Intracolonial genetic variation affects reproductive skew and colony productivity during colony foundation in a parthenogenetic termite

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Kiyoto Maekawa¹  Kazuki Tsuji³  Osamu Kitade²  Yoshinobu Hayashi⁵  Ryota Saiki¹  Miho Yoshimura¹  Satoshi Miyazaki⁴ 

[1] Graduate School of Science and Engineering, University of Toyama, Gofuku, Toyama, 930-8555, Japan;College of Science, Ibaraki University, Mito, 310-8512, Ibaraki, Japan;Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, 903-0213, Okinawa, Japan;Department of Hygiene and Public Health, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Shinjuku-ku, 162-8666, Tokyo, Japan;Graduate School of Environmental Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, 060-0810, Hokkaido, Japan

关键词: Reticulitermes speratus;    Nymph;    Caste differentiation;    Parthenogenesis;    Eusociality;    Reproductive skew;    Colony efficiency;    Intracolonial genetic variation;   

Others  :  1118015
DOI  :  10.1186/s12862-014-0177-0

 received in 2014-07-25, accepted in 2014-07-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In insect societies, intracolonial genetic variation is predicted to affect both colony efficiency and reproductive skew. However, because the effects of genetic variation on these two colony characteristics have been tested independently, it remains unclear whether they are affected by genetic variation independently or in a related manner. Here we test the effect of genetic variation on colony efficiency and reproductive skew in a rhinotermitid termite, Reticulitermes speratus, a species in which female-female pairs can facultatively found colonies. We established colonies using two types of female-female pairs: colonies founded by sisters (i.e., sister-pair colonies) and those founded by females from different colonies (i.e., unrelated-pair colonies). Colony growth and reproductive skew were then compared between the two types of incipient colonies.

Results

At 15 months after colony foundation, unrelated-pair colonies were larger than sister-pair colonies, although the caste ratio between workers and nymphs, which were alternatively differentiated from young larvae, did not differ significantly. Microsatellite DNA analyses of both founders and their parthenogenetically produced offspring indicated that, in both sister-pair and unrelated-pair colonies, there was no significant skew in the production of eggs, larvae, workers and soldiers. Nymph production, however, was significantly more skewed in the sister-pair colonies than in unrelated-pair colonies. Because nymphs can develop into winged adults (alates) or nymphoid reproductives, they have a higher chance of direct reproduction than workers in this species.

Conclusions

Our results support the idea that higher genetic variation among colony members could provide an increase in colony productivity, as shown in hymenopteran social insects. Moreover, this study suggests that low genetic variation (high relatedness) between founding females increases reproductive skew via one female preferentially channeling her relatives along the reproductive track. This study thus demonstrated that, in social insects, intracolonial genetic variation can simultaneously affect both colony efficiency and reproductive skew.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Miyazaki et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Oldroyd BP, Fewell JH: Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends Ecol Evol 2007, 22(8):408-413.
• [2]King KC, Lively CM: Does genetic diversity limit disease spread in natural host populations? Heredity 2012, 109(4):199-203.
• [3]Schmid-Hempel P: Infection and colony variability in social insects. Philos Trans R Soc B 1994, 346(1317):313-321.
• [4]Nonacs P, Hager R: The past, present and future of reproductive skew theory and experiments. Biol Rev 2011, 86(2):271-298.
• [5]Nutting WL: Flight and colony foundation. In Biology of Termites. Volume 1. Edited by Krishna K, Weesner FM. Academic, New York; 1969:223-282.
• [6]Matsuura K, Nishida T: Comparison of colony foundation success between sexual pairs and female asexual units in the termite Reticulitermes speratus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). Popul Ecol 2001, 43(2):119-124.
• [7]Matsuura K, Fujimoto M, Goka K, Nishida T: Cooperative colony foundation by termite female pairs: altruism for survivorship in incipient colonies. Anim Behav 2002, 64(2):167-173.
• [8]Matsuura K, Fujimoto M, Goka K: Sexual and asexual colony foundation and the mechanism of facultative parthenogenesis in the termite Reticulitermes speratus (Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae). Insectes Soc 2004, 51(4):325-332.
• [9]Reeve HK, Keller L: Tests of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 2001, 46(1):347-385.
• [10]Nonacs P: Kinship, greenbeards, and runaway social selection in the evolution of social insect cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2011, 108(Supplement 2):10808-10815.
• [11]Reeve HK, Emlen ST, Keller L: Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? Behav Ecol 1998, 9(3):267-278.
• [12]Kokko H: Review paper: are reproductive skew models evolutionarily stable? Proc Biol Sci 2003, 270(1512):265-270.
• [13]Johnstone RA: Models of reproductive skew: a review and synthesis (invited article). Ethology 2000, 106(1):5-26.
• [14]Tsuji K, Kasuya E: What do the indices of reproductive skew measure? Am Nat 2001, 158(2):155-165.
• [15]Reeve H, Ratnieks F: Queen-queen conflict in polygynous societies: mutual tolerance and reproductive skew. In Queen Number and Sociality in Insects. Edited by Keller L. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; 1993:45-85.
• [16]Hayashi Y, Lo N, Miyata H, Kitade O: Sex-linked genetic influence on caste determination in a termite. Science 2007, 318(5852):985-987.
• [17]Matsuura K, Vargo EL, Kawatsu K, Labadie PE, Nakano H, Yashiro T, Tsuji K: Queen succession through asexual reproduction in termites. Science 2009, 323(5922):1687.
• [18]Julian GE, Fewell JH: Genetic variation and task specialization in the desert leaf-cutter ant, Acromyrmex versicolor. Anim Behav 2004, 68(1):1-8.
• [19]Cole BJ, Wiernasz DC: The selective advantage of low relatedness. Science 1999, 285(5429):891-893.
• [20]Wiernasz DC, Hines J, Parker DG, Cole BJ: Mating for variety increases foraging activity in the harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex occidentalis. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(4):1137-1144.
• [21]Goodisman MAD, Kovacs JL, Hoffman EA: The significance of multiple mating in the social wasp Vespula maculifrons. Evolution 2007, 61(9):2260-2267.
• [22]Moreau CS, Bell CD, Vila R, Archibald SB, Pierce NE: Phylogeny of the ants: diversification in the age of angiosperms. Science 2006, 312(5770):101-104.
• [23]Hines HM, Hunt JH, O’Connor TK, Gillespie JJ, Cameron SA: Multigene phylogeny reveals eusociality evolved twice in vespid wasps. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2007, 104(9):3295-3299.
• [24]van Valen L: A new evolutionary law. Evol Theory 1973, 1:1-30.
• [25]Ebert D, Hamilton WD: Sex against virulence: the coevolution of parasitic diseases. Trends Ecol Evol 1996, 11(2):79-82.
• [26]Smith JM: What use is sex? J Theor Biol 1971, 30(2):319-335.
• [27]Shykoff J, Schmid-Hempel P: Genetic relatedness and eusociality: parasite-mediated selection on the genetic composition of groups. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 1991, 28(5):371-376.
• [28]Shykoff JA, Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites and the advantage of genetic variability within social insect colonies. Proc Biol Sci 1991, 243(1306):55-58.
• [29]Schmid-Hempel P: Parasites in Social Insects. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; 1998.
• [30]Hughes WO, Sumner S, Van Borm S, Boomsma JJ: Worker caste polymorphism has a genetic basis in Acromyrmex leaf-cutting ants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003, 100(16):9394-9397.
• [31]Rheindt FE, Strehl CP, Gadau J: A genetic component in the determination of worker polymorphism in the Florida harvester ant Pogonomyrmex badius. Insectes Soc 2005, 52(2):163-168.
• [32]Robinson GE, Page RE: Genetic determination of guarding and undertaking in honey-bee colonies. Nature 1988, 333(6171):356-358.
• [33]Calleri DV, McGrail Reid E, Rosengaus RB, Vargo EL, Traniello JFA: Inbreeding and disease resistance in a social insect: effects of heterozygosity on immunocompetence in the termite Zootermopsis angusticollis. Proc Biol Sci 2006, 273(1601):2633-2640.
• [34]Traniello JFA, Rosengaus RB, Savoie K: The development of immunity in a social insect: evidence for the group facilitation of disease resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2002, 99(10):6838-6842.
• [35]Reeve HK, Ratnieks FLW: Queen-Queen Conflicts in Polygynous Societies: Mutual Tolerance and Reproductive Skew. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; 1993.
• [36]Weesner FM: The reproductive system. In Biology of Termites. Volume 1. Edited by Krishna K, Weesner FM. Academic, New York; 1969:125-160.
• [37]Ishitani K, Maekawa K: Ovarian development of female-female pairs in the termite, Reticulitermes speratus. J Insect Sci 2010, 10(194):1-12.
• [38]Vargo EL: Polymorphism at trinucleotide microsatellite loci in the subterranean termite Reticulitermes flavipes. Mol Ecol 2000, 9(6):817-820.
• [39]Hayashi Y, Kitade O, Kojima J-I: Microsatellite loci in the Japanese subterranean termite, Reticulitermes speratus. Mol Ecol Notes 2002, 2(4):518-520.