Back

Men in menopause? Experimental verification of the mate choice theory of menopause with Drosophila melanogaster

Singh, R. S.; Purohith, D.; Chaudhary, M.; Rajapakse, N.; Gomes, A.

2022-04-19 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2022.04.18.488714 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Various hypotheses regarding the origin of menopause have been proposed, and although the kin-selection-based theory appears promising, it involves population genetic processes that are insufficient to compensate for loss of fitness. The grandmother hypothesis and its variation the live long hypothesis are untenable; the former requires "climbing a steep fitness hill", as grandmothers share only 25% of their genes with their grandchildren, compared to 50% with their direct offspring, while the latter proposes a prolongation of the post-menopausal lifespan through selection, which is impossible in a population of non-reproducing females. The mate choice theory explains menopause as the result of asymmetric mating involving younger females and older males that leads to an accumulation of infertility mutations and the evolution of menopause in older females. In this study, we investigated the mate choice theory using an infertility mutation accumulation experiment with Drosophila melanogaster that involved mating between individuals of different age groups. After 70 generations of asymmetric mating, the results showed that younger females who were paired with older males showed declining fertility in old age. The same trend was noted with younger males when mated with older females; the fertility of the males declined in old age. These results support the mate choice theory and indicate that menopause is not a life history trait of females but of the sex of the younger mate. Mate choice theory treats the evolution of menopause and post-menopausal lifespan as independent traits that are driven by the mate choices exercised by older males. Menopause may be an atypical process because the evolutionary mechanism (age-restricted asymmetric mating) involved is rarely observed.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 8%
21.5%
2
BMC Ecology and Evolution
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.5%
3
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
110 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.8%
5
Royal Society Open Science
214 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.8%
6
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Experimental Biology
259 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
8
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
Heredity
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
10
Biology Letters
76 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
11
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
12
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
13
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.7%
15
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
16
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
Evolution Letters
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.0%
20
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
21
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
23
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.8%
26
Open Biology
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%