Literature DB >> 21119701

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

M A Mallet1, A K Chippindale.   

Abstract

Stronger selection on males has the potential to lower the deleterious mutation load of females, reducing the cost of sex. However, few studies have directly quantified the strength of selection for both sexes. As the magnitude of inbreeding depression (ID) is related to the strength of selection, we measured the cost of inbreeding for both males and females in a laboratory population of Drosophila melanogaster. Using a novel technique for inbreeding, we found significant ID for both juvenile viability and adult fitness in both sexes. The genetic variation responsible for this depression in fitness appeared to be recessive for adult fitness (h=0.11) and partially additive for juvenile viability (h=0.29). ID was identical across the sexes in terms of juvenile viability but was significantly more deleterious for males than females as adults, even though female X-chromosome homogamety should predispose them to a higher inbreeding load. We estimated the strength of selection on adult males to be 1.24 greater than on adult females, and this appears to be a consequence of selection arising from competition for mates. Combined with the generally positive intersexual genetic correlation for inbred lines, our results suggest that the mutation load of sexual females could be meaningfully reduced by stronger selection acting on males.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21119701      PMCID: PMC3186252          DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.148

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)        ISSN: 0018-067X            Impact factor:   3.821


  30 in total

Review 1.  Strength and tempo of directional selection in the wild.

Authors:  H E Hoekstra; J M Hoekstra; D Berrigan; S N Vignieri; A Hoang; C E Hill; P Beerli; J G Kingsolver
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-07-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Recessive mutations and the maintenance of sex in structured populations.

Authors:  A F Agrawal; J R Chasnov
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

Authors:  A F Agrawal
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-06-07       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex.

Authors:  S Siller
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2001-06-07       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  X-chromosomal heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  A N Wilton; J A Sved
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Inbreeding depression influences lifetime breeding success in a wild population of red deer (Cervus elaphus).

Authors:  J Slate; L E Kruuk; T C Marshall; J M Pemberton; T H Clutton-Brock
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2000-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Inbreeding load, average dominance and the mutation rate for mildly deleterious alleles in Mimulus guttatus.

Authors:  J H Willis
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  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

9.  Male-male competition magnifies inbreeding depression in wild house mice.

Authors:  S Meagher; D J Penn; W K Potts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-03-28       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Gene expression during the life cycle of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Michelle N Arbeitman; Eileen E M Furlong; Farhad Imam; Eric Johnson; Brian H Null; Bruce S Baker; Mark A Krasnow; Matthew P Scott; Ronald W Davis; Kevin P White
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  27 in total

1.  Are males the more 'sensitive' sex?

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

2.  Variation in selective intensity over space alters classic mutation load predictions.

Authors:  A F Agrawal
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Quantifying maladaptation during the evolution of sexual dimorphism.

Authors:  Genevieve Matthews; Sandra Hangartner; David G Chapple; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Winners have higher pre-copulatory mating success but losers have better post-copulatory outcomes.

Authors:  David C S Filice; Reuven Dukas
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Does inbreeding affect gene expression in birds?

Authors:  Bengt Hansson; Sara Naurin; Dennis Hasselquist
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  No evidence of positive assortative mating for genetic quality in fruit flies.

Authors:  Nathaniel P Sharp; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Recessive Z-linked lethals and the retention of haplotype diversity in a captive butterfly population.

Authors:  Ilik J Saccheri; Samuel Whiteford; Carl J Yung; Arjen E Van't Hof
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Susceptibility of the male fitness phenotype to spontaneous mutation.

Authors:  Martin A Mallet; Christopher M Kimber; Adam K Chippindale
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 3.703

9.  Intralocus sexual conflict resolved through gene duplication.

Authors:  Miguel Gallach; Esther Betrán
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 17.712

10.  Does kin selection moderate sexual conflict in Drosophila?

Authors:  Adam K Chippindale; Meredith Berggren; Joshua H M Alpern; Robert Montgomerie
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.