Showing posts with label polyploid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polyploid. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Just Leave The “Father” Line Blank

Biology concepts – apomixis, automixis, genomic imprinting, haplodiploid, facultative and obligate parthenogenesis

Kids questions can be exasperating, exhilarating,
and problematic –all at the same time. Questions
about biology are especially difficult because you
never know how much information to give at what
age. My advice – give the simplest answer that will
stimulate additional questions. Too much detail can
be a turn off to a kid and can lead you into subjects
that you aren’t ready to tackle with them. If you don’t
know the answer – find it out. Your kids should see
you demonstrate looking for an answer and learning.
“Mommy, why is the sky blue? Daddy, if atoms are mostly empty space, then why are objects solid?” These are questions with which every parent must deal. Unless you are familiar with Raleigh scattering or the quantum structure of the atom, you’re going to have to make something up. Use big words – it will confuse them into moving on to something else, and you get to look like you know something.

Parthenogenesis is a subject that baffles a lot of people for a lot of reasons, mostly because we know little about it yet. What has science’s response been to this lack of knowledge – give everything a new name and bury people in mountains of terminology. Jargon is job security after all.

Last week we saw that parthenogenesis, while an exception, is not as rare as we once thought. Now let’s take some time to get down and dirty and look at the in and outs of abandoning sex. We’ll use examples to keep the vocabulary monster at bay.

The whole point of parthenogenesis is to make an unfertilized egg develop into a whole organism. How can an egg develop on it own? In general, haploid eggs are useless (exception alert!) so moms need to construct a diploid or polyploid egg in order for parthenogenesis to have a chance.

One way is for mom to forego meiosis and produce diploid eggs. The term for this is apomixis (apo = free from, and mixis = mixing). It basically means "with no mixing of chromosomes;" neither by homologous recombination nor by random assortment in meiosis. Therefore, offspring produced by apomictic parthenogenesis are clones of their mothers.

Automixis results in half clones. The mother’s eggs
go through meiosis, so the joining of different
products to regain diploidy will necessarily join
unlike chromosomes. Therefore, the offspring can’t
be a full clone of the mother. The mixing can come
from joining two eggs that went through different
random assortment stages, or through
recombination that mixes different parts of
homologous chromosomes in meiosis.
On the other hand, if the mom’s gametes do go through meiosis, then the haploid egg has to be manipulated so that it is once again diploid. This is called automixis (auto = self) and comes in a couple of flavors. Two eggs can fuse, each being haploid, to produce a diploid super egg. Another way is for the egg to start to develop, go through a few divisions to form what is called a blastomere, and then two blastomere cells will fuse. Finally, a haploid egg or blastomere cell can fuse with a polar body, one of the meiotic products that was cheated of some cytoplasmic factors and did not become a full fledged egg.

The result of any of these fusions is the same, a diploid egg that can develop into a whole organism without fertilization. BUT---- they are not equal to the apomictic egg described above. In meiosis, there is a division of chromosomes and possible recombination to form new sequences. Therefore, no two eggs will have exactly the same DNA, even if produced at the same time by the same mom.

If you fuse these two different eggs (or blastomeres), the sets of chromosomes ARE NOT the same, so even though the offspring will have only maternal DNA, they will not be exact clone of the mom. Automictic parthenogens are therefore called half clones; apomictic parthenogens are full clones.

The fly in the ointment here is sex determination. It is possible for a clonal offspring of a parthenogenic mom to be of the opposite sex – weird enough for you? It all depends on the system that the particular group of animals uses to determine sex.

In mammals, the sex determination system is XX/XY. Females don’t have a Y, so even if by some miracle a mammal could give birth parthenogenically (it doesn’t happen, see below for why), the offspring could be only female. In other animals, this is not so.

There are different sex determination systems in different
groups of animals. The difference between human and
insects is that in humans males have two different sex
chromosomes, while in insects, the male just gets one copy
of the only type of sex chromosome. In the komodo dragon,
the sex determination system is the same as in birds – that
makes sense, birds and reptiles have a common ancestry.
Going back to last week’s example of the Komodo Dragon, their sex determination system is ZZ/WZ, with ZZ = male. Therefore, the automictic fusion of a Z egg with a W egg could produce a female, while two Z eggs fusing would produce a male. On the other hand, apomictic parthenogenesis could produce only males, a Z egg doubles to become a ZZ egg, but a WW egg is not viable.

So komodos would produce more males than females, and their wild populations bear this out. Communities of Komodos can be up to 75% male. It would seem that this is an evolutionary strategy to help the Komodos colonize new islands. Say a female carjacks a log and lands on a new island. She undergoes parthenogenesis because no males are around, and produces males and a few females. Since parthenogenesis is quick (no time wasted on mating and seasonal fertile times) they can build a presence on the island quickly.

Then sexual reproduction can take over, increasing the genetic diversity of the species (because some drift and mutations will have taken place in the offspring). Now the Komodos might be more likely to survive an environmental change that would put on pressure for adaptation.

Another sex determination system is the XX/XO system of many insects. Pea aphids use this system, where XX = female, but those with only one X are male. Parthenogenesis in aphids can also produce only females. And wouldn’t you know it, there are terms for each. If only females are produced, it is called thelytoky; if only males, arrhenotoky, and if both can be produced, deuterotoky.

Most hymenopterans (bees, wasps) are haplodiploid.
This means that the two sexes have different number of
chromosomes. All the males are the product of unfertilized
haploid egg development, but despite this they are sexually
mature. The females are the result of sexual mating and
fertilization of haploid eggs to make them diploid. Even so,
only the rare diploid egg gets the right environment to
become a new queen.
I said above that there is an exception to haploid eggs being worthless, and here it is. Bees are haplodiploid in their sex determination. Males develop from haploid, unfertilized eggs, while females develop from fertilized, diploid eggs. The queen will mate with one or more males to produce new eggs that will be female, while she will lay unfertilized eggs to produce males, In some cases, the female workers will produce unfertilized eggs to become males as well. This is an example of arrhenotoky.

O.K., we’re almost through the terminology, one more set still to get through. Some animals, like the komodos and the pit vipers we have talked about, reproduce through sexual means, but can also reproduce by parthenogenesis under special circumstances. This is called facultative parthenogenesis. On the other hand, some species have abandoned sex all together and ONLY reproduce by parthenogenesis. This is called obligate parthenogenesis and their populations consist of only females – can you imagine the amount of gossip that must go on.

The vast majority of species that have completely abandoned sex (obligate parthenogens) are polyploid. Whiptail lizards are a good example. Of the all the species of whiptails, parthenogenic and sexual, 15 species are obligate parthenogens. And of these, all are polyploid.

Polyploid whiptails have trouble segregating chromosomes because of the increased number of them, and their spindle apparatuses are usually screwed up. If meiosis is going to fail, why use it? And if you aren’t going to use meiosis, why mate with males to produce embryos, just do it yourself? In addition, these species do tend to be found in extreme climates, where males finding females would be more difficult. Parthenogenesis is a way to keep the species going.

In genomic imprinting, genes from mother and dad are
differently regulated. Only one will be active in the
embryo, so you need inputs from ma and pa. The
silencing of the genes in one sex often are the result of
adding methyl groups to the cytosine or adenine bases,
so that they cannot be transcribed into mRNA;
therefore no protein is made.
Facultative parthenogens only resort to asexual reproduction under certain circumstances, usually when males are in short supply, or when increasing numbers quickly is in the species best interest. I say this is usually true, but the paper we talked about last time concerning pit vipers showed that they use parthenogenesis even when males are present. May be they are just fed up with men.

What is common to facultative parthenogens is a lack of genomic imprinting, ie. there are not specific genes provided ONLY by the mom and other genes provided ONLY by the dad. If genes of the different parent must interact to work properly, this is one type genomic imprinting. If the genes exist in both sperm and egg, but one or the other is always silenced, this another type of imprinting.

If there is no genomic imprinting, an individual can survive with just the genes from one parent. However, imprinting is an important regulatory mechanism in all mammals, so we won’t be adopting parthenogenesis any time soon.

Mammals are the only group of animals in which we find genomic imprinting. Of course there is an exception- the monotremes, the platypuses and echidnas. But they’re known for being difficult to put into any one box. They’re mammals, but they lay eggs for gosh sakes!  In fact, it’s their egg laying that negates their necessity for imprinting.

A 2013 review paper looks into the evolution and mechanisms of genomic imprinting in mammals. The imprinted genes are largely involved in transfer of nutrition from the mother to the embryo, ie. the placenta. All mammals have a placenta of one type or another, but monotreme placentas are very short lived, just until the yolk sac forms.

The only surviving monotremes are the platypus and
four species of echidnas. They both look like science
projects gone horribly wrong. They both are mammals,
but they lay eggs. The platypus male has poison spikes
on its hind feet, but its bill is not like a bird bill. The
mouth is on the underside. The echidna has spines and
a long, narrow snout that house both nose and mouth.
Both monotremes have electrosensors in their
bills to find prey.
On the other hand, marsupial mammals (kangaroos, etc.) give birth to very immature young, which then grow bigger and stronger in their pouches. But while in utero, they are still tethered to mama by a placental connection. This makes sense, since monotremes diverged from placental mammals long before the marsupials did.

Since the placenta is so short-lived in monotremes, many of the reasons for imprinting of genes (placental nutrition) are not required. This would leave them free to pursue parthenogenesis as a reproductive strategy, but I am not aware of any documented instances of this.

Genomic imprinting is much more involved than we have described here, and it is involved in more processes than just placental function, including the size of offspring and the competition between males for female eggs. It’s the reason that ligers are so much bigger than tigons! I encourage you to read more about it.

Next week we can look at some very interesting examples of facultative and obligate parthenogenesis, and then some exceptions as to how parthenogenesis works. Exceptions to an exception!


Renfree, M., Suzuki, S., & Kaneko-Ishino, T. (2012). The origin and evolution of genomic imprinting and viviparity in mammals Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368 (1609), 20120151-20120151 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0151


For more information or classroom activities, see:


Genomic imprinting –

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Exceptions Give Birth To Exceptions

Biology concepts – parthenogenesis, polyploidy, geographic parthenogenesis

Komodo dragons are the largest lizards on Earth, reaching
more than 10 ft (3 m) in length and upwards of 300 lb.s
(136 kg). It was believed that they used the toxic bacteria in
their moths to infect the prey they bite, then wait for it to die.
But later research shows they have a toxin in their saliva as well.
In early 2006, a female Komodo dragon in the London Zoo laid a clutch of 22 eggs – no big deal right? Well, she hadn’t been housed with a male Komodo for more than 2.5 years! She had four offspring come to maturity from that clutch, all males.

Later that same year, a Komodo Dragon in the Chester Zoo in England also laid a clutch of eggs, but she had never been house with a male! What gives? In both cases, DNA tests showed that the offspring had only their mother’s DNA – they were virgin births, technically called parthenogensis (parthenos = virgin, and genesis = birth).

The first incident had been attributed to storage of sperm from a past mating (many animals can do that), but the genetic tests proved that both mothers had resorted to asexual reproduction when faced with a lack of males.

A similar event occurred in 2008 in the Virginia Aquarium. A female black tip shark gave birth to several baby sharks, and they all had her DNA only. This made everyone go, “Hmmmm,” and then they started checking some other reports of shark births to females that hadn’t been housed with males. Like the Komodos, this had been reported, but they assumed they were cases of stored sperm. Low and behold, a 2001 family of bonnethead sharks from the Omaha Zoo showed that all the offspring had just their mother’s DNA as well.

Hammerhead shark come in different flavors. The bonnethead
has a curved front appendage (cephalofoil), while the
hammerheads have scalloped or straight edges. In the front
appendage houses their eyes, as well as an electrical sensor
and it also helps them to turn quickly.
By 2011 we knew of over 70 species of vertebrates could undergo asexual reproduction by some form of parthenogenesis (or related mechanism), including some captive birds, like turkeys and chickens. But there were still more surprises to be seen. Scientists surmised that this abandonment of sex was due to their environment, being held captive without males around – a last ditch effort to save the species as it were.

But a study published in December of 2012 showed that pit vipers, specifically cottonmouth and copperhead snakes, can revert to asexual reproduction and undergo parthenogenesis in the wild, even with males all around! There are many known one-sex species of fish, reptiles, and amphibians that only undergo parthenogenesis as a reproductive strategy; finding a sexual species that will randomly switch to asexual in the wild had not been seen before, especially not in a vertebrate. This was a daunting task, since following the snakes around and proving that they didn’t mate. And then proving that the offspring (if you can catch them) have the same DNA as the mom ain’t easy.

Pit vipers are a group of snakes that can sense prey and
predator by their heat signature. The pit organ is an
infrared heat sensor, controlled by a protein called
TRP1a, a protein that is usually a chemical sensor
in other animals.
So science is now becoming more aware that parthenogenesis is not a freak way of reproducing, it is more common and has more variants than we ever could have imagined. But how does this fit into our previous series on polyploid organisms? believe it or not, in many cases, the two exceptions are linked.

There are two links between polyploidy and parthenogenesis, and they themselves are linked together. First is the issue of meiosis. We have discussed before that polyploidy messes with meiosis. Homologous pairs of chromosomes are hard to align when they don’t come in pairs (odd ploidys) or when there are more than one pair of the same chromosome (tetraploidy and higher even ploidys). The pairing gets mixed up with some left out, or more than one segregating together in meiosis I. This doesn’t even take into account how high ploidys seem to alter the production of centrosomes (centrioles + spindles), the apparatus that pulls the chromosomes apart.

As a result, gametes are more likely to be defective, and dosage problems (how much protein is made due to increased copies of a gene) can render a polyploidy organism sexually immature. These difficulties make it less likely that the organism will successfully reproduce if it has to rely on sexual means of propagation.

Therefore, through genetic drift and natural selection of the sex genes that were being used less, parthenogenesis appeared. With this strategy, the problems of meiosis can be avoided by merely skipping that step and making diploid (or higher ploidy) eggs. Being diploid, the eggs don’t need the contribution of sperm DNA to be complete, they “just” need to be jump started to develop into an embryo. That’s a big “just”, and we will talk about it in a bit.

The second link between polyploidy and parthenogenesis has to do with geography, and is often called the “rule of geographical parthenogenesis.” As a model, let’s use Alaskan bachelors. Men that relocated to Alaska first find gold and later to find oil were moving to a harsh environment. They were spread out over large areas so that the population density was low. So what were the chances that they were going to meet a nice girl, settle down, and have a family out there in the wilds?

In this figure, the desert regions (yellow) and the ice
and snow regions (blue) correspond to where the most
polyploidy and parthenogenic animals are found. In
South America, the ice/snow region is located high in the
mountains – remember that elevation is similar to
movement to extreme latitudes.
It’s the same way with all other species. If they are located in cold or particular harsh climates, or if they find themselves in a geography that separates them from others of their species, then they will be less likely to find a mate. This means that to keep the species going, they have two choices (O.K., neither is really a choice, it's nature finding a way): parthenogenesis or hybridization by mating with a closely related species that they happen to come across.

Either way, parthenogenesis is going to become more common in these habitats. One - they switch to parthenogenesis because they can’t find a mate, or two - they switch to parthenogenesis because they have hybridized and are now quite likely to be polyploid. Our model fails here, at least I hope it does, because I don’t think the Alaskan bachelors did either; they didn’t have babies on their own and I really hope they didn’t hybridize with a local species!

So geography is linked to polyploidy and it is linked to parthenogenesis. Here’s a simpler way of phrasing this geography idea - there is very little parthenogenesis and very few parthenogenic species in the tropics, but as you travel further north or south you gain more of both. In the polar and sub-polar regions, both polyploidy and parthenogenesis are much more popular.

Another factor is elevation. Most people, other than ecologists, don’t think much about it, but going up in elevation tends to mimic moving further north or south of the equator. In fact, every 300 feet of elevation equals one degree of latitude or 70 statute miles north. Elevation brings the same changes in climate and habitat as do changes in latitude. So as you go up a mountainside, you are likely to find more and more polyploid species and more parthenogenic species.

So there is little parthenogenesis where it is hot, and much less sex going on where and when it is cold. That is sort of the opposite of humans; you ever wonder why more babies in the US are born in July through September?

Platythyrea punctata is a ponerine ant of Central and
southern North America, as well as amny Caribbean
islands. It has a nasty sting; it belongs to the same
group as the very toxic bullet ant.
A recent study of a neotropical ant helps to illustrate the idea of geographical parthenogenesis. Platythyrea punctata is a stinging ant that lives in Florida, Texas and Central America, as well as on many Caribbean islands. The 2013 paper shows that those colonies found on islands are exclusively parthenogenic, producing only females from unfertilized eggs. However, the continentally located colonies reproduce almost exclusively by sexual means. Those on islands have lost the genes to have sex, and those on continents have never developed the genes to undergo parthenogenesis. O.K. not quite, some colonies in Central America can produce parthenogenic offspring; I wonder if they were transferred from an island back to the mainland and the traits just haven’t disappeared yet.

The point is that islands are geographically isolated, so finding mates that are genetically different will be difficult, and if an ant isn’t going to gain the advantage of genetic diversity by sex, why go to the cost and energy of having sex. Parthenogenesis allows them to populate much faster and easier.

In general, insects that are parthenogenic are almost exclusively polyploid. No study has been carried out to see if P. punctata on the islands is polyploid, but they do have an abnormally high number of chromosomes for ant (84). As with many species, polyploidy and parthenogenesis in insects seem to be linked; those in tough areas do both because they need to.  

Insect parthenogens and those in other taxa also tend to be less mobile. Parthenogenic insects, for instance, are often flightless. This makes moving around harder, and that means they are more likely to not find mates (one reason to be parthenogenic) or to hybridize with those they can find, and become polyploid (another reason for parthenogenesis).

The New Zealand mud snail, Potamopyrgus antipodarum,
is an invasive snail that can reach amazing densities in
temperate waters, even though each individual is very
small. It was first introduce to England in the 1850’s and
spread to North America and the rest of Europe from
there. Wasn’t identified in the USA until 1987, in Idaho. The
US dime is 18 mm across.
But that doesn’t mean that the relationship between ploidy, reproductive manner and geography is always that defined. Take Potamopyrgus antipodarum, a New Zealand freshwater snail. This single snail species exists in diploid, triploid, and higher ploidy cytotypes – and they all live in the same climate. The polyploid versions of the snail live next to the diploids, with some lakes being <10% male and others being nearly 50% male, so the rule of geographic isolation as a source of hybridization and polyploidy doesn’t seem to fit.


What is more, a 2010 paper that was a collaboration of Indiana University, University of Iowa, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (studying a New Zealand snail!) showed that the P. antipodarum has sexual and asexual reproductive strategies. It is usually assumed that the diploids reproduce sexually and the triploids and higher reproduce by parthenogenesis, but that is not what the researchers found that many of the diploid, triploid and higher ploidy males are offspring of asexual females, while some higher ploidy individuals likely come from sexual reproduction. Leave it to nature to screw up a good pattern.

Now that we know that parthenogenesis is widespread occurs in many different kinds of animals (and plants), let’s dive in a bit deeper. Even though it is reproduction without sex, it is still a battle of the sexes.

Booth, W., Smith, C., Eskridge, P., Hoss, S., Mendelson, J., & Schuett, G. (2012). Facultative parthenogenesis discovered in wild vertebrates Biology Letters, 8 (6), 983-985 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0666

Kellner, K., Seal, J., & Heinze, J. (2013). Sex at the margins: parthenogenesis vs. facultative and obligate sex in a Neotropical ant Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 26 (1), 108-117 DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12025

Neiman, M., Paczesniak, D., Soper, D., Baldwin, A., & Hehman, G. (2011). WIDE VARIATION IN PLOIDY LEVEL AND GENOME SIZE IN A NEW ZEALAND FRESHWATER SNAIL WITH COEXISTING SEXUAL AND ASEXUAL LINEAGES Evolution, 65 (11), 3202-3216 DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01360.x

For more information or classroom activities, see:

Parthenogenesis –

Rule of geographical parthenogenesis –

Polyploidy and parthenogenesis -


Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Carp Diem - Polyploid Fish Seize The Day

Biology concepts – polyploidy, invasive species

There are 60,000 different species of weevils, a type of
beetle. And almost all of them are polyploid! Polyploidy
benefits speciation, so maybe them being polyploid is
why there are 60,000 species. On the left is
Trachelophorus giraffa, named for obvious reasons, and
on the right is Rhigus nigrosparsus. You’ll have to go to
Brazil to see one in person.
We think that polyploid animals are the rare exceptions, and they certainly are in the case of mammals, but there are other groups of animals don’t think twice about being polyploid. Arthropods are notorious for developing polyploid lines, while amphibians and reptiles are probably the most well studied polyploids. But there are more - that cedar planked salmon you enjoyed the other night – it was probably triploid as well.

We pointed out last week that polyploidy in plants has done a lot to promote speciation events, and this seems to be the case in fish as well. While some families have a few polyploid members, like the loaches, or the carps and minnows, other families are completely polyploid, like the Salmonidae (salmon). Wat is more, the families with the greatest number of polyploid members also have the highest number of species overall. Of the 28,000 known species and >60 orders of fish, 63% fall into the 9 orders that include polyploidy – coincidence? I don’t think so.

Remember that polyploidy in plants is well behaved, not much genome restructuring goes on even though there can be subfunctionalization and neofunctionalization leading to speciation at the molecular level. In contrast, fish polyploidy seems to induce a tolerance of change, and gene ordering and genome restructuring seem to run rampant. This seems to be at least one reason for high rates of new species development in fish that are polyploid.

The effects of polyploidy on fish are similar to those we have talked about previously. Polyploid fish tend to be larger, ie. the gigas effect, and they tend to live longer and grow faster, ie. heterosis. Inductions of triploidy or formation of auto- or allopolyploid species tend to have fewer diseases. For some reason, sexual maturation in fish is linked to higher infection rates – most likely due to stress. Finding a mate and having kids is stressful, ask any adult. Stress is directly related to infection rates, as one of the effects of the stress hormone cortisol is to turn down the immune system.

The sunshine bass on top is a diploid female which
is filled with eggs (gravid). In contrast, the female
on the bottom is triploid. She is bigger, even
compared to a gravid fish. The gigas effect in
polyploids is real, and effects sport fishing. Everyone
wants to catch a bigger fish.
Whether or not ploidy level itself has an effect on immune fitness is up for argument. A 2012 opinion paper from three prominent researchers states that increased gene numbers could lead to expression of more immune proteins, and antibodies to more different parasites, so it could increase resistance. They also offer that the mere increase in genes could end up producing more immune cells in total, therefore conferring more resistance.

In plants, a recent study indicates that a disease resistance cluster of genes in soybeans indicates that production of new disease resistance genes could develop by polyploid development. In an autopolyploid soybean, the number of disease resistance genes doubled, but they didn’t produce twice as much protein. It seems that they have begun to evolve independently. This may in turn produce newly functional resistance genes, or on the other hand, may eliminate one of the clusters. It appears that specific immune function and polyploidy may be interpreted only on a case by case basis.

But there negative effects that are similar to plants as well.  Triploid species are often less reproductively active, due either to difficulties in gamete production or to aberrant sex steroid levels as a result of dosage imbalance.

In some cases though, sterility has been used to the advantage of humans - triploid salmon are less likely to return to spawning grounds, which means they stay in the ocean longer, growing fat and happy. For wild salmon fisheries, this means a greater number of bigger fish. For salmon hatcheries and commercial growers, it means less stress on the animals and a greater harvest. Triploidy can be induced in the salmon (and other species) by cold shocking the eggs near the time of fertilization or using chemicals to prevent chromatid separation during meiosis.

Triploid oysters on the west coast are raised so that they can be 
harvested year round. They are bigger and taste better 
than spawning diploids. They are also more disease 
resistant, and this might affect pearl formation, since most 
natural pearls are induced by parasites that bore through the shell.
For a reason completely different than organism size or stress, oyster farmers have also induced triploidy in their product organisms. It seems that spawning reduces the sweetness and size of the oysters. They taste “spawny.” Since triploid oysters do not spawn, they retain their size and sweetness throughout the summer, when diploid oysters would be less tasty and are not harvested.

Pacific oyster species use up to 80% of their body weight for production of sperm and eggs – not good for food harvesting. This can last for most of the late spring and summer, so the triploids allow for harvesting when people are accustomed to avoiding oysters – typically, the rule is don’t eat oysters in any month without an “r.”

But if we harvest fewer diploids, and introduce more triploids – could we end up with a glut of oysters? The diploids that would have been caught are free to reproduce and we end up eating the triploids that wouldn’t have been reproducing anyway. What ecological niches might be disturbed by too many oysters? You can discuss amongst yourselves whether this is a good idea in the long run – I render no opinion one way or the other.

You can argue both sides of the polyploid introduction argument; human efforts to enhance (alter) the zoological face of the planet have met with some disastrous failures, but remember that majority of foreign introductions have been ecologically moot. This point is often overlooked, but we have talked about it before.

Polyploidy in wild salmon is extremely common, so would there really be that great a change? The use of triploid induction is more common in commercial fisheries and in the shellfish industry because they believe it provides a hedge against escapement and breeding with wild populations. Triploid fish and shellfish are sterile, so even if they did escape into the wild, they would be unlikely to breed with the wild type populations.

But Mother Nature always finds a way, doesn’t she? There have several cases of reversion to diploidy in triploid oysters. These shellfish are then free to breed with wild species. And what is more, induction of triploidy is not 100% efficient in fish, so some organisms will remain diploid. The incomplete induction of triploidy has been illustrated brilliantly by the invasion of the asian carp.

What we call the asian carp is actually four different
species. But they all get big. O.K. usually not this big!
They are moving up the Mississippi River and
threaten to enter the Great Lakes. If they do, they could
destroy a multibillion dollar a year fishing industry.
What we refer to as asian carp is actually a mix of four species, the bighead carp, the black carp, the grass carp, and the silver carp. The grass carp was introduced into Geogria from China and the USSR in the 1960’s as a way to control overgrowth of grass and weeds in local ponds – that's what they eat. The interested parties did consider escapement and breeding, so they instituted a program of triploid induction. However, since some eggs escaped triploid development and some fish escaped the ponds, they became invasive. In the late 1980’s a program was introduced to assure that all released fish were triploid, but by that time the damage was done.

The bighead carp and silver carp were introduced into the US in sewage treatment plants and aquaculture ponds as a way to produce clearer water. These two species eat zooplankton and the waste of other animals, so naturally they were a good choice to improve water quality. But as with the grass carp, they ended up in the Mississippi and now have become a great problem. As far as I can tell, bighead carp and silver carp were not required to be tested as triploid before release until 2005 or later.

Nobody wants to bite into their striped bass fillet and find a 
yellow grub. Black carp were introduced to destroy the 
snails that serve as one life cycle stages of the grub. My Gosh! 
Did this guy actually circle the grub with his wedding ring?!
The black carp was also introduced to help aquaculture farms. In raising striped bass, the yellow grub had become a major problem. The grub arrives in the waste of wading birds and can then wreak havoc by multiplying in snails and then attacking the striped bass fry. They burrow into the fish and cause large cysts to form. You can’t sell a food fish that releases a worm when you cut into it.

Black carp love snails, so they were introduced into fish farm ponds in the 1990’s to interrupt the yellow grub life cycle. The plan worked, and worked well; too bad the work to induce sterility did not work as well - the black carp has ended up in the Mississippi as have the other species of asian carp.

The result of these escapes is that rivers in 23 states are choked with asian carp, to the point that many native fish die off. True - the fish are big, very big, so they could provide a source of food. But they haven’t caught on as a food fish, and some places (like Canada) won’t even allow them to be sold for food. Fishing them for sport isn’t going to work as well, as their diets don’t help. How would you bait a hook with a piece of grass or a zooplankton?

The numbers have grown so large in recent years that other problems have developed. The silver carp has a strange habit of leaping out of the water when a boat motor approaches; there have been hundreds of instances where people have been struck by the fish. Noses have been broken, boats have been damaged, and this is all on top of losing the native species in the rivers. Check out this video of the silver carp problem and the birth of a new sport, aerial bowfishing.

Jeff Goldblum said it in Jurassic Park – life finds a
way. There is no way of predicting which turn life
will take, or the lengths evolution will go to help
life persist in the face of huge obstacles. Too often,
we are that obstacle.
There are no exceptions to two rules of nature: one - life will find a way to exist in every form you can imagine and using strategies that you can’t even imagine; and two – altering nature through anything other than natural selection is going to have unintended consequences. Thus, polyploidy is a strategy that fish have employed to diversify and fill niches, and polyploidy used by humans has been both a benefit and a bane.

But we haven’t even talked about one of the most interesting exceptions in nature that is related to polyploid development; the link between extra sets of chromosomes and the abandonment of sexual reproduction. To illuminate this exception, we will focus on the insect, lizard and amphibian polyploids next time.


Ashfield, T., Egan, A., Pfeil, B., Chen, N., Podicheti, R., Ratnaparkhe, M., Ameline-Torregrosa, C., Denny, R., Cannon, S., Doyle, J., Geffroy, V., Roe, B., Saghai Maroof, M., Young, N., & Innes, R. (2012). Evolution of a Complex Disease Resistance Gene Cluster in Diploid Phaseolus and Tetraploid Glycine PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 159 (1), 336-354 DOI: 10.1104/pp.112.195040

King, K., Seppala, O., & Neiman, M. (2012). Is more better? Polyploidy and parasite resistance Biology Letters, 8 (4), 598-600 DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.1152
For more information and classroom activities, see:


Polyploidy in aquaculture –

Asian carp –
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/management/aqua024.html