Literature DB >> 19453376

Association between sex ratio distortion and sexually antagonistic fitness consequences of female choice.

Tim Connallon1, Erin Jakubowski.   

Abstract

Genetic variation can be beneficial to one sex yet harmful when expressed in the other-a condition referred to as sexual antagonism. Because X chromosomes are transmitted from fathers to daughters, and sexually antagonistic fitness variation is predicted to often be X-linked, mates of relatively low-fitness males might produce high-fitness daughters whereas mates of high-fitness males produce low-fitness daughters. Such fitness consequences have been predicted to influence the evolution of female mating biases and the offspring sex ratio. Females might evolve to prefer mates that provide good genes for daughters or might adjust offspring sex ratios in favor of the sex with the highest relative fitness. We test these possibilities in a laboratory-adapted population of Drosophila melanogaster, and find that females preferentially mate with males carrying genes that are deleterious for daughters. Preferred males produce equal numbers of sons and daughters, whereas unpreferred males produce female-biased sex ratios. As a consequence, mean offspring fitness of unpreferred males is higher than offspring fitness of preferred males. This observation has several interesting implications for sexual selection and the maintenance of population genetic variation for fitness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19453376      PMCID: PMC2778201          DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00692.x

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


  19 in total

1.  Natural selection in a bottle.

Authors:  David Houle; Locke Rowe
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2002-12-11       Impact factor: 3.926

2.  Within-clutch variation in offspring sex determined by differences in sire body size: cryptic mate choice in the wild.

Authors:  Ryan Calsbeek; Barry Sinervo
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.411

3.  Sexual selection can resolve sex-linked sexual antagonism.

Authors:  Arianne Y K Albert; Sarah P Otto
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-10-07       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Do female Drosophila melanogaster adaptively bias offspring sex ratios in relation to the age of their mate?

Authors:  Tristan A F Long; Alison Pischedda
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-09-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict.

Authors:  Robert M Cox; Ryan Calsbeek
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.926

6.  Possible nonrandom utilization of X- and Y-bearing sperm in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  A P Mange
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1970-05       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 7.  Sex ratio variation in mammals.

Authors:  T H Clutton-Brock; G R Iason
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.875

8.  Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females.

Authors:  U Friberg; G Arnqvist
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.411

9.  Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila.

Authors:  A K Chippindale; J R Gibson; W R Rice
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-01-30       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection.

Authors:  Alison Pischedda; Adam K Chippindale
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 8.029

View more
  8 in total

1.  Female mating preferences determine system-level evolution in a gene network model.

Authors:  Janna L Fierst
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 1.082

2.  Signatures of sex-antagonistic selection on recombining sex chromosomes.

Authors:  Mark Kirkpatrick; Rafael F Guerrero
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  A general population genetic framework for antagonistic selection that accounts for demography and recurrent mutation.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Is the X chromosome a hot spot for sexually antagonistic polymorphisms? Biases in current empirical tests of classical theory.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  The genomic location of sexually antagonistic variation: some cautionary comments.

Authors:  James D Fry
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict.

Authors:  Tanya M Pennell; Edward H Morrow
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Epigenetics and sex-specific fitness: an experimental test using male-limited evolution in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Jessica K Abbott; Paolo Innocenti; Adam K Chippindale; Edward H Morrow
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.