_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Loom

July 07, 2004

Evolution meets IVF

Could test tube babies be revealing some of the hidden workings of evolution? It's a definite possibility, judging from some recent reports about the balance of males and females.

For several decades, evolutionary biologists have been trying to figure out the forces that set this balance. It appears that they come down to a tug of war between competing interests. Imagine a species in which a freakish mutation makes the females gives birth to lots and lots of daughters. If you're a male, suddenly your chances of reproducing look very good--certainly better than all those females. Now imagine that some of these lucky males acquire mutations that makes them father more sons than daughters. This son-favoring mutation would spread because of the advantage to being male. In time, these mutations would tip balance of the sexes over to the males. The now-common males would have less chance of producing offspring than the now-rare females. The advantage shifts to the females. Over time, these opposite forces pull the ratio back and forth until they settle down into an equilibrium.

Sometimes, though, the ratio of males to females lurches out of balance. Some insects, for example, only give birth to daughters. That's because a third player has entered the tug of war--a bacterium called Wolbachia. Wolbachia lives in animal cells, and so the only way it can survive beyond the life of a host is to get into its eggs, which then grow into adults. Since Wolbachia cannot fit into sperm, males are useless to it. And so it has evolved a number of tools that it uses to forces its female hosts to give birth only to daughters.

But biologists have also noticed that in some situations other animals--including humans--can give birth to an overabundance of sons or daughters. In the early 1970s, Robert Trivers and Dan Willard, both then at Harvard, wondered if mothers might be able to control the sex ratio of their offspring to boost their own reproductive success. They imagined a species, such as deer, in which relatively few males mated with most females. If a doe gives birth to a healthy male, he is likely to grow up into a healthy buck that has a good chance of producing lots of grandchildren for the doe. In fact, he would be able to produce far more grandchildren than even the most successful daughter. He could impregnate lots of mates, while a daughter could produce only a couple offspring a year, which she would then have to nurse. So if the doe is in good health and can give birth to strong offspring, she would do best to produce sons.

On the other hand, if this doe gives birth to a male in poor condition, he may be unable to compete with other males, and his chances of reproducing fall to zero. Since most females that live to adulthood give birth to at least some offspring, it would make more sense to give birth to a daughter rather than a son in poor condition.

Trivers and Willard speculated that if a mother could somehow gauge the prospects of her offspring, she might manipulate their sex ratio to her own evolutionary advantage. In bad times, she'd produce females, and in good times she'd produce males.

Since Trivers and Willard first published their idea in 1973, scientists have tested it in hundreds of studies. Some of the results have been quite powerful. Scientists moved a bird known as a Seychelles warbler from one habitat to another and measured the sex ratio of their chicks. In places with lots of food, they produced lots of daughters that stayed at the nest to help raise their younger chicks. In places with little food, the ratio swung in favor of sons, which flew off in search of new territory. But the results have been far from clear-cut, particularly for mammals, which has led some researchers to wonder whether this particular force is very strong in mammal evolution.

In an article in press at The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, South African zoologist Elissa Cameron of the University of Pretoria argues that the case for adjusting sex ratios is actually very good if you look at the evidence properly. She analyzed over 400 studies of sex ratios and noticed that, depending on the study, the scientists measured the condition of mothers at different points in their pregnancy. Some took their measurements at conception, some in the middle of gestation, and some at birth. While studies during gestation and at birth provided ambiguous results, almost all the studies done around conception gave strong support to the Trivers-Willard hypothesis.

These results, Cameron argues, indicate that mothers can shift the balance of the sexes, but only right around conception. It's possible, for example, that the amount of glucose in the uterus when an egg begins to divide may trigger different responses, depending on whether the egg is male or female. For example, high glucose may signal that the mother is doing well and would do well to raise sons, while low glucose would favor females. In a paper in press at Biology of Reproduction, Cheryl Rosenfeld and Michael Roberts of the University of Missouri review some evidence that may support Cameron. (You can download it for free here.) They raised female mice on two different diets--one high in saturated fats, and one high in carbohydrates. Mothers eating a high-fat diet (which probably led to high levels of glucose) gave birth to litters with two sons for every daughter. Mothers eating high-carb diets produced about one son for every two daughters.

And here's where test tube babies come in. Humans may not have the sort of mating imbalance that you find in deer, but a lot of evidence suggests that we descend from a long lineage of primates in which a few males mated with a lot of females. It wouldn't be surprising, therefore, to find adaptations in women to favor sons or daughters. Rosenfeld and Richards survey some interesting studies on census data that suggest that this does indeed happen. And test tube babies offer some clues about the biochemistry that may be at work. When doctors fertilize a woman's eggs and let them begin to divide into a ball of cells, they keep the embryo in a solution of glucose. The farther along the doctors let the embryos develop, the more likely it is that their patients will wind up with sons rather than daughters. In this glucose-rich environment, male embryos may thrive, while females may risk failure to develop. Even in an age of reproductive technology, it seems, we are grappling with our evolutionary legacy.

Posted by Carl at 10:37 AM
  Comments and Trackbacks

Excellent blending of the medical adage: Ontology
recapitulates phylogeny. Nicely done.

Posted by William Gruzenski on July 8, 2004 04:16 PM | Permalink to Comment
Sex skew

Excerpt: Carl Zimmer has a fascinating entry on skewed sex ratios and the conditions that generate them. As Carl notes there is plenty of data on this, to me the most interesting data point that I recall was the predominance of...

Read the rest...

Trackback from Gene Expression, Jul 16, 2004 2:39 AM

Carl,

There's no need to speculate on whether mothers can control gender ratio in their offspring. In red deer, it has been found that dominant mothers are more likely to give birth to males. However this disappears as population densities increase and with decreases in winter rains.

These two effects correlate with decreases in fecundity and fewer males born to dominant females. Perhaps, the females are responding to hormones generated by males fetuses, and are aborting when there is little forage.

Here's the reference.

Nature. 1999 Jun 3;399(6735):459-61. Related Articles, Links


Comment in:
Nature. 1999 Jun 3;399(6735):407-8.

Population density affects sex ratio variation in red deer.

Kruuk LE, Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Pemberton JM, Guinness FE.

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, UK. Loeske.Kruuk@ed.ac.uk

Posted by Paul Thacker on August 2, 2004 11:51 AM | Permalink to Comment

We tend to think of humans as somehow outside evolution, but this is an illusion, we simply think on too short a timescale to see its effects. The "environment" in which we live is constantly changing exerting evolutionary pressure on us in ways we simply cannot see. Technology is part of that environment, and IVF part of technology...

Posted by David Bradley Science Journalist on August 4, 2004 09:44 AM | Permalink to Comment

Women who believe in long life bear sons

Posted by John Hardy on August 7, 2004 09:07 AM | Permalink to Comment

My mother used to repeat a tale that during times of war, there was a preponderance of male birth rates so as to make more warrior/soldiers. I thought that this was highly unlikely. However, since long-term stress (a common war-time malady) is now known to raise blood sugar levels, it know seems that this old wives' tale is quite plausible.

Posted by Oleg on August 10, 2004 05:11 PM | Permalink to Comment

  Post a Comment
 
Name:   
Email:   
URL:   
Comments:
  Remember personal info?
   
   
 
 
  Email this entry to a friend
Email this entry to:   
Your email address:   
Message (optional):   
 

  Related Entries