| Literature DB >> 24070498 |
Luke Holman1, Jelle S van Zweden, Timothy A Linksvayer, Patrizia d'Ettorre.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Organisms are predicted to behave more favourably towards relatives, and kin-biased cooperation has been found in all domains of life from bacteria to vertebrates. Cooperation based on genetic recognition cues is paradoxical because it disproportionately benefits individuals with common phenotypes, which should erode the required cue polymorphism. Theoretical models suggest that many recognition loci likely have some secondary function that is subject to diversifying selection, keeping them variable.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24070498 PMCID: PMC3850703 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-13-211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
List of parameters in the model
| -1 to 1 | Determines mating system. Disassortative: | |
| 0 to ∞ | Benefit of receiving cooperation | |
| 0 to ∞ | Cost of performing cooperation | |
| 0 to ∞ | Number of additional offspring produced when mating partners have different recognition locus genotypes | |
| 2 to Population size | Patch size; assumed to be even. Population size was set at 10,000 in all simulations | |
| 2 to ∞ | Number of possible recognition alleles | |
| 0 to 0.5 | Recombination rate between the recognition and behaviour loci | |
| 0 to 1 | Probability that offspring disperse from the natal patch | |
| μ | 0 to 1 | Mutation rate of both loci |
| 0 to 1 | Dominance of the cooperative allele; heterozygotes cooperate fully when |
Figure 1Two illustrative runs of the individual-based simulation, showing allele frequencies at the recognition locus (coloured lines) and behaviour locus (black line). Black dots mark the recognition allele with the highest frequency among individuals with at least one cooperative allele. Panel A: In this run, cooperation eliminated recognition locus diversity. The figure assumes the following parameter space: x = 6, b = 6, c = 1, m = 0, N = 6, k = 5, r = 0.05, d = 0.1, μ = 10-5, h = 1 and 2-allele matching, as in the centre of Figure 2B. Panel B: The cooperative allele invaded without depleting recognition locus diversity. The parameter space is the same as before except b = 3 and m = -1, as in the bottom left of Figure 2B.
Figure 2Recognition locus diversity and cooperation are affected by the benefit of cooperation to the recipient, the mating system and the mode of recognition.m < 0 corresponds to disassortative mating, while m > 0 represents assortative mating. Panels A and C: if outcrossed matings do not affect the number of surviving offspring (x = 0), cooperative behaviour typically erodes recognition locus diversity. Panels B and D: if outcrossed matings produce more offspring (x > 0), both cooperation and variable recognition cues can persist. All figures assume the following parameter space: N = 6, c = 1, k = 5, r = 0.05, d = 0.1, μ = 10-5 and h = 1.
Figure 3The effects of mating system on the evolution of cue-dependent cooperation interacted with those of other model parameters. Patch size (N), dispersal rate (d), the benefit of disassortative mating (x) and the number of recognition alleles (k) all interact with mating system (Figures 3A-3D), but recombination rate (r) and the behaviour of individuals heterozygous for the cooperative allele (h) do not (Figures 3E and 3F). Unless stated otherwise, all figures assume the following parameter space: x = 6, b = 4, c = 1, N = 6, k = 5, r = 0.05, d = 0.1, μ = 10-5, h = 1 and 2-allele matching.
Review of empirical evidence that disassortative mating contributes to the maintenance of genetic variation in kin recognition cues
| Slime mould | TgrB1 and TgrC1 surface proteins | Yes | No | Benabentos et al. 2009 [ | |
| Fungi | Yes | Yes | Shiu and Glass 1999 [ | ||
| Fungi, other species | Other heterokaryon incompatibility loci | Yes | Possibly | Shiu and Glass 1999 [ | |
| Colonial ascidians | Histocompatibility locus A | No | n/a | No | Grosberg and Quinn 1986, Grosberg and Hart 2000 [ |
| German cockroach | CHCs | Yes | CHCs | Yes | Lihoreau et al. 2007 [ |
| Halictid bee | Lactones and/or CHCs | Yes | Lactones and/or CHCs | Possibly | Greenberg 1979 [ |
| Social wasps | CHCs | Yes | Unknown | Possibly | Ryan and Gamboa 1986 [ |
| Social wasp | CHCs | No | n/a | No | Shilpa et al. 2010 [ |
| Bumble bees | Probably CHCs | In some species | Unknown | Possibly | Foster 1992 [ |
| Ants | CHCs | Yes | Probably CHCs | Possibly | Keller and Passera 1993 [ |
| Tuatara | MHC | Yes | MHC | Weak | Miller et al. 2009 [ |
| Zebrafish | Odour cues | Yes | MHC-derived odours | Possibly | Gerlach and Lysiak 2006 [ |
| Arctic charr | MHC-derived odours | Yes | MHC-derived odours | Yes | Olsén et al. 1998 [ |
| Atlantic salmon | MHC-derived odours | Yes | MHC-derived odours | Yes | Landry et al. 2001 [ |
| Long-tailed tit | Contact calls | Yes | Unknown | Possibly | Hatchwell et al. 2000 [ |
| Mouse | MHC-derived odours | Yes | MHC-derived odours | Yes | Yamazaki et al. 1976 [ |
| Naked mole rat | Odour cues | Yes | Odour cues | Possibly | Clarke and Faulkes 1999 [ |
| Mandrill | Odour cues | Yes | MHC-derived odours | Possibly | Charpentier et al. 2007 [ |
| Human | Facial cues | Yes | Facial cues | Yes | DeBruine 2005 [ |
We list cases in which a cue used to facilitate assortative cooperation has been identified, state whether inbreeding avoidance or disassortative mating has been reported and examine whether the cues used in social and mate choice contexts are the same, potentially resolving Crozier’s paradox. CHCs: cuticular hydrocarbons, MHC: major histocompatibility complex.