 20310. 63. Haskins CP, Young P, Hewitt RE, et al. 1970. Stabilised heterozygosis of supergenes mediating certain Y-linked colour patterns in populations of Lebistes reticulatus. Heredity 25: 575. 64. Rice WR. 1996. Evolution of the Y sex chromosome in animals. Bioscience 46: 33143. 65. Kaiser VB, Ellegren H. 2006. Nonrandom distribution of genes with sex-biased expression in the chicken genome. Evolution 60: 194551. 66. Parisi M, Nuttall R, Naiman D, et al. 2003. Paucity of genes on the Drosophila X chromosome showing male-biased expression. Science 299: 697700. 67. Ranz JM, Castillo-Davis CI, Meiklejohn CD, et al. 2003. Sex-dependent gene expression and evolution of the Drosophila transcriptome. Science 300: 17425. 68. Khil PP, Smirnova NA, Romanienko PJ, et al. 2004. The mouse X chromosome is enriched for sex-biased genes not subject to selection by meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. Nat Genet 36: 6426. 69. Reinke V, Smith HE, Nance J, et al. 2000. A global prole of germline gene expression in C. elegans. Mol Cell 6: 60516. 70. Hahn MW, Lanzaro GC. 2005. Female-biased gene expression in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr Biol 15: R1923. 71. Brooks LD, Marks RW. 1986. The organization of genetic variation for recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 114: 52547. 72. Charlesworth D. 1985. Distribution of dioecy and self-incompatibility in angiosperms. In: Greenwood PJ, Harvey PH, Slatkin M, eds; Evolution: essays in Honor of John Maynard Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 23768. 73. Chinnici JP. 1971. Modication of recombination frequency in Drosophila .1. Selection for increased and decreased crossing over. Genetics 69: 7183. 74. Meiklejohn CD, Parsch J, Ranz JM, et al. 2003. Rapid evolution of male-biased gene expression in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 98949. 75. Stavenhagen JB, Robins DM. 1988. An ancient provirus has imposed androgen regulation on the adjacent mouse sex-limited protein gene. Cell 55: 24754. 76. Oliver B, Parisi M. 2004. Battle of the Xs. Bioessays 26: 5438. 77. Rogers DW, Carr M, Pomiankowski A. 2003. Male genes: x-pelled or X-cluded? Bioessays 25: 73941. 78. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. 1978. Model for evolution of dioecy and gynodioecy. Am Nat 112: 97597. 79. Haldane JBS. 1922. Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals. J Genet 12. 80. Dorken ME, Barrett SCH. 2004. Sex determination and the evolution of dioecy from monoecy in Sagittaria latifolia (Alismataceae). Proc R Soc of Lond B Biol Sci 271: 2139. 81. Zluvova J, Janousek B, Negrutiu I, et al. 2005. Comparison of the X and Y chromosome organization in Silene latifolia. Genetics 170: 14314. 82. Chornesky EA, Peters EC. 1987. Sexual reproduction and colony growth in the scleractinian coral Porites astreoides. Biol Bull 172: 16177. 83. Cohen CS. 1996. The effects of contrasting modes of fertilization on levels of inbreeding in the marine invertebrate genus Corella. Evolution 50: 1896907. 84. Edmands S. 1995. Mating systems in the sea-anemone genus Epiactis. Mar Biol 123: 72333. 85. Weeks SC, Sanderson TF, Zofkova M, et al. 2008. Breeding systems in the clam shrimp family Limnadiidae (Branchiopoda, Spinicaudata). Invertebrate Biol 127: 33649. 86. Fitch DHA. 1997. Evolution of male tail development in rhabditid nematodes related to Caenorhabditis elegans. Syst Biol 46: 14579. 87. Mackiewicz M, Tatarenkov A, Taylor DS, et al. 2006. Extensive outcrossing and androdioecy in a vertebrate species that otherwise reproduces as a self-fertilizing hermaphrodite. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 99248. 88. Pannell JR. 2002. The evolution and maintenance of androdioecy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33: 397425.

Problems & Paradigms

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.

725

J. E. Ironside

Prospects & Overviews

....

89. Weeks SC, Benvenuto C, Reed SK. 2006. When males and hermaphrodites coexist: a review of androdioecy in animals. Integr Comp Biol 46: 44964. 90. Janzen FJ, Krenz JG. 2004. Phylogenetics: which was rst, TSD or GSD?. In: Valenzuela N, Lance VA, ed; Temperature-dependent Sex Determination in Vertebrates. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. p 12130. 91. Graves JAM. 2008. Weird animal genomes and the evolution of vertebrate sex and sex chromosomes. Annu Rev Genet 42: 56586. 92. Raymond CS, Shamu CE, Shen MM, et al. 1998. Evidence for evolutionary conservation of sex-determining genes. Nature 391: 6915. 93. Haag ES, Doty AV. 2005. Sex determination across evolution: connecting the dots. PLoS Biol 3: 214. 94. Sekido R, Lovell-Badge R. 2008. Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specic Sox9 enhancer. Nature 453: 9304. 95. Wallis MC, Waters PD, Delbridge ML, et al. 2007. Sex determination in platypus and echidna: autosomal location of SOX3 conrms the absence of SRY from monotremes. Chromosome Res 15: 94959. 96. Matsuda M, Shinomiya A, Kinoshita M, et al. 2007. DMY gene induces male development in genetically female (XX) medaka sh. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 386570. 97. Kondo M, Nanda I, Hornung U, et al. 2004. Evolutionary origin of the medaka Y chromosome. Curr Biol 14: 16649. 98. Smith CA, Roeszler KN, Ohnesorg T, et al. 2009. The avian Z-linked gene DMRT1 is required for male sex determination in the chicken. Nature 461: 26771. 99. El Agonze M, Lemeunier F, Periquet G. 1992. Mitotic and salivary gland chromosome analyses in the Musca-Domestica L. house y Diptera Muscidae. Heredity 69: 5764. 100. Caubet Y, Hatcher MJ, Mocquard JP, et al. 2000. Genetic conict and changes in heterogametic mechanisms of sex determination. J Evol Biol 13: 76677. 101. Werren JH, Beukeboom LW. 1998. Sex determination, sex ratios, and genetic conict. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29: 23361.

102. Ogata M, Hasegawa Y, Ohtani H, et al. 2008. The ZZ/ZW sex-determining mechanism originated twice and independently during evolution of the frog, Rana rugosa. Heredity 100: 929. 103. Ogata M, Ohtani H, Igarashi T, et al. 2003. Change of the heterogametic sex from male to female in the frog. Genetics 164: 61320. 104. Juchault P, Rigaud T, Mocquard JP. 1993. Evolution of sex determination and sex-ratio variability in wild populations of Armadillidium vulgare (Latr) (Crustacea, Isopoda) - A case study in conict resolution. Acta Oecologica Int J Ecol 14: 54762. 105. Rigaud T, Soutygrosset C, Raimond R, et al. 1991. Feminizing endocytobiosis in the terrestrial crustacean Armadillidium vulgare Latr (Isopoda)Recent acquisitions. Endocytobiosis Cell Res 7: 25973. 106. Rigaud T, Juchault P. 1993. Conict between feminizing sex-ratio distorters and an autosomal masculinizing gene in the terrestrial isopod Armadillidium vulgare Latr. Genetics 133: 24752. 107. Macgregor HC, Horner H. 1980. Heteromorphism for chromosome-1 requirement for normal development in crested newts. Chromosoma 76: 11122. 108. Sessions SK, Macgregor HC, Schmid M, et al. 1988. Cytology, embryology, and evolution of the developmental arrest syndrome in newts of the genus Triturus (Caudata, Salamandridae). J Exp Zool 248: 32134. 109. Grossman AI, Cain GD. 1981. Karyotypes and chromosome morphologies of Megalodiscus temperatus and Philophthalmus gralli. J Helminthol 55: 718. 110. Fraser JA, Diezmann S, Subaran RL, et al. 2004. Convergent evolution of chromosomal sex-determining regions in the animal and fungal kingdoms. PLoS Biol 2: 224355. 111. Menkis A, Jacobson DJ, Gustafsson T, et al. 2008. The mating-type chromosome in the lamentous ascomycete Neurospora tetrasperma represents a model for early evolution of sex chromosomes. PLoS Genet 4. 112. Votintseva AA, Filatov DA. 2009. Evolutionary strata in a small matingtype-specic region of the smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum. Genetics 182: 13916.

Problems & Paradigms

726

Bioessays 32: 718726, 2010 WILEY Periodicals, Inc.