Literature DB >> 34740242

Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.

Filip Ruzicka1,2, Tim Connallon1, Max Reuter2,3.   

Abstract

Fitness effects of deleterious mutations can differ between females and males due to: (i) sex differences in the strength of purifying selection; and (ii) sex differences in ploidy. Although sex differences in fitness effects have important broader implications (e.g., for the evolution of sex and lifespan), few studies have quantified their scope. Those that have belong to one of two distinct empirical traditions: (i) quantitative genetics, which focusses on multi-locus genetic variances in each sex, but is largely agnostic about their genetic basis; and (ii) molecular population genetics, which focusses on comparing autosomal and X-linked polymorphism, but is poorly suited for inferring contemporary sex differences. Here, we combine both traditions to present a comprehensive analysis of female and male adult reproductive fitness among 202 outbred, laboratory-adapted, hemiclonal genomes of Drosophila melanogaster. While we find no clear evidence for sex differences in the strength of purifying selection, sex differences in ploidy generate multiple signals of enhanced purifying selection for X-linked loci. These signals are present in quantitative genetic metrics-i.e., a disproportionate contribution of the X to male (but not female) fitness variation-and population genetic metrics-i.e., steeper regressions of an allele's average fitness effect on its frequency, and proportionally less nonsynonymous polymorphism on the X than autosomes. Fitting our data to models for both sets of metrics, we infer that deleterious alleles are partially recessive. Given the often-large gap between quantitative and population genetic estimates of evolutionary parameters, our study showcases the benefits of combining genomic and fitness data when estimating such parameters.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Genetics Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GWAS; X chromosome; autosomes; deleterious polymorphism; dominance; fitness; population genetics; purifying selection; quantitative genetics; sex differences

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34740242      PMCID: PMC8570791          DOI: 10.1093/genetics/iyab143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.402


  86 in total

1.  Genomic variation in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Charles H Langley; Kristian Stevens; Charis Cardeno; Yuh Chwen G Lee; Daniel R Schrider; John E Pool; Sasha A Langley; Charlyn Suarez; Russell B Corbett-Detig; Bryan Kolaczkowski; Shu Fang; Phillip M Nista; Alisha K Holloway; Andrew D Kern; Colin N Dewey; Yun S Song; Matthew W Hahn; David J Begun
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-06-05       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Estimating the heritability of female lifetime fecundity in a locally adapted Drosophila melanogaster population.

Authors:  T A F Long; P M Miller; A D Stewart; W R Rice
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 2.411

3.  Male bias in distributions of additive genetic, residual, and phenotypic variances of shared traits.

Authors:  Minyoung J Wyman; Locke Rowe
Journal:  Am Nat       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.926

4.  Sex differences in life span: Females homozygous for the X chromosome do not suffer the shorter life span predicted by the unguarded X hypothesis.

Authors:  Martin Brengdahl; Christopher M Kimber; Jack Maguire-Baxter; Urban Friberg
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 3.694

5.  Homozygous and Hemizygous Viability Variation on the X Chromosome of DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER.

Authors:  W F Eanes; J Hey; D Houle
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 6.  Obtaining snapshots of genetic variation using hemiclonal analysis.

Authors:  Jessica K Abbott; Edward H Morrow
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  Assessing the extent of genome-wide intralocus sexual conflict via experimentally enforced gender-limited selection.

Authors:  E H Morrow; A D Stewart; W R Rice
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2008-05-07       Impact factor: 2.411

8.  Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila.

Authors:  A K Chippindale; J R Gibson; W R Rice
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-01-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Revisiting an old riddle: what determines genetic diversity levels within species?

Authors:  Ellen M Leffler; Kevin Bullaughey; Daniel R Matute; Wynn K Meyer; Laure Ségurel; Aarti Venkat; Peter Andolfatto; Molly Przeworski
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2012-09-11       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Rapid evolution of the intersexual genetic correlation for fitness in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Julie M Collet; Sara Fuentes; Jack Hesketh; Mark S Hill; Paolo Innocenti; Edward H Morrow; Kevin Fowler; Max Reuter
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 3.694

View more
  1 in total

1.  An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.349

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.