| Literature DB >> 24004935 |
Hanne Løvlie1, Mark A F Gillingham, Kirsty Worley, Tommaso Pizzari, David S Richardson.
Abstract
Cryptic female choice may enable polyandrous females to avoid inbreeding or bias offspring variability at key loci after mating. However, the role of these genetic benefits in cryptic female choice remains poorly understood. Female red junglefowl, Gallus gallus, bias sperm use in favour of unrelated males. Here, we experimentally investigate whether this bias is driven by relatedness per se, or by similarity at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), genes central to vertebrate acquired immunity, where polymorphism is critical to an individual's ability to combat pathogens. Through experimentally controlled natural matings, we confirm that selection against related males' sperm occurs within the female reproductive tract but demonstrate that this is more accurately predicted by MHC similarity: controlling for relatedness per se, more sperm reached the eggs when partners were MHC--dissimilar. Importantly, this effect appeared largely owing to similarity at a single MHC locus (class I minor). Further, the effect of MHC similarity was lost following artificial insemination, suggesting that male phenotypic cues might be required for females to select sperm differentially. These results indicate that postmating mechanisms that reduce inbreeding may do so as a consequence of more specific strategies of cryptic female choice promoting MHC diversity in offspring.Entities:
Keywords: genetic relatedness; major histocompatibility complex; postcopulatory sexual selection; sperm choice
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24004935 PMCID: PMC3768299 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8452 Impact factor: 5.349
Figure 1.The relationship between extent of sperm retention in female red junglefowl and relatedness between partners, following insemination in the controlled natural mating experiment. Females retained more sperm (‘highest sperm number on eggs, all clutches’) following insemination by unrelated partners (grey column, ‘unrelated’ partners were less related than half-cousins in the pedigree) compared with insemination by related males (striped column, ‘related’ partners were full-siblings in the pedigree; table 1a). Data are presented as ±s.e.m. and include females that produced clutches both with and without sperm (nclutches = 53, nfemales = 30).
Selection of models explaining variation in female sperm retention. (a) ‘Highest sperm number on eggs, all clutches’, including both trials with and without clutches with sperm, (b) probability of female sperm retention (i.e. ‘sperm absence’—whether females laid clutches with sperm or not) and (c) extent of female sperm retention (i.e. ‘highest sperm number on eggs’—excluding females that laid clutches without sperm) after (i) ‘controlled natural mating’ and (ii) ‘artificial insemination’. Models are ranked according to their AICc value and weight (ω), where lower AICc values and higher ω values imply a better goodness of fit of models. Accepted convention is that models that have a change in AICc compared with best-ranking model (ΔAICc) of less than 2 are equivalent, whereas models with ΔAICc > 2 are less supported (and therefore not presented here). ‘Null models’ only contain random effects. For comparisons, ‘null models’ and models with ‘relatedness’ are shown in the table even when ΔAICc > 2. The relative importance of variables occurring in the best supported models (∑AICω) is presented in the electronic supplementary materials, table S1. Terms initially included in the models were: relatedness, MHC similarity (one of MHC class I minor, MHC class I major, MHC class II minor, MHC class II major, MHC overall similarity), oviposition day (the day the egg was laid that had the highest sperm number, for (a,c)), ejaculate volume (for artificial insemination) and ejaculate sperm number (for controlled natural mating), together with female identity and male identity.
| model | AICc | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | |||
| (i) controlled natural mating | |||
| (1) MHC class I minor + relatedness | 192.80 | 0 | 0.50 |
| (2) MHC class I minor | 193.63 | 0.82 | 0.33 |
| (3) relatedness | 249.05 | 56.25 | 0 |
| (4) null model | 308.39 | 115.59 | 0 |
| ( | |||
| (i) controlled natural mating | |||
| (1) relatedness | 75.71 | 0 | 0.56 |
| (2) null model | 76.73 | 1.02 | 0.33 |
| (ii) artificial insemination | |||
| (1) null model | 34.20 | 0 | 0.63 |
| (2) relatedness | 36.67 | 2.47 | 0.18 |
| ( | |||
| (i) controlled natural mating | |||
| (1) MHC class I minor | 125.95 | 0 | 0.41 |
| (2) relatedness | 131.73 | 5.77 | 0.02 |
| (3) null model | 133.67 | 7.72 | 0.01 |
| (ii) artificial insemination | |||
| (1) null model | 96.58 | 0 | 0.45 |
| (2) MHC class 1 minor | 98.29 | 1.71 | 0.19 |
| (3) relatedness | 99.08 | 2.50 | 0.13 |
Figure 2.The relationship between extent of sperm retention (i.e. ‘highest sperm number on eggs’, only including clutches with sperm) for red junglefowl females that retained sperm (i.e. only including clutches with sperm; table 1c) after ‘controlled natural mating’ (filled diamonds) and ‘artificial insemination’ (open squares), and similarity between partners at the MHC class I minor locus (‘low’ similarity = 0, ‘intermediate’ similarity = 0.50–0.67, ‘high’ similarity = 1; ‘controlled natural mating’: nclutches = 6, 20, 7, respectively; ‘artificial insemination’: nclutches = 6, 17, 10, respectively). Data are represented as ±s.e.m. Controlled natural mating: nclutches = 33, nfemales = 29; artificial insemination: nclutches = 33, nfemales = 25.
Parameters potentially affecting (a) ‘ejaculate sperm number’ (i.e. sperm numbers allocated by focal males to females) and (b) probability of ‘female ejaculate ejection’ by red junglefowl, during controlled natural mating. No variables remained significant after correction for multiple testing.
| parameter | ||
|---|---|---|
| ( | ||
| relatedness | 1.57 | 0.21 |
| MHC overall similarity | 15.89 | 0.10 |
| MHC class I minor | 0.51 | 0.92 |
| MHC class I major | 0.67 | 0.88 |
| MHC class II minor | 1.69 | 0.64 |
| MHC class II major | 7.32 | 0.06 |
| social familiarity | 4.07 | 0.04 |
| ( | ||
| relatedness | 1.67 | 0.20 |
| MHC overall similarity | 5.33 | 0.87 |
| MHC class I minor | 2.15 | 0.54 |
| MHC class I major | 2.75 | 0.43 |
| MHC class II minor | 2.21 | 0.53 |
| MHC class II major | 1.88 | 0.60 |
| social familiarity | 2.52 | 0.11 |
| ejaculate sperm number | 5.60 | 0.02 |