Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings

Nature

Volumn 425, Issue 6959, 2003, Pages 714-717

  Foerster, Katharina ^a   Delhey, Kaspar ^a   Johnsen, Arild ^a   Lifjeld, Jan T ^b   Kempenaers, Bart ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR ORNITHOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; ECOSYSTEMS;

GENETIC QUALITY;

BIODIVERSITY;

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ADOLESCENT; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIRD; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBRYO; FEMALE; FITNESS; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HETEROZYGOSITY; INBREEDING; MALE; MATING; NEWBORN; NONHUMAN; PARUS CAERULEUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGENY; REFLECTOMETRY; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; COLOR; COPULATION; FEMALE; HETEROZYGOTE; LITTER SIZE; MALE; REPRODUCTION; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SONGBIRDS; SURVIVAL RATE;

ANIMALIA; AVES; PARUS; PARUS CAERULEUS;

EID: 0142215474     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature01969     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75, 21-64 (2000).
2. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1013-1027 (2000).
3. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav. 61, 1051-1063 (2001).
4. Brown, J. L. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8, 60-65 (1997).
5. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1711-1717 (1996).
6. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71-73 (2002).
7. Thornhill, N. W. The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993).
8. Kempenaers, B., Adriaensen, F., van Noordwijk, A. J. & Dhondt, A. A. Genetic similarity, inbreeding and hatching failure in blue tits: are unhatched eggs in fertile? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 179-185 (1996).
9. Coltman, D. W., Bowen, W. D. & Wright, J. M. Birth weight and neonatal survival of harbour seal pups are positively correlated with genetic variation measured by microsatellites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 803-809 (1998).
10. Amos, W. et al. The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc. R. Soc Lond. B 268, 2021-2027 (2001).
11. Hansson, B., Bensch, S., Hasselquist, D. & Akesson, M. Microsatellite diversity predicts recruitment of sibling great reed warblers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 1287-1291 (2001).
12. Höglund, J. et al. Inbreeding depression and male fitness in black grouse. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 711-715 (2002).
13. Hansson, B. & Westerberg, L. On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations. Mol. Ecol. 11, 2467-2474 (2002).
14. Pusey, A. & Wolf, M. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 201-206 (1996).
15. Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 52-58 (1998).
16. Blomqvist, D. et al. Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419, 613-615 (2002).
17. Kempenaers, B. et al. Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357, 494-496 (1992).
18. Kempenaers, B., Verheyen, G. R. & Dhondt, A. A. Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring performance. Behav. Ecol. 8, 481-492 (1997).
19. Aparicio, J. M., Cordero, P. J. & Veiga, J. P. A test of the hypothesis of mate choice based on heterozygosity in the spotless starling. Anim. Behav. 62, 1001-1006 (2001).
20. Andersson, S., Örnborg, J. & Andersson, M. Ultraviolet sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in blue tits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 445-450 (1998).
21. Hunt, S., Cuthill, I. C., Bennett, A. T. D. & Griffiths, R. Preferences for ultraviolet partners in the blue tit. Anim. Behav. 58, 809-815 (1999).
22. Sheldon, B., Andersson, S., Griffith, S. C., Örnborg, J. & Sendecka, J. Ultraviolet colour variation influences blue tit sex ratios. Nature 402, 874-877 (1999).
23. Mitton, J. B., Schuster, W. S. F., Cothran, E. G. & De Fries, J. C. Correlation between the individual heterozygosity of parents and their offspring. Heredity 71, 59-63 (1993).
24. Stockley, P., Searle, J. B., MacDonald, D. W. & Jones, C. S. Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 254, 173-179 (1993).
25. Dawson, D. A., Hanotte, O., Greig, C., Stewart, I. R. K. & Burke, T. Polymorphic microsatellites in the blue tit Parus caeruleus and their cross-species utility in 20 songbird families. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1941-1944 (2000).
26. Bensch, S., Price, T. & Kohn, J. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in a Phylloscopus warbler. Mol. Ecol. 6, 91-92 (1997).
27. Fridolfsson, A. K., Gyllensten, U. B. & Jakobsson, S. Microsatellite markers for paternity testing in the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus: high frequency of extra-pair young in an island population. Hereditas 126, 127-132 (1997).
28. Jamieson, A. The effectiveness of using co-dominant polymorphic allelic series for (1) checking pedigrees and (2) distinguishing full-sib pair members. Anim. Genet. 25, 37-44 (1994).
29. Pemberton, J. M., Coltman, D. W., Coulson, T. N. & Slate, J. in Microsatellites, Evolution and Applications (eds Goldstein, D. B. & Schlötterer, C.) 151-164 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1999).
30. Turelli, M. & Ginzburg, L. R. Should individual fitness increase with heterozygosity? Genetics 104, 191-209 (1983).