Literature DB >> 21792225

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

K MacLellan1, L Kwan, M C Whitlock, H D Rundle.   

Abstract

Stress is generally thought to increase the strength of selection, although empirical results are mixed and general conclusions are difficult because data are limited. Here we compare the fitness effects of nine independent recessive mutations in Drosophila melanogaster in a high- and low-dietary-stress environment, estimating the strength of selection on these mutations arising from both a competitive measure of male reproductive success and productivity (female fecundity and the subsequent survival to adulthood of her offspring). The effect of stress on male reproductive success has not been addressed previously for individual loci and is of particular interest with respect to the alignment of natural and sexual selection. Our results do not support the hypothesis that stress increases the efficacy of selection arising from either fitness component. Results concerning the alignment of natural and sexual selection were mixed, although data are limited. In the low-stress environment, selection on mating success and productivity were concordant for five of nine mutations (four out of four when restricted to those with significant or near-significant productivity effects), whereas in the high-stress environment, selection aligned for seven of nine mutations (two out of two when restricted to those having significant productivity effects). General conclusions as to the effects of stress on the strength of selection and the alignment of natural and sexual selection await data from additional mutations, fitness components and stressors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21792225      PMCID: PMC3282384          DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2011.60

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


  30 in total

1.  Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  M D Jennions; A P Møller; M Petrie
Journal:  Q Rev Biol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.875

2.  Whole-genome effects of ethyl methanesulfonate-induced mutation on nine quantitative traits in outbred Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  H P Yang; A Y Tanikawa; W A Van Voorhies; J C Silva; A S Kondrashov
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 3.  Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection.

Authors:  M C Whitlock
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli.

Authors:  S K Remold; R E Lenski
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-09-25       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

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

6.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex.

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

Review 7.  Environmental duress and epistasis: how does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations?

Authors:  Aneil F Agrawal; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 17.712

8.  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

9.  The effect of thermal stress on the mating behavior of three Drosophila species.

Authors:  Z J Patton; R A Krebs
Journal:  Physiol Biochem Zool       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.247

10.  Environmental stress and mutational load in diploid strains of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Authors:  K Szafraniec; R H Borts; R Korona
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-01-16       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Does your gene need a background check? How genetic background impacts the analysis of mutations, genes, and evolution.

Authors:  Christopher H Chandler; Sudarshan Chari; Ian Dworkin
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 11.639

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.