Literature DB >> 19154364

Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males.

Michael C Whitlock1, Aneil F Agrawal.   

Abstract

Healthy males are likely to have higher mating success than unhealthy males because of differential expression of condition-dependent traits such as mate searching intensity, fighting ability, display vigor, and some types of exaggerated morphological characters. We therefore expect that most new mutations that are deleterious for overall fitness may also be deleterious for male mating success. From this perspective, sexual selection is not limited to influencing those genes directly involved in exaggerated morphological traits but rather affects most, if not all, genes in the genome. If true, sexual selection can be an important force acting to reduce the frequency of deleterious mutations and, as a result, mutation load. We review the literature and find various forms of indirect evidence that sexual selection helps to eliminate deleterious mutations. However, direct evidence is scant, and there are almost no data available to address a key issue: is selection in males stronger than selection in females? In addition, the total effect of sexual selection on mutation load is complicated by possible increases in mutation rate that may be attributable to sexual selection. Finally, sexual selection affects population fitness not only through mutation load but also through sexual conflict, making it difficult to empirically measure how sexual selection affects load. Several lines of enquiry are suggested to better fill large gaps in our understanding of sexual selection and its effect on genetic load.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19154364     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00558.x

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


  76 in total

1.  Inbreeding reveals stronger net selection on Drosophila melanogaster males: implications for mutation load and the fitness of sexual females.

Authors:  M A Mallet; A K Chippindale
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Are males the more 'sensitive' sex?

Authors:  A F Agrawal
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Reduction in the cumulative effect of stress-induced inbreeding depression due to intragenerational purging in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  L S Enders; L Nunney
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Sex linkage, sex-specific selection, and the role of recombination in the evolution of sexually dimorphic gene expression.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Evolutionary optimum for male sexual traits characterized using the multivariate Robertson-Price Identity.

Authors:  Matthieu Delcourt; Mark W Blows; J David Aguirre; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The effect of parasites on sex differences in selection.

Authors:  N P Sharp; C M Vincent
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Sexual selection against deleterious mutations via variable male search success.

Authors:  Kelsie Maclellan; Michael C Whitlock; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2009-07-22       Impact factor: 3.703

8.  Dietary stress does not strengthen selection against single deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  K MacLellan; L Kwan; M C Whitlock; H D Rundle
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.821

9.  The resolution of sexual antagonism by gene duplication.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Sexual selection protects against extinction.

Authors:  Alyson J Lumley; Łukasz Michalczyk; James J N Kitson; Lewis G Spurgin; Catriona A Morrison; Joanne L Godwin; Matthew E Dickinson; Oliver Y Martin; Brent C Emerson; Tracey Chapman; Matthew J G Gage
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.