Literature DB >> 22226747

The effect of sexual selection on offspring fitness depends on the nature of genetic variation.

Tristan A F Long1, Aneil F Agrawal, Locke Rowe.   

Abstract

Whether the changes brought about by sexual selection are, on the whole, congruent or incongruent with the changes favored by natural selection is a fundamentally important question in evolutionary biology. Although a number of theoretical models have assumed that sexual selection reinforces natural selection [1, 2], others assume these forces are in opposition [3-5]. Empirical results have been mixed (see reviews in [1, 6-8]) and the reasons for the differences among studies are unclear. Variable outcomes are expected if populations differ in their evolutionary histories and therefore harbor different amounts and types of segregating genetic variation. Here, we constructed populations of Drosophila melanogaster that differed in this regard to directly test this hypothesis. In well-adapted populations, sexually successful males sired unfit daughters, indicating sexual and natural selection are in conflict. However, in populations containing an influx of maladaptive alleles, attractive males sired offspring of high fitness, suggesting that sexual selection reinforces natural selection. Taken together, these results emphasize the importance of evolutionary history on the outcome of sexual selection. Consequently, studies based on laboratory populations, cultured for prolonged periods under homogeneous conditions, may provide a skewed perspective on the relationship between sexual and natural selection.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22226747     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  48 in total

1.  Indirect effects of human-induced environmental change on offspring production mediated by behavioural responses.

Authors:  Ulrika Candolin; Anne Nieminen; Johanna Nyman
Journal:  Oecologia       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 3.225

2.  Evolutionary inevitability of sexual antagonism.

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

3.  Comparing the intersex genetic correlation for fitness across novel environments in the fruit fly, Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  D Punzalan; M Delcourt; H D Rundle
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Sexual selection protects against extinction.

Authors:  Alyson J Lumley; Łukasz Michalczyk; James J N Kitson; Lewis G Spurgin; Catriona A Morrison; Joanne L Godwin; Matthew E Dickinson; Oliver Y Martin; Brent C Emerson; Tracey Chapman; Matthew J G Gage
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 5.  Sex-biased gene expression and sexual conflict throughout development.

Authors:  Fiona C Ingleby; Ilona Flis; Edward H Morrow
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 10.005

6.  Female, but not male, nematodes evolve under experimental sexual coevolution.

Authors:  K Fritzsche; N Timmermeyer; M Wolter; N K Michiels
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Heightened condition-dependence of the sexual transcriptome as a function of genetic quality in Drosophila melanogaster head tissue.

Authors:  Antonino Malacrinò; Christopher M Kimber; Martin Brengdahl; Urban Friberg
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-07-10       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Sexual selection, body mass and molecular evolution interact to predict diversification in birds.

Authors:  Maider Iglesias-Carrasco; Michael D Jennions; Simon Y W Ho; David A Duchêne
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  An experimental test of the mutation-selection balance model for the maintenance of genetic variance in fitness components.

Authors:  Nathaniel P Sharp; Aneil F Agrawal
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.