Asymmetrical sexual isolation but no postmating isolation between the closely related species Drosophila suboccidentalis and Drosophila occidentalis

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Kelly A Dyer¹  Nicholas J Arthur¹ 

[1] Department of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens 30602, GA, USA

关键词: Drosophila;    Postzygotic;    Prezygotic;    Hybridization;    Reproductive isolation;    Speciation;   

Others  :  1158285
DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-015-0328-y

 received in 2014-10-31, accepted in 2015-02-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

During the speciation process several types of isolating barriers can arise that limit gene flow between diverging populations. Studying recently isolated species can inform our understanding of how and when these barriers arise, and which barriers may be most important to limiting gene flow. Here we focus on Drosophila suboccidentalis and D. occidentalis, which are closely related mushroom-feeding species that inhabit western North America and are not known to overlap in geographic range. We investigate patterns of reproductive isolation between these species, including premating, postmating prezygotic, and postzygotic barriers to gene flow.

Results

Using flies that originate from a single population of each species, we find that the strength of premating sexual isolation between these species is asymmetric: while D. occidentalis females mate with D. suboccidentalis males at a reduced but moderate rate, D. suboccidentalis females discriminate strongly against mating with D. occidentalis males. Female hybrids will mate at high rates with males of either species, indicating that this discrimination has a recessive genetic basis. Hybrid males are accepted by females of both species. We do not find evidence for postmating prezygotic or postzygotic isolating barriers, as females use the sperm of heterospecific males and both male and female hybrids are fully fertile.

Conclusions

Premating isolation is substantial but incomplete, and appears to be the primary form of reproductive isolation between these species. If these species do hybridize, the lack of postzygotic barriers may allow for gene flow between them. Given that these species are recently diverged and are not known to be sympatric, the level of premating isolation is relatively strong given the lack of intrinsic postzygotic isolation. Further work is necessary to characterize the geographic and genetic variation in reproductive isolating barriers, as well as to determine the factors that drive reproductive isolation and the consequences that isolating barriers as well as geographic isolation have had on patterns of gene flow between these species.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Arthur and Dyer; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Coyne JA, Orr HA: Speciation, vol. 37. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA; 2004.
• [2]Mayr E: Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge; 1963.
• [3]Sobel JM, Chen GF, Watt LR, Schemske DW: The biology of speciation. Evolution 2010, 64(2):295-315.
• [4]Servedio MR: Beyond reinforcement: the evolution of premating isolation by direct selection on preferences and postmating, prezygotic incompatibilities. Evolution 2001, 55(10):1909-1920.
• [5]Price CS: Conspecific sperm precedence in Drosophila. Nature 1997, 388(6643):663-666.
• [6]Palumbi SR: All males are not created equal: fertility differences depend on gamete recognition polymorphisms in sea urchins. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1999, 96(22):12632-12637.
• [7]Rice WR: Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 1996, 381(6579):232-234.
• [8]Brideau NJ, Flores HA, Wang J, Maheshwari S, Wang X, Barbash DA: Two Dobzhansky-Muller genes interact to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila. Science 2006, 314(5803):1292-1295.
• [9]Cutter AD: The polymorphic prelude to Bateson-Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities. Trends Ecol Evol 2012, 27(4):209-218.
• [10]Orr HA, Turelli M: The evolution of postzygotic isolation: accumulating Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities. Evolution 2001, 55(6):1085-1094.
• [11]Dopman EB, Robbins PS, Seaman A: Components of reproductive isolation between North American pheromone strains of the European corn borer. Evolution 2010, 64(4):881-902.
• [12]Husband BC, Sabara HA: Reproductive isolation between autotetraploids and their diploid progenitors in fireweed, Chamerion angustifolium (Onagraceae). New Phytologist 2004, 161(3):703-713.
• [13]Lowry DB, Rockwood RC, Willis JH: Ecological reproductive isolation of coast and inland races of Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 2008, 62(9):2196-2214.
• [14]Mendelson TC, Imhoff VE, Venditti JJ: The accumulation of reproductive barriers during speciation: postmating barriers in two behaviorally isolated species of darters (Percidae: Etheostoma). Evolution 2007, 61(11):2596-2606.
• [15]Nosil P: Divergent host plant adaptation and reproductive isolation between ecotypes of Timema cristinae walking sticks. Am Nat 2007, 169(2):151-162.
• [16]Ramsey J, Bradshaw H, Schemske DW: Components of reproductive isolation between the monkeyflowers Mimulus lewisii and M. cardinalis (Phrymaceae). Evolution 2003, 57(7):1520-1534.
• [17]Schwander T, Suni SS, Cahan SH, Keller L: Mechanisms of reproductive isolation between an ant species of hybrid origin and one of its parents. Evolution 2008, 62(7):1635-1643.
• [18]Scopece G, Musacchio A, Widmer A, Cozzolino S: Patterns of reproductive isolation in Mediterranean deceptive orchids. Evolution 2007, 61(11):2623-2642.
• [19]Veen T, Faulks J, Tyler F, Lloyd J, Tregenza T: Diverse reproductive barriers in hybridising crickets suggests extensive variation in the evolution and maintenance of isolation. Evol Ecol 2013, 27(5):993-1015.
• [20]Coyne JA, Orr HA. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. 1989;43:362-81.
• [21]Coyne JA, Orr HA. “Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. Evolution. 1997;51:295-303.
• [22]Perlman SJ, Spicer GS, Shoemaker DD, Jaenike J: Associations between mycophagous Drosophila and their Howardula nematode parasites: a worldwide phylogenetic shuffle. Mol Ecol 2003, 12(1):237-249.
• [23]Spicer GS, Jaenike J. Phylogenetic analysis of breeding site use and α-amanitin tolerance within the Drosophila quinaria species group. Evolution. 1996;50:2328-37.
• [24]Patterson JT, Stone WS: Evolution in the genus Drosophila . 1952.
• [25]Spencer WP: New species in the quinaria group of the subgenus Drosophila. Univ. Texas Publ 1942, 4213:53-66.
• [26]Wharton LT: Analysis of the metaphase and salivary chromosome morphology within the genus Drosophila. Univ Texas Publ 1943, 4313:282-319.
• [27]Bray M, Werner T, Dyer K: Two genomic regions together cause dark abdominal pigmentation in Drosophila tenebrosa. Heredity 2013, 112(4):454-462.
• [28]Kliman RM, Andolfatto P, Coyne JA, Depaulis F, Kreitman M, Berry AJ, et al.: The population genetics of the origin and divergence of the Drosophila simulans complex species. Genetics 2000, 156(4):1913-1931.
• [29]Keightley PD, Ness RW, Halligan DL, Haddrill PR: Estimation of the spontaneous mutation rate per nucleotide site in a Drosophila melanogaster full-sib family. Genetics 2014, 196(1):313-320.
• [30]Sears JW: Relationships within the quinaria species group of Drosophila. Univ Texas Publ 1944, 4720:137-156.
• [31]Haldane JB: Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals. J Genet 1922, 12(2):101-109.
• [32]Yukilevich R: Asymmetrical patterns of speciation uniquely support reinforcement in Drosophila. Evolution 2012, 66(5):1430-1446.
• [33]Kaneshiro KY, Giddings LV: The significance of asymmetrical sexual isolation and the formation of new species. In Evolutionary Biology. Springer, New York; 1987:29-43.
• [34]Robertson HM: Mating asymmetries and phylogeny in the Drosophila melanogaster species complex. Pacific Science 1988, 42:72-80.
• [35]Yukilevich R, True JR: Incipient sexual isolation among cosmopolitan Drosophila melanogaster populations. Evolution 2008, 62(8):2112-2121.
• [36]Mas F, Jallon J-M: Sexual isolation and cuticular hydrocarbon differences between Drosophila santomea and Drosophila yakuba. J Chem Ecol 2005, 31(11):2747-2752.
• [37]Schug MD, Baines JF, Killon-Atwood A, Mohanty S, Das A, Grath S, et al.: Evolution of mating isolation between populations of Drosophila ananassae. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(11):2706-2721.
• [38]Nanda P, Singh BN: Evidence for incipient sexual isolation within Drosophila ananassae. Zool Stud 2011, 50(5):577-587.
• [39]Noor MA: Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila. Nature 1995, 375(6533):674-675.
• [40]Pfennig KS, Pfennig DW: Character displacement: ecological and reproductive responses to a common evolutionary problem. Q Rev Biol 2009, 84(3):253.
• [41]Coyne JA, Kim SY, Chang AS, Lachaise D, Elwyn S: Sexual isolation between two sibling species with overlapping ranges: Drosophila santomea and Drosophila yakuba. Evolution 2002, 56(12):2424-2434.
• [42]Coyne JA: Genetics of sexual isolation between two sibling species, Drosophila simulans and Drosophila mauritiana. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1989, 86(14):5464-5468.
• [43]Noor MA, Grams KL, Bertucci LA, Reiland J: Chromosomal inversions and the reproductive isolation of species. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2001, 98(21):12084-12088.
• [44]Noor MA: On the evolution of female mating preferences as pleiotropic byproducts of adaptive evolution. Adaptive Behav 2000, 8(1):3-12.
• [45]Greenspan RJ, Ferveur J-F: Courtship in Drosophila. Annu Rev Genet 2000, 34(1):205-232.
• [46]Ferveur J-F: Cuticular hydrocarbons: their evolution and roles in Drosophila pheromonal communication. Behav Genet 2005, 35(3):279-295.
• [47]Dyer KA, Charlesworth B, Jaenike J: Chromosome-wide linkage disequilibrium as a consequence of meiotic drive. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2007, 104(5):1587-1592.
• [48]Dyer KA, Jaenike J: Evolutionary dynamics of a spatially structured host-parasite association: Drosophila innubila and male-killing Wolbachia. Evolution 2005, 59(7):1518-1528.
• [49]Dyer KA, White BE, Bray MJ, Piqué DG, Betancourt AJ: Molecular evolution of a Y chromosome to autosome gene duplication in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol 2011, 28(3):1293-1306.
• [50]Coyne JA: Genetic basis of male sterility in hybrids between two closely related species of Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1984, 81(14):4444-4447.