| Literature DB >> 30753690 |
Jim A Mossman1, Russyan Mark S Mabeza1, Emma Blake1, Neha Mehta1, David M Rand1.
Abstract
Trans-generational maternal effects have been shown to influence a broad range of offspring phenotypes. However, very little is known about paternal trans-generational effects. Here, we tested the trans-generational effects of maternal and paternal age, and their interaction, on daughter and son reproductive fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. We found significant effects of parent ages on offspring reproductive fitness during a 10 day postfertilization period. In daughters, older (45 days old) mothers conferred lower reproductive fitness compared with younger mothers (3 days old). In sons, father's age significantly affected reproductive fitness. The effects of 2 old parents were additive in both sexes and reproductive fitness was lowest when the focal individual had 2 old parents. Interestingly, daughter fertility was sensitive to father's age but son fertility was insensitive to mother's age, suggesting a sexual asymmetry in trans-generational effects. We found the egg-laying dynamics in daughters dramatically shaped this relationship. Daughters with 2 old parents demonstrated an extreme egg dumping behavior on day 1 and laid >2.35× the number of eggs than the other 3 age class treatments. Our study reveals significant trans-generational maternal and paternal age effects on fertility and an association with a novel egg laying behavioral phenotype in Drosophila. © The American Genetic Association 2019.Entities:
Keywords: age; carry-over effects; fertility; parental; paternal; trans-generational
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30753690 PMCID: PMC6503451 DOI: 10.1093/jhered/esz009
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hered ISSN: 0022-1503 Impact factor: 2.645
Trans-generational age effects on offspring (F1) fertility traits
| Focal sex | Trait | Term against the intercept | Posterior mode | Posterior mean | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Effective samples | pMCMC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| (i) Total egg number | Intercept | 4.843 | 4.862 | 4.639 | 5.091 | 9475 |
|
| Mother age (young) | 0.433 | 0.421 | 0.108 | 0.734 | 9000 |
| ||
| Father age (young) | 0.441 | 0.403 | 0.103 | 0.706 | 9649 |
| ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.569 | −0.592 | −1.041 | −0.154 | 9000 |
| ||
| (ii) Total offspring number | Intercept | 4.158 | 4.172 | 3.943 | 4.395 | 7906 |
| |
| Mother age (young) | 0.601 | 0.614 | 0.310 | 0.915 | 8125 |
| ||
| Father age (young) | 0.554 | 0.604 | 0.322 | 0.904 | 9000 |
| ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.541 | −0.507 | −0.933 | −0.100 | 9651 |
| ||
| (iii) Egg-to-adult survival | Intercept | −0.343 | −0.348 | −0.667 | −0.009 | 8708 |
| |
| Mother age (young) | 0.848 | 0.833 | 0.398 | 1.272 | 8508 |
| ||
| Father age (young) | 0.966 | 0.950 | 0.535 | 1.396 | 9779 |
| ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.153 | −0.294 | −0.895 | 0.310 | 9000 | 0.34 | ||
|
| (iv) Total egg number | Intercept | 4.880 | 4.868 | 4.648 | 5.095 | 9000 |
|
| Mother age (young) | 0.146 | 0.179 | −0.105 | 0.479 | 9305 | 0.23 | ||
| Father age (young) | 0.294 | 0.246 | −0.046 | 0.517 | 9000 | 0.09 | ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.001 | −0.038 | −0.426 | 0.333 | 9000 | 0.85 | ||
| (v) Total offspring number | Intercept | 4.450 | 4.434 | 4.160 | 4.707 | 9000 |
| |
| Mother age (young) | 0.095 | 0.132 | −0.210 | 0.498 | 9000 | 0.46 | ||
| Father age (young) | 0.368 | 0.375 | 0.054 | 0.731 | 8709 |
| ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.084 | −0.064 | −0.517 | 0.377 | 9000 | 0.79 | ||
| (vi) Egg-to-adult survival | Intercept | 0.508 | 0.487 | 0.065 | 0.918 | 9000 |
| |
| Mother age (young) | 0.148 | 0.161 | −0.374 | 0.709 | 9000 | 0.55 | ||
| Father age (young) | 0.415 | 0.422 | −0.071 | 0.982 | 9000 | 0.11 | ||
| Mother age (young) × Father age (young) | −0.411 | −0.278 | −0.963 | 0.440 | 9000 | 0.43 |
Three traits: (i, iv) total egg number; (ii, v) total offspring number; and (iii, vi) egg-to-adult survival of focal individuals were tested using generalized linear mixed models (glmm) implemented in the [MCMCglmm] R package (Hadfield 2010). Results of the Bayesian analyses are shown for each sex. Error distributions were modeled as “zero-inflated poisson,” “zero-inflated poisson,” and binomial (“multinomial2”), respectively. The random effect was modeled as the vial of origin. Markov chains were run for 600 000 iterations with burn-in: 150 000, and thinning interval: 50. Any reduction in sampling is also shown and significance was judged as 95% CIs excluding zero and pMCMC values <0.05 (bold).
Figure 1.Trans-generational fitness effects due to parental age in female and male Drosophila melanogaster. Interaction plots (means ± 1 SEM of raw data) describing daughter effects (A, C, E) and son effects (B, D, F) are shown for total egg number (A, B), total offspring number (C, D), and egg-to-adult survival (E, F). The mother’s aging treatment is on the abscissa and the father’s aging treatments are distinct lines: red = young father, blue = old father. The corresponding statistics for each interaction plot can be found in Table 1.
Figure 2.Phenotypic variation in egg laying, offspring production, and egg-to-adult viability over time. A and B show daughter and son egg numbers, respectively. C and D show daily production of offspring for daughters and sons, respectively. E and F show egg-to-adult survival for offspring of daughters and sons, respectively. The 4 age classes are shown in different colors (legend in A). Means (± 1 SEM) of the raw data are shown.