scholarly journals When does female multiple mating evolve to adjust inbreeding? Effects of inbreeding depression, direct costs, mating constraints, and polyandry as a threshold trait

Evolution ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 70 (9) ◽  
pp. 1927-1943 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bradley Duthie ◽  
Greta Bocedi ◽  
Jane M. Reid
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bradley Duthie ◽  
Greta Bocedi ◽  
Ryan R. Germain ◽  
Jane M. Reid

AbstractInbreeding depression is widely hypothesised to drive adaptive evolution of pre-copulatory and post-copulatory mechanisms of inbreeding avoidance, which in turn are hypothesised to affect evolution of polyandry (i.e., female multiple mating). However, surprisingly little theory or modelling critically examines selection for pre-copulatory or post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance, or both strategies, given evolutionary constraints and direct costs, or examines how evolution of inbreeding avoidance strategies might feed back to affect evolution of polyandry. Selection for post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance, but not for pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance, requires polyandry, while interactions between pre-copulatory and post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance might cause functional redundancy (i.e., ‘degeneracy’) potentially generating complex evolutionary dynamics among inbreeding strategies and polyandry. We used individual-based modelling to quantify evolution of interacting pre-copulatory and post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance and associated polyandry given strong inbreeding depression and different evolutionary constraints and direct costs. We found that evolution of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance increased selection for initially rare polyandry, and that evolution of a costly inbreeding avoidance strategy became negligible over time given a lower cost alternative strategy. Further, fixed pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance often completely precluded evolution of polyandry and hence post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance, but fixed post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance did not preclude evolution of pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance. Evolution of inbreeding avoidance phenotypes and associated polyandry are therefore affected by evolutionary feedbacks and degeneracy. All else being equal, evolution of pre-copulatory inbreeding avoidance and resulting low polyandry is more likely when post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance is precluded or costly, and evolution of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance greatly facilitates evolution of costly polyandry.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Mladen Djurasovic ◽  
Jeffrey L. Gum ◽  
Charles H. Crawford ◽  
Kirk Owens ◽  
Morgan Brown ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEThe midline transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIDLIF) using cortical screw fixation is a novel, minimally invasive procedure that may offer enhanced recovery over traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Little information is available regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of the MIDLIF over conventional TLIF. The purpose of this study was to compare cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive MIDLIF with open TLIF.METHODSFrom a prospective, multisurgeon, surgical database, a consecutive series of patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIDLIF for degenerative lumbar conditions was identified and propensity matched to patients undergoing TLIF based on age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) class, and levels fused. Direct costs at 1 year were collected, including costs associated with the index surgical visit as well as costs associated with readmission. Improvement in health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D and SF-6D.RESULTSOf 214 and 181 patients undergoing MIDLIF and TLIF, respectively, 33 cases in each cohort were successfully propensity matched. Consistent with propensity matching, there was no difference in age, sex, BMI, diagnosis, ASA class, smoking status, or levels fused. Spondylolisthesis was the most common indication for surgery in both cohorts. Variable direct costs at 1 year were $2493 lower in the MIDLIF group than in the open TLIF group (mean $15,867 vs $17,612, p = 0.073). There was no difference in implant (p = 0.193) or biologics (p = 0.145) cost, but blood utilization (p = 0.015), operating room supplies (p < 0.001), hospital room and board (p < 0.001), pharmacy (p = 0.010), laboratory (p = 0.004), and physical therapy (p = 0.009) costs were all significantly lower in the MIDLIF group. Additionally, the mean length of stay was decreased for MIDLIF as well (3.21 vs 4.02 days, p = 0.05). The EQ-5D gain at 1 year was 0.156 for MIDLIF and 0.141 for open TLIF (p = 0.821). The SF-6D gain at 1 year was 0.071 for MIDLIF and 0.057 for open TLIF (p = 0.551).CONCLUSIONSCompared with patients undergoing traditional open TLIF, those undergoing MIDLIF have similar 1-year gains in health-related quality of life, with total direct costs that are $2493 lower. Although the findings were not statistically significant, minimally invasive MIDLIF showed improved cost-effectiveness at 1 year compared with open TLIF.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document