Literature DB >> 21321197

Natural selection stops the evolution of male attractiveness.

Emma Hine1, Katrina McGuigan, Mark W Blows.   

Abstract

Sexual selection in natural populations acts on highly heritable traits and tends to be relatively strong, implicating sexual selection as a causal agent in many phenotypic radiations. Sexual selection appears to be ineffectual in promoting phenotypic divergence among contemporary natural populations, however, and there is little evidence from artificial selection experiments that sexual fitness can evolve. Here, we demonstrate that a multivariate male trait preferred by Drosophila serrata females can respond to selection and results in the maintenance of male mating success. The response to selection was associated with a gene of major effect increasing in frequency from 12 to 35% in seven generations. No further response to selection, or increase in frequency of the major gene, was observed between generations 7 and 11, indicating an evolutionary limit had been reached. Genetic analyses excluded both depletion of genetic variation and overdominance as causes of the evolutionary limit. Relaxing artificial selection resulted in the loss of 52% of the selection response after a further five generations, demonstrating that the response under artificial sexual selection was opposed by antagonistic natural selection. We conclude that male D. serrata sexually selected traits, and attractiveness to D. serrata females conferred by these traits, were held at an evolutionary limit by the lack of genetic variation that would allow an increase in sexual fitness while simultaneously maintaining nonsexual fitness. Our results suggest that sexual selection is unlikely to cause divergence among natural populations without a concomitant change in natural selection, a conclusion consistent with observational evidence from natural populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21321197      PMCID: PMC3048143          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1011876108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  33 in total

Review 1.  Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence.

Authors:  J S Kotiaho
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2001-08

2.  Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits.

Authors:  Mark W Blows; Stephen F Chenoweth; Emma Hine
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2004-03-09       Impact factor: 3.926

3.  Mixed model analysis of a selection experiment for food intake in mice.

Authors:  K Meyer; W G Hill
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 4.  Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits.

Authors:  Toby Johnson; Nick Barton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2005-07-29       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Characterizing the evolution of genetic variance using genetic covariance tensors.

Authors:  Emma Hine; Stephen F Chenoweth; Howard D Rundle; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition.

Authors:  M Higgie; S Chenoweth; M W Blows
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-10-20       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Are traits that experience reinforcement also under sexual selection?

Authors:  Megan Higgie; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 3.926

8.  An evolutionary limit to male mating success.

Authors:  Katrina McGuigan; Anna Van Homrigh; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2008-03-18       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  Study of the genetic transmission of hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia in a 195 member kindred.

Authors:  R C Elston; K K Namboodiri; C J Glueck; R Fallat; R Tsang; V Leuba
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  1975-07       Impact factor: 1.670

10.  An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Howard D Rundle; Anders Odeen; Arne Ø Mooers
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2007-03-09       Impact factor: 3.260

View more
  24 in total

1.  Simultaneous Estimation of Additive and Mutational Genetic Variance in an Outbred Population of Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Katrina McGuigan; J David Aguirre; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Evolution of the additive genetic variance-covariance matrix under continuous directional selection on a complex behavioural phenotype.

Authors:  Vincent Careau; Matthew E Wolak; Patrick A Carter; Theodore Garland
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  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

4.  Dominance genetic variance for traits under directional selection in Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Jacqueline L Sztepanacz; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Why does allometry evolve so slowly?

Authors:  David Houle; Luke T Jones; Ryan Fortune; Jacqueline L Sztepanacz
Journal:  Integr Comp Biol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 3.326

6.  Comparing G: multivariate analysis of genetic variation in multiple populations.

Authors:  J D Aguirre; E Hine; K McGuigan; M W Blows
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Quantitative genetic variance and multivariate clines in the Ivyleaf morning glory, Ipomoea hederacea.

Authors:  Amanda J Stock; Brandon E Campitelli; John R Stinchcombe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 6.237

8.  Time flies: Time of day and social environment affect cuticular hydrocarbon sexual displays in Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Susan N Gershman; Ethan Toumishey; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Artificial selection reveals sex differences in the genetic basis of sexual attractiveness.

Authors:  Thomas P Gosden; Adam J Reddiex; Stephen F Chenoweth
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Natural and sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons: a quantitative genetic analysis.

Authors:  Jacob D Berson; Marlene Zuk; Leigh W Simmons
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.