Literature DB >> 11392395

Genetics, experience, and host-plant preference in Eurosta solidaginis: implications for host shifts and speciation.

T P Craig1, J D Horner, J K Itami.   

Abstract

Host-associated mating is crucial in maintaining the partial reproductive isolation between the host races of Eurosta solidaginis (Diptera: Tephritidae), a fly that forms galls on Solidago altissima and S. gigantea. (We refer to flies reared from S. gigantea as gigantea flies and those reared from S. altissima as altissima flies.) We measured the host preference of males and females of both host races, F1 hybrids between the host races, F2, and backcrosses to both host races. Male and female altissima flies and female gigantea flies had high host fidelity, whereas male gigantea flies had low host fidelity. This result suggests that there may be gene flow between the host races due to nonassortative mating that occurs when male gigantea mate with altissima females on S. altissima. This indicates assortative-mating mechanisms in addition to host-associated mating are required to produce the partial reproductive isolation between the host races that has been observed. Nongenetic factors had no influence on host preference. Larval conditioning did not influence host preference: reciprocal F1 hybrids reared in S. altissima and S. gigantea both preferred S. gigantea. Adult experience had no impact on host preference: females preferred their natal host plant regardless of which host they encountered first as an adult. The hypothesis that maternal effects influence preferences was rejected because male and female flies did not show a consistent preference for the host plant of their mother. We also found no evidence that preference was a sex-linked trait because F1 and backcrosses to the host races with different combinations of X chromosomes from the two host races preferred S. gigantea. Our results indicate that host preference is not determined by a large number of genes because preference of hybrids did not correspond to the proportion of the genome derived from each host race. The strength of the ovipuncture preference for S. gigantea by gigantea females, the females of both reciprocal F1 hybrids, the backcross to gigantea, and F2s indicates that preference is inherited nonadditively at a limited number of loci. The F1 female hybrids, however, had a weaker host preference for S. gigantea than the pure gigantea host race, indicating that there may be incomplete dominance or modifier loci. Males had different host preference patterns than females, with individual male gigantea and male F1 hybrids usually exhibiting preference exclusively for S. gigantea or S. altissima. One hypothesis explaining the difference in host preference between males and females is that the same gene influences both female and male host preference, but it is a sex-influenced gene. Thus, males carrying the gene for S. gigantea preference have an intermediate host preference, whereas females have a strong host preference to S. gigantea. In summary, we found that the host preference that produces host-associated mating is inherited nonadditively at a relatively small number of loci on autosomal genes. This mode of inheritance meets the assumptions of models of sympatric speciation, indicating that the host races could have evolved in sympatry.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11392395     DOI: 10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[0773:geahpp]2.0.co;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  14 in total

Review 1.  Host races in plant-feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation.

Authors:  Michele Drès; James Mallet
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-04-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Genetic architecture underlying host choice differentiation in the sympatric host races of Lochmaea capreae leaf beetles.

Authors:  Shaghayegh Soudi; Klaus Reinhold; Leif Engqvist
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 1.082

3.  Genetic architecture underlying convergent evolution of egg-laying behavior in a seed-feeding beetle.

Authors:  Charles W Fox; James D Wagner; Sara Cline; Frances Ann Thomas; Frank J Messina
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 1.082

4.  Recurrent evolution of host-specialized races in a globally distributed parasite.

Authors:  Karen D McCoy; Elodie Chapuis; Claire Tirard; Thierry Boulinier; Yannis Michalakis; Céline Le Bohec; Yvon Le Maho; Michel Gauthier-Clerc
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Quantitative genetics of feeding behavior in two ecological races of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum.

Authors:  M C Caillaud; S Via
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-09-07       Impact factor: 3.821

6.  Two behavioural traits promote fine-scale species segregation and moderate hybridisation in a recovering sympatric fur seal population.

Authors:  Melanie L Lancaster; Simon D Goldsworthy; Paul Sunnucks
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 3.260

7.  Host-driven diversification of gall-inducing Acacia thrips and the aridification of Australia.

Authors:  Michael J McLeish; Thomas W Chapman; Michael P Schwarz
Journal:  BMC Biol       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 7.431

8.  Invasion success of a scarab beetle within its native range: host range expansion versus host-shift.

Authors:  Marie-Caroline Lefort; Stéphane Boyer; Saïana De Romans; Travis Glare; Karen Armstrong; Susan Worner
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Are adaptation costs necessary to build up a local adaptation pattern?

Authors:  Sara Magalhães; Elodie Blanchet; Martijn Egas; Isabelle Olivieri
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 3.260

10.  Parallel patterns of morphological and behavioral variation among host-associated populations of two gall wasp species.

Authors:  Scott P Egan; Glen R Hood; Gabriel DeVela; James R Ott
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.