Literature DB >> 28840604

Environmental complexity and the purging of deleterious alleles.

Amardeep Singh1, Aneil F Agrawal1, Howard D Rundle2.   

Abstract

Sexual interactions among adults can generate selection on both males and females with genome-wide consequences. Sexual selection through males is one component of this selection that has been argued to play an important role in purging deleterious alleles. A common technique to assess the influence of sexual selection is by a comparison of experimental evolution under enforced monogamy versus polygamy. Mixed results from past studies may be due to the use of highly simplified laboratory conditions that alter the nature of sexual interactions. Here, we examine the rate of purging of 22 gene disruption mutations in experimental polygamous populations of Drosophila melanogaster in each of two mating environments: a simple, high-density environment (i.e., typical fly vials), and a lower density, more spatially complex environment. Based on past work, we expect sexual interactions in the latter environment to result in stronger selection in both sexes. Consistent with this, we find that mutations tend to be purged more quickly in populations evolving in complex environments. We discuss possible mechanisms by which environmental complexity might modulate the rate at which deleterious alleles are purged and putatively ascribe a role for sexual interactions in explaining the treatment differences in our experiment.
© 2017 The Author(s). Evolution © 2017 The Society for the Study of Evolution.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Drosophila melanogaster; monogamy; mutation; polygamy; sexual selection

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28840604     DOI: 10.1111/evo.13334

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Climatic factors and species range position predict sexually antagonistic selection across taxa.

Authors:  Stephen P De Lisle; Debora Goedert; Aaron M Reedy; Erik I Svensson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  The effects of male harm vary with female quality and environmental complexity in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Alison MacPherson; Li Yun; Tania S Barrera; Aneil F Agrawal; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.703

4.  The purging of deleterious mutations in simple and complex mating environments.

Authors:  Julie Colpitts; Darla Williscroft; Harmandeep Singh Sekhon; Howard D Rundle
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  No evidence of positive assortative mating for genetic quality in fruit flies.

Authors:  Nathaniel P Sharp; Michael C Whitlock
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Sex-specific dominance reversal of genetic variation for fitness.

Authors:  Karl Grieshop; Göran Arnqvist
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Evolution of ageing as a tangle of trade-offs: energy versus function.

Authors:  Alexei A Maklakov; Tracey Chapman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.349

8.  Female-specific resource limitation does not make the opportunity for selection more female biased.

Authors:  Ivain Martinossi-Allibert; Johanna Liljestrand Rönn; Elina Immonen
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.694

9.  Adaptation to a bacterial pathogen in Drosophila melanogaster is not aided by sexual selection.

Authors:  Sakshi Sharda; Tadeusz J Kawecki; Brian Hollis
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-02-12       Impact factor: 2.912

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.