2
$\begingroup$

If we can engineer the extinction of a whole species of mosquitos with male-only-offspring genetic mutation, how come such scenario never happened naturally in the past to other species? Or has it?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean exactly by engineering a species with male-only-offspring genetic mutation? $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jun 20 '17 at 14:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think you can make the population extinct this way. Individuals whose genetics allow them to have female offspring would be hugely favored evolutionary. You might drastically reduce the population, you might drastically reduce the incidence of mosquitoes biting humans, but I don't think you'll achieve extinction. $\endgroup$ – swbarnes2 Jun 21 '17 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ @swbarnes2 what mechanism would favour the unmodified individuals?Your comment is not answering this. $\endgroup$ – daniel.sedlacek Jul 1 '17 at 15:35
1
$\begingroup$

It has happened the R2D2 mutation in mice is famous for it, the mutation prevents or drastically reduces female offspring. It can wipe out entire populations when it shows up, it doesn't wipe out the species becasue there are frankly too many mice, separated by too much distance, while breeding too fast for the gene to spread fast enough before the population crashes. If mice happened to live on only one island however they would be gone. These events are called selfish sweeps or selective sweeps that result from a transmission bias in a gene.

the opposite can also occur (female only) however this is slighly less likely to lead to instant extinction since a possible out exists. Lepidodactylus lugubris(a gecko) being a famous example and is a female only species that reproduced through parthenogenesis. These types of species are exceedingly rare and have problems however as they are very vulnerable to disease since they have low diversity. Species like this are driven extinct indirectly by the mutation that led to a female only species as their diversity sufferers drastically so disease or environmental change can wipe them out more easily.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The link appears to be broken. $\endgroup$ – canadianer May 20 '18 at 4:11
  • $\begingroup$ @canadianer try it now. $\endgroup$ – John May 20 '18 at 4:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.