Literature DB >> 19566703

Intralocus sexual conflict.

G Sander van Doorn1.   

Abstract

Intralocus sexual conflict arises when there are sex-specific optima for a trait that is expressed in both sexes and when the constraint of a shared gene pool prevents males and females from reaching their optima independently. This situation may result in a negative intersexual correlation for fitness. Here I first discuss key differences between intra- and interlocus conflict, the type of sexual conflict that arises in mating interactions between males and females. I then review the experimental evidence for the existence of genomewide sexually antagonistic variation and discuss how intralocus conflict can be resolved. Substantial genomewide sexually antagonistic variation exists in Drosophila melanogaster lab populations. Yet, in the same species, sex-specific gene regulation appears to evolve rapidly, suggesting that the obstacles to the resolution of intralocus conflict are minor. The fact that negative intersexual correlations for fitness are observed even if sexual dimorphism can evolve rapidly suggests that intralocus conflict is highly dynamic. The final part of this review examines the evolutionary consequences of intralocus sexual conflict for the evolution of the sex chromosomes, sexual selection, and sex determination. Intralocus conflict helps to explain many of the peculiar features of the sex chromosomes and has shaped the functional bias and expression biases of sex-linked genes. The genomic distribution of sexually selected genes, in particular, affects sexual selection in various ways. The presence of sexually antagonistic variation can strongly interfere with the good genes' process of sexual selection and erode the genetic benefits of mate choice. Regarding sex determination, this review concentrates on evolutionary transitions between different sex determination mechanisms. Such transitions have occurred frequently in several taxa. Theory and empirical data suggest an important role for intralocus conflict in triggering switches between sex determination systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19566703     DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04573.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci        ISSN: 0077-8923            Impact factor:   5.691


  71 in total

1.  Everything you always wanted to know about sex ... in flies.

Authors:  M N Arbeitman; Artyom Kopp; M L Siegal; M Van Doren
Journal:  Sex Dev       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 1.824

Review 2.  Gene duplication, tissue-specific gene expression and sexual conflict in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae).

Authors:  Richard H Baker; Apurva Narechania; Philip M Johns; Gerald S Wilkinson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Resolving intralocus sexual conflict: genetic mechanisms and time frame.

Authors:  Andrew D Stewart; Alison Pischedda; William R Rice
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2010 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.645

4.  Transitions between male and female heterogamety caused by sex-antagonistic selection.

Authors:  G Sander van Doorn; Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-07-13       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Stable linkage disequilibrium owing to sexual antagonism.

Authors:  Francisco Ubeda; David Haig; Manus M Patten
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Contrasting effects of intralocus sexual conflict on sexually antagonistic coevolution.

Authors:  Tanya M Pennell; Freek J H de Haas; Edward H Morrow; G Sander van Doorn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  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

8.  Evolutionary inevitability of sexual antagonism.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Sexual and parental antagonism shape genomic architecture.

Authors:  Manus M Patten; Francisco Ubeda; David Haig
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  Constraints on the coevolution of contemporary human males and females.

Authors:  Stephen C Stearns; Diddahally R Govindaraju; Douglas Ewbank; Sean G Byars
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.