RxPG News Feed for RxPG News

Medical Research Health Special Topics World
  Home
 
   Health
 Aging
 Asian Health
 Events
 Fitness
 Food & Nutrition
 Happiness
 Men's Health
 Mental Health
 Occupational Health
 Parenting
 Public Health
 Sleep Hygiene
 Women's Health
 
   Healthcare
 Africa
 Australia
 Canada Healthcare
 China Healthcare
 India Healthcare
 New Zealand
 South Africa
 UK
 USA
 World Healthcare
 
 Latest Research
 Aging
 Alternative Medicine
 Anaethesia
 Biochemistry
 Biotechnology
 Cancer
 Cardiology
 Clinical Trials
 Cytology
 Dental
 Dermatology
 Embryology
 Endocrinology
 ENT
 Environment
 Epidemiology
 Gastroenterology
 Genetics
 Gynaecology
 Haematology
 Immunology
 Infectious Diseases
 Medicine
 Metabolism
 Microbiology
 Musculoskeletal
 Nephrology
 Neurosciences
 Obstetrics
 Ophthalmology
 Orthopedics
 Paediatrics
 Pathology
 Pharmacology
 Physiology
 Physiotherapy
 Psychiatry
 Radiology
 Rheumatology
 Sports Medicine
 Surgery
 Toxicology
 Urology
 
   Medical News
 Awards & Prizes
 Epidemics
 Launch
 Opinion
 Professionals
 
   Special Topics
 Ethics
 Euthanasia
 Evolution
 Feature
 Odd Medical News
 Climate

Last Updated: Oct 11, 2012 - 10:22:56 PM
Research Article
Latest Research Channel

subscribe to Latest Research newsletter
Latest Research

   EMAIL   |   PRINT
Species still have more viable offspring if they can choose their best mate

Sep 18, 2007 - 4:00:00 AM
Just how—and if—the hypothesis works in humans remains unknown, since studying the subject remains practically (and ethically) improbable. Still, the idea remains a deep part of popular culture.

 
[RxPG] Athens, Ga. -- When it comes to picking a mate, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young had an answer: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” As it turns out, that may be a cardinal rule in the animal kingdom, too.

New research that crosses several species boundaries shows that when animals must choose less-than-preferred (to them) mates, females and males apparently have ways to compensate that increase the chance their offspring will survive. The study, just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, adds weight to the Compensation Hypothesis, a proposal that has given insight into how individuals can pass on their genes even under less than ideal circumstances.

“It’s always better for offspring if parents can mate with preferred partners, but it’s becoming clear that when parents can’t have that preferred partner, they have ways of making up for it,” said Patricia Adair Gowaty, a Distinguished Research Professor of Ecology and Genetics at the University of Georgia and lead author of the study. “When female ‘choosers’ were in enforced pairs with males they did not prefer, they laid more eggs. Similarly, when males are paired with females they do not prefer, they ejaculate more sperm. This compensation seems to be a way of making the best of a bad job.”

Co-authors of the paper were Wyatt Anderson, Alumni Foundation Distinguished Professor of Genetics, and Yong-Kyu Kim, an assistant research scientist in Anderson’s lab, both at UGA; Cynthia K. Bluhm of the Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Station in Canada; Lee C. Drickamer of Northern Arizona University; and Allen J. Moore of Centre for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom.

One of the new study’s strongest arguments for the Compensation Hypothesis is that it includes experimental results in Tanzanian cockroaches, fruit flies, pipefish, wild mallards and feral house mice. When each species faced experimental constraints on free expression of their mate preferences, individuals found ways around the predicament that could improve the chances that offspring could survive and perhaps even flourish.

“Just how an individual finds its best mate isn’t really known,” said Gowaty, “though there’s some evidence that he or she may be somehow sensing the advantage of the potential mate’s immune system in relation to the chooser’s own.” She points out that many factors are probably at work, including behavioral cues and what potential resources a mate may bring.

While the strategies for dealing with nonpreferred mates can help offspring, advantages for the mating pairs themselves are less clear. In experimental situations, for example, females mated to non-preferred males didn’t live as long as females mated to their preferred choice.

One interesting aspect of the study is its implication that all individuals in a species have a flexible response to such problems as constraints on expression of their mating preferences. If that’s true, it hints that compensation may evolve—which could add an unexpected wrinkle to the story of natural selection.

“How compensation evolves is crucial,” Anderson said.

The issues at stake are, in fact, even broader.

“The study also has implications for conservation because it suggests that the best way to keep species alive may be, if possible, to let individuals choose their own mates,” said Gowaty.

The Compensation Hypothesis is Gowaty’s work and was first published only four years ago, though she has been working on it for more than a decade.

Just how—and if—the hypothesis works in humans remains unknown, since studying the subject remains practically (and ethically) improbable. Still, the idea remains a deep part of popular culture.

When Mick Jagger sings “You can’t always get what you want,” most of us nod. And then we start to plot a way around the problem.




Publication: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Advertise in this space for $10 per month. Contact us today.


Related Latest Research News


Subscribe to Latest Research Newsletter

Enter your email address:


 Feedback
For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 
Contact us

RxPG Online

Nerve

 

    Full Text RSS

© All rights reserved by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited (India)