Literature DB >> 25985178

Sexual selection protects against extinction.

Alyson J Lumley1, Łukasz Michalczyk2, James J N Kitson1, Lewis G Spurgin1, Catriona A Morrison1, Joanne L Godwin1, Matthew E Dickinson1, Oliver Y Martin3, Brent C Emerson4, Tracey Chapman1, Matthew J G Gage1.   

Abstract

Reproduction through sex carries substantial costs, mainly because only half of sexual adults produce offspring. It has been theorized that these costs could be countered if sex allows sexual selection to clear the universal fitness constraint of mutation load. Under sexual selection, competition between (usually) males and mate choice by (usually) females create important intraspecific filters for reproductive success, so that only a subset of males gains paternity. If reproductive success under sexual selection is dependent on individual condition, which is contingent to mutation load, then sexually selected filtering through 'genic capture' could offset the costs of sex because it provides genetic benefits to populations. Here we test this theory experimentally by comparing whether populations with histories of strong versus weak sexual selection purge mutation load and resist extinction differently. After evolving replicate populations of the flour beetle Tribolium castaneum for 6 to 7 years under conditions that differed solely in the strengths of sexual selection, we revealed mutation load using inbreeding. Lineages from populations that had previously experienced strong sexual selection were resilient to extinction and maintained fitness under inbreeding, with some families continuing to survive after 20 generations of sib × sib mating. By contrast, lineages derived from populations that experienced weak or non-existent sexual selection showed rapid fitness declines under inbreeding, and all were extinct after generation 10. Multiple mutations across the genome with individually small effects can be difficult to clear, yet sum to a significant fitness load; our findings reveal that sexual selection reduces this load, improving population viability in the face of genetic stress.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25985178     DOI: 10.1038/nature14419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nature        ISSN: 0028-0836            Impact factor:   49.962


  22 in total

Review 1.  The genetic basis of inbreeding depression.

Authors:  B Charlesworth; D Charlesworth
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.

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

3.  Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex.

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

4.  Sexual selection is ineffectual or inhibits the purging of deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Devin Arbuthnott; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Experimental evolution exposes female and male responses to sexual selection and conflict in Tribolium castaneum.

Authors:  Łukasz Michalczyk; Anna L Millard; Oliver Y Martin; Alyson J Lumley; Brent C Emerson; Matthew J G Gage
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Sexual selection can remove an experimentally induced mutation load.

Authors:  Maria Almbro; Leigh W Simmons
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Evolution under monogamy feminizes gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Brian Hollis; David Houle; Zheng Yan; Tadeusz J Kawecki; Laurent Keller
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Genetics and demography in biological conservation.

Authors:  R Lande
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-09-16       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Populations with elevated mutation load do not benefit from the operation of sexual selection.

Authors:  B Hollis; D Houle
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 2.411

10.  An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes.

Authors:  Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  42 in total

1.  Grey zones of sexual selection: why is finding a modern definition so hard?

Authors:  Suzanne H Alonzo; Maria R Servedio
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Mechanisms and consequences of diversity-generating immune strategies.

Authors:  Edze R Westra; David Sünderhauf; Mariann Landsberger; Angus Buckling
Journal:  Nat Rev Immunol       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 53.106

3.  Competition for mates and the improvement of nonsexual fitness.

Authors:  Li Yun; Patrick J Chen; Kevin E Kwok; Christopher S Angell; Howard D Rundle; Aneil F Agrawal
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Ageing via perception costs of reproduction magnifies sexual selection.

Authors:  Roberto García-Roa; Manuel Serra; Pau Carazo
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 5.  Sex differences in local adaptation: what can we learn from reciprocal transplant experiments?

Authors:  Erik I Svensson; Debora Goedert; Miguel A Gómez-Llano; Foteini Spagopoulou; Angela Nava-Bolaños; Isobel Booksmythe
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 6.  What can we infer about the origin of sex in early eukaryotes?

Authors:  Dave Speijer
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Selective harvest focused on sexual signal traits can lead to extinction under directional environmental change.

Authors:  Robert J Knell; Carlos Martínez-Ruiz
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 8.  Population genetics of sexual conflict in the genomic era.

Authors:  Judith E Mank
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  Sexual selection predicts species richness across the animal kingdom.

Authors:  Tim Janicke; Michael G Ritchie; Edward H Morrow; Lucas Marie-Orleach
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 5.349

10.  The effect of sexual selection on adaptation and extinction under increasing temperatures.

Authors:  Jonathan M Parrett; Robert J Knell
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.