Literature DB >> 28565178

VARIATION IN GENETIC ARCHITECTURE OF CALLING SONG AMONG POPULATIONS OF ALLONEMOBIUS SOCIUS, A. FASCIATUS, AND A HYBRID POPULATION: DRIFT OR SELECTION?

Derek A Roff1, Timothy A Mousseau2, Daniel J Howard3.   

Abstract

Predictions using quantitative genetic models generally assume that the variance-covariance matrices remain constant over time. This assumption is based on the supposition that selection is generally weak and hence variation lost through selection can be replaced by new mutations. Whether this is generally true can only be ascertained from empirical studies. Ideally for such a study we should be able to make a prediction concerning the relative strength of selection versus genetic drift. If the latter force is prevalent then the variance-covariances matrices should be proportional to each other. Previous studies have indicated that females in the two sibling cricket species Allonemobius socius and A. fasciatus do not discriminate between males of the two species by their calling song. Therefore, differences between the calling song of the two males most likely result from drift rather than sexual selection. We test this hypothesis by comparing the genetic architecture of calling song of three populations of A. fasciatus with two populations of A. socius. We found no differences among populations within species, but significant differences in the G (genetic) and P (phenotypic) matrices between species, with the matrices being proportional as predicted under the hypothesis of genetic drift. Because of the proportional change in the (co)variances no differences between species are evident in the heritabilities or genetic correlations. Comparison of the two species with a hybrid population from a zone of overlap showed highly significant nonproportional variation in genetic architecture. This variation is consistent with a general mixture of two separate genomes or selection. Qualitative conclusions reached using the phenotypic matrices are the same as those reached using the genetic matrices supporting the hypothesis that the former may be used as surrogate measures of the latter. © 1999 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic correlation; genetic covariance; genetic variance; heritability; quantitative genetics

Year:  1999        PMID: 28565178     DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb05347.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evolution        ISSN: 0014-3820            Impact factor:   3.694


  7 in total

1.  The G-matrix Simulator Family: Software for Research and Teaching.

Authors:  Adam G Jones; Reinhard Bürger; Stevan J Arnold
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 2.645

2.  The Comprehensive Assessment of Self-Reported Urinary Symptoms: A New Tool for Research on Subtypes of Patients with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; James W Griffith; Kathryn E Flynn; David Cella; Tamara Bavendam; Jonathan B Wiseman; Victor P Andreev; H Henry Lai; Alice B Liu; Ziya Kirkali; Anne P Cameron; Catherine S Bradley
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Evolution of novel signal traits in the absence of female preferences in Neoconocephalus katydids (Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae).

Authors:  Sarah L Bush; Johannes Schul
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Body morphology, energy stores, and muscle enzyme activity explain cricket acoustic mate attraction signaling variation.

Authors:  Ian R Thomson; Charles-A Darveau; Susan M Bertram
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Clustering of the structures by using "snakes-&-dragons" approach, or correlation matrix as a signal.

Authors:  Victor P Andreev; Gang Liu; Jarcy Zee; Lisa Henn; Gilberto E Flores; Robert M Merion
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  How populations differentiate despite gene flow: sexual and natural selection drive phenotypic divergence within a land fish, the Pacific leaping blenny.

Authors:  Courtney L Morgans; Georgina M Cooke; Terry J Ord
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 3.260

7.  Phenotypic integration and the evolution of signal repertoires: A case study of treefrog acoustic communication.

Authors:  Michael S Reichert; Gerlinde Höbel
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 2.912

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.