Hemiclonal analysis of interacting phenotypes in male and female Drosophila melanogaster

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Tristan AF Long¹  Erin E Sonser¹  Hannah ME Tennant¹ 

[1] Department of Biology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5, Canada

关键词: Mating speed;    Interacting phenotypes;    Hemiclonal analysis;    Drosophila melanogaster;    Male attractiveness;    Female choosiness;    Mate choice;    Sexual selection;   

Others  :  856599
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-14-95

 received in 2013-12-27, accepted in 2014-03-31,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Identifying the sources of variation in mating interactions between males and females is important because this variation influences the strength and/or the direction of sexual selection that populations experience. While the origins and effects of variation in male attractiveness and ornamentation have received much scrutiny, the causes and consequences of intraspecific variation in females have been relatively overlooked. We used cytogenetic cloning techniques developed for Drosophila melanogaster to create “hemiclonal” males and females with whom we directly observed sexual interaction between individuals of different known genetic backgrounds and measured subsequent reproductive outcomes. Using this approach, we were able to quantify the genetic contribution of each mate to the observed phenotypic variation in biologically important traits including mating speed, copulation duration, and subsequent offspring production, as well as measure the magnitude and direction of intersexual genetic correlation between female choosiness and male attractiveness.

Results

We found significant additive genetic variation contributing to mating speed that can be attributed to male genetic identity, female genetic identity, but not their interaction. Furthermore we found that phenotypic variation in copulation duration had a significant male-associated genetic component. Female genetic identity and the interaction between male and female genetic identity accounted for a substantial amount of the observed phenotypic variation in egg size. Although previous research predicts a trade-off between egg size and fecundity, this was not evident in our results. We found a strong negative genetic correlation between female choosiness and male attractiveness, a result that suggests a potentially important role for sexually antagonistic alleles in sexual selection processes in our population.

Conclusion

These results further our understanding of sexual selection because they identify that genetic identity plays a significant role in phenotypic variation in female behaviour and fecundity. This variation may be potentially due to ongoing sexual conflict found between the sexes for interacting phenotypes. Our unexpected observation of a negative correlation between female choosiness and male attractiveness highlights the need for more explicit theoretical models of genetic covariance to investigate the coevolution of female choosiness and male attractiveness.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tennant et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jennions MD, Petrie M: Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 1997, 72:283-327.
• [2]Widemo F, Sӕther SA: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 1999, 14:26-31.
• [3]Andersson M: Sexual selection. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1994.
• [4]Ritchie MG, Saarikettu M, Hoikkala A: Variation, but no covariance, in female preference functions and male song in a natural population of Drosophila montana. Anim Behav 2005, 70:849-854.
• [5]Hedrick A, Weber T: Variance in female responses to the fine structure of male song in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Behav Ecol 1998, 9:582-591.
• [6]Gray DA, Cade WH: Quantitative genetics of sexual selection in the field cricket, Gryllus integer. Evol 1999, 53:848-854.
• [7]Brooks R, Endler JA: Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behaviour and the consequences for sexual selection. Evol 2001, 55:1644-1655.
• [8]Ratterman NL, Rosenthal GG, Carney GE, Jones AG: Genetic variation and covariation in male attractiveness and female preferences in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 2013. doi:10.1534/g3.113.007468
• [9]Houde AE: Sex, colour, and mate choice in guppies. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1997.
• [10]Fisher RA: The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1931.
• [11]Fisher RA: The genetical theory of natural selection. New York: Dover; 1958.
• [12]Lande R: Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1981, 78:3721-3725.
• [13]Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A: The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 1995, 8:129-171.
• [14]Bakker TCM: The study of intersexual selection using Quantitative Genetics. Behav 1999, 136:1237-1266.
• [15]Zhou Y, Kelly JK, Greenfield MD: Testing the fisherian mechanism: examining the genetic correlation between male song and female response in waxmoths. Evol Ecol 2011, 25:307-329.
• [16]Sheldon BC: Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms, and implications. Trends Ecol Evol 2000, 15:397-402.
• [17]Harris WE, Uller T: Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Phil Trans R Soc B 2009, 364:1039-1048.
• [18]Evans JP, Box TM, Brooshooft P, Tatler JR, Fitzpatrick JL: Females increase egg deposition in favor of large males in the rainbowfish, Melanotaenia australis. Behav Ecol 2010, 21:465-469.
• [19]Azevedo JK, French V, Partridge L: Life-history consequences of egg size in Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 1997, 150:250-282.
• [20]Horváthová T, Nakagawa S, Uller T: Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds. Proc R Soc B 2011, 279:163-170.
• [21]Hill GE: Plumage coloration is a sexually selected indicator of male quality. Nature 1991, 350:337-339.
• [22]Petrie M, Williams A: Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains. Proc R Soc B 1993, 251:127-131.
• [23]Palokangas P, Korpimäki E, Hakkarainen H, Huhta E, Tolonen P, Alatalo R: Female kestrels gain reproductive success by choosing brightly ornamented males. Anim Behav 1994, 47:443-448.
• [24]Cunningham EJA, Russell AF: Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 2000, 404:74-77.
• [25]Pischedda A, Stewart AD, Little MK, Rice WR: Male genotype influences female reproductive investment in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc B 2011, 278:2165-2172.
• [26]Schwarzkopf L, Blows MW, Caley MJ: Life history consequences of divergent selection on egg size in Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 1999, 154:333-340.
• [27]Wolf JB: Indirect genetic effects and gene interactions. In Epistasis and Evolutionary Processes. Edited by Wolf JB, Brodie EDIII, Wade MJ. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000:158-176.
• [28]Moore AJ, Wolf JB, Brodie ED III: Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary processes: I. direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evol 1997, 51:1352-1362.
• [29]Rice WR, Linder JE, Friberg U, Lew TA, Morrow EH, Stewart AD: Interlocus antagonistic coevolution as an engine of speciation: assessment with hemiclones. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005, 102:6527-6534.
• [30]Abbott JK, Morrow EH: Obtaining snapshots of genetic variation using hemiclonal analysis. Trends Ecol Evol 2011, 26:359-368.
• [31]Pischedda A, Stewart AD, Little MK: Male x female interaction for a pre-copulatory trait, but not a post-copulatory trait, among cosmopolitan populations of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS One 2012, 7:e31683.
• [32]Blows MW: Evolution of the genetic covariance between male and female components of mate recognition: an experimental test. Proc R Soc B 1999, 266:2169-2174.
• [33]Hall M, Lindholm AK, Brooks R: Direct selection on male attractiveness and female preference fails to produce a response. BCM Evol Biol 2004, 4:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Ingleby FC, Hunt J, Hosken DJ: Genotype-by-environment interactions for female mate choice of male cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans. PLoS One 2013, 8:e67623.
• [35]Ryan MJ: Sexual selection, receiver biases, and evolution of sex differences. Science 1998, 281:1999-2003.
• [36]Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J: Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am Nat 2005, 166:437-446.
• [37]Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ: The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 1991, 350:33-38.
• [38]Houle D, Kondrashov AS: Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc R Soc Lond B 2002, 269:97-104.
• [39]Gavrilets S: Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 2000, 403:886-889.
• [40]Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR: Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2001, 98:1671-1675.
• [41]Hine E, Lachish S, Higgie M, Blows MW: Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B 2002, 269:2215-2219.
• [42]Arnqvist G, Rowe L: Sexual conflict. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2005.
• [43]Brown WD, Bjork A, Schneider K, Pitnick S: No evidence that polyandry benefits females in Drosophila melanogaster. Evol 2004, 58:1242-1250.
• [44]Narraway C, Hunt J, Wedell N, Hosken DJ: Genotype-by-environment interactions for female preference. J Evol Biol 2010, 23:2550-2557.
• [45]Fulker DW: Mating speed in male Drosophila melanogaster: a psychogenetic analysis. Science 1966, 153:203-205.
• [46]Casares P, Carracedo MA, Miguel ES, Piñeiro R, Garcia-Florez L: Male mating speed in Drosophila melanogaster: differences in genetic architecture and in relative performance according to female genotype. Behav Gen 1993, 23:349-358.
• [47]Mackay TFC, Heinsohn SL, Lyman RF, Mochring AJ, Morgan TJ, Rollmann SM: Genetics and genomics of Drosophila mating behaviour. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102:6622-6629.
• [48]Falconer DS: Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. London: Longman; 1981.
• [49]Tregenza T, Wedell N: Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 2002, 415:71-73.
• [50]Long TAF, Montgomerie R, Chippindale AK: Quantifying the gender load: can population crosses reveal interlocus sexual conflict? Phil Trans R Soc B 2006, 361:363-374.
• [51]Friberg U: Male perception of female mating status: its effect on copulation duration, sperm defense, and female fitness. Anim Behav 2006, 72:1259-1268.
• [52]Price TAR, Lizé A, Marcello M, Bretman A: Experience of mating rivals causes males to modulate sperm transfer. J Insect Physiol 2012, 58:1669-1675.
• [53]Pitnick S, Garcia-González F: Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 2002, 269:1821-1828.
• [54]Friberg U, Arnqvist G: Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster females. J Evol Biol 2003, 16:797-811.
• [55]Wigby S, Chapman T: Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 2005, 15:316-321.
• [56]Pitnick S: Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 1991, 41:745.
• [57]Krebs RA: Function and genetics of long versus short copulations in the cactophilic fruit fly, Drosophila mojavensis (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J Insect Behav 1991, 4:221-223.
• [58]Hirai Y, Sasaki H, Kimura MT: Copulation duration and its genetic control in Drosophila elegans. Zool Sci 1999, 16:211-214.
• [59]Mazzi D, Kesaniemi J, Hoikkala A, Klappert K: Sexual conflict over the duration of copulation in Drosophila montana: why is longer better? BMC Evol Biol 2009., 9doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-132
• [60]Edward DA, Poissant J, Wilson AJ, Chapman T: Sexual conflict and interacting phenotypes: a quantitative genetic analysis of fecundity and copula duration in Drosophila melanogaster. Evol 2014. doi:10.11/evo.12376
• [61]Hall MD, Lailvaux SP, Brooks RC: Sex-specific evolutionary potential of pre- and postcopulatory reproductive interactions in the field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus. Evol 2013, 67:1831-1837.
• [62]Rice WR: Male fitness increases when females are eliminated from gene pool: implications for the Y chromosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998, 95:6217-6221.
• [63]Bretman A, Fricke C, Chapman T: Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of sperm competition increase male reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 2009, 276:1705-1711.
• [64]Sirot LK, Wolfner MF, Wigby S: Protein-specific manipulation of ejaculate composition in response to female mating status in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011, 108:9922-9926.
• [65]Kamimura Y: Twin intromittent organs of Drosophila for traumatic insemination. Biol Lett 2007, 3:401-404.
• [66]Gilburn AS, Foster SP, Day TH: Genetic correlation between a female mating preference and the preferred male character in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Evol 1993, 47:1788-1795.
• [67]Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB: Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 2007, 447:1107-1110.
• [68]Rice WR, Chippindale AK: Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J Evol Biol 2001, 14:685-696.
• [69]Pischedda A, Chippindale AK: Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol 2006, 4:e356.
• [70]Prasad NG, Bedhomme S, Day T, Chippindale AK: An evolutionary cost of separate genders revealed by male-limited evolution. Am Nat 2007, 169:29-37.
• [71]Ebert D: The trade-off between offspring size and number in Daphnia magna: the influence of genetic, environmental and maternal effects. Arch F Hydrobiol Suppl-bd 1993, 4:453-473.
• [72]Smith CC, Fretwell SD: The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. Am Nat 1974, 18:499-506.
• [73]Semenchenko VP: The changing of fecundity and size of eggs in Moina macrocopa during life cycle. J Zool 1989, 65:125-138.
• [74]Berrigan D: The allometry of egg size and number in insects. Oikos 1991, 60:313-321.
• [75]Czesak ME, Fox CW: Genetic variation in male effects on female reproduction and the genetic covariation between the sexes. Evol 2003, 57:1359-1366.
• [76]Pitnick S, Wolfner MF, Suarez S: Ejaculate-female and sperm-female interactions. In Sperm Biology, An Evolutionary Perspective. 1st edition. Edited by Birkhead TR, Hosken DJ, Pitnick S. Oxford: Academic Press; 2009:247-304.
• [77]Lefranc A, Bundgaard J: The influence of male and female body size on copulation duration and fecundity in Drosophila melanogaster. Hereditas 2005, 132:243-247.
• [78]Long TAF, Pischedda A, Stewart AD, Rice WR: A cost of sexual attractiveness to high-fitness females. PLoS Biol 2009, 7:e1000254.
• [79]Tennant HM, Sonser EE, Long TAF: Phenotypic variation in male-induced direct fecundity stimulation following mating in Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol 2013. doi.10.1111/jeb.12305
• [80]Linder JE, Rice WR: Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males. J Evol Biol 2005, 18:568-575.
• [81]Holland B, Rice WR: Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes and reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999, 96:5083-5088.
• [82]Chapman T: Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 2001, 87:511-521.
• [83]Friberg U: Genetic variation in male and female reproductive characters associated with sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Gen 2005, 35:455-462.
• [84]Arnqvist G, Nilsson T: The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness is insects. Anim Behav 2000, 60:145-164.
• [85]Moore JA, Gowaty PA, Wallin WG, Moore PJ: Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominance. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001, 268:517-523.
• [86]Bangham J, Chapman T, Partridge L: Effects of body size, accessory gland and testis size of pre-and postcopulatory success in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 2002, 64:915-921.
• [87]South A, Lewis SM: The influence of male ejaculate quantity on female fitness: A meta-analysis. Biol Rev 2011, 86:299-309.
• [88]Wibgy S, Sirot LK, Linklater JR, Buehner N, Calboli FCF, Bretman A, Wolfner MR, Chapman T: Seminal fluid protein allocation and male reproductive success. Curr Biol 2009, 19:751-757.
• [89]Carvalho GB, Kapahi P, Anderson DJ, Benzer S: Allocrine modulation of appetite by the sex peptide of Drosophila. Curr Biol 2006, 16:692-696.
• [90]Czesak CW, Fox ME: Evolutionary ecology of progeny size in arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 2000, 45:341-369.
• [91]Cheverud JM, Moore JA: Quantitative genetics and the role of the environment provided by relatives in the evolution of behaviour. In Quantitative genetic studies of behavioural evolution. Edited by Boake CRB. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994:67-100.
• [92]Markow TA, Coppola A, Watts TD: How Drosophila males make eggs: it is elemental. Proc R Soc Lond B 2001, 268:1527-1532.
• [93]Andrés JA, Arnqvist G: Genetic divergence of the seminal signal-receptor system in houseflies: the footprints of sexually antagonistic coevolution? Proc R Soc Lond B 2001, 268:399-405.
• [94]Long TAF, Pischedda A, Nichols RV, Rice WR: The timing of mating influences reproductive success in Drosophila melanogaster: implications for sexual conflict. J Evol Biol 2010, 25:1024-1032.
• [95]Harano T, Okada K, Nakayama K, Miyatake T, Hosken DJ: Intralocus sexual conflict unresolved by sex-limited trait expression. Curr Biol 2010, 20:2036-2039.
• [96]Rose MR: Laboratory evolution of postponed senescence in Drosophila melanogaster evolution. Evol 1984, 38:1004-1010.
• [97]Rose MR, Charlesworth B: Genetics of life history in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Sib analysis of adult females. Genetics 1981, 97:173-186.
• [98]Rose MR, Charlesworth B: Genetics of life history in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Exploratory selection experiments. Genetics 1981, 97:187-196.
• [99]Rice WR: Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 1996, 361:232-234.
• [100]Ashburner M: Drosophila: a laboratory handbook. New York: Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press; 1989.
• [101]Dukas R: Causes and consequences of male-male courtship in fruit flies. Anim Behav 2010, 80:913-919.
• [102]Shackleton MA, Jennions MD, Hunt J: Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effect of no-choice tests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2005, 58:1-8.
• [103]Head ML, Hunt J, Jennions MD, Brooks R: The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweighs the direct costs. PLoS Biol 2005, 3:33e. (see http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030033 webcite).
• [104]Avent TD, Price TAR, Wedell N: Age-based female preference in the fruitfly, Drosophila pseudoobscura. Anim Behav 2008, 75:1413-1421.
• [105]Taylor ML, Wedell N, Hosken DJ: Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2008, 62:721-728.
• [106]Sullivan W, Ashburner M, Hawley RS: Drosophila protocols. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2000.
• [107]Pitnick S, Miller GT, Schneider K, Markow TA: Ejaculate-female coevolution in Drosophila mojavensis. Proc R Soc Lond 2003, 270:1507-1512.
• [108]Markow TA, Beal S, Matzkin LM: Egg size, embryonic development time, and ovoviviparity in Drosophila species. J Evol Biol 2008, 22:430-434.
• [109]Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE: Variance components. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1992.