Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 272, Issue 1576, 2005, Pages 2029-2035

  Stewart, Andrew D ^a   Morrow, Edward H ^a   Rice, William R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost of males; Indirect benefits; Male harm; Sexual conflict; Sexually antagonistic coevolution

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

ALLELE; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; COEVOLUTION; CONFLICT; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST OF REPRODUCTION; COURTSHIP; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; MATING; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 26244452393     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3182     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Andrés, J. A. & Morrow, E. H. 2003 The origin of interlocus sexual conflict: is sex-linkage important? J. Evol. Biol. 16, 219-223. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00525.x.)
3. Arnqvist, G. 1992 Precopulatory fighting in a waterstrider: inter-sexual conflict or mate assessment? Anim. Behav. 43, 559-567. (doi:10.1016/0003- 3472(92)90079-O.)
4. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2002 Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415, 787-789.
5. Bateman, A. J. 1948 Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349-368.
6. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2003 Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1055-1060. (doi: 10. 1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00584.x. )
7. Chapman, T. 2001 Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity 87, 511-521. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00961.x.)
8. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. 2003 Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 41-47. (doi:10.1016/80169-5347(02)00004-6.)
9. Chapman, T., Hutchings, J. & Partridge, L. 1993 No reduction in the cost of mating for Drosophila melanogaster females mating with spermless males. Proc. R. Soc. B 253, 211-217.
10. Chapman, T., Liddle, L. F., Kalb, J. M., Wolfner, M. F. & Partridge, L. 1995 Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373, 241-244. (doi:10.1038/373241a0.)
11. Chippindale, A. K., Gibson, J. R. & Rice, W. R. 2001 Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1671-1675. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 041378098.)
12. Cohet, Y. A. & David, J. R. 1976 Deleterious effects of copulation in Drosophila females as a function of growth temperature of both sexes. Experientia 32, 696-697. (doi:10.1007/BF01919838.)
13. Cordero, C. & Eberhard, W. G. 2003 Female choice of antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1-6. (doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00506.x.)
14. Crudgington, H. S. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. 2000 Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407, 855-856. (doi:10.1038/35038154.)
15. Dawkins, R. 1976 The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16. Fisher, R. A. 1930 The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Fowler, K. & Partridge, L. 1989 A cost of mating in female fruitflies. Nature 338, 760-761. (doi:10.1038/338760a0.)
18. Harshman, L. G. & Clark, A. G. 1998 Inference of sperm competition from broods of field-caught Drosophila. Evolution 52, 1334-1341.
19. Head, M. L., Hunt, J., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. 2005 The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3, 289-294. (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030033.)
20. Hendrick, P. W. 1983 Genetics of populations. Boston: Science Books International.
21. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1999 Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5083-5088. (doi:10.1073/pnas. 96.9.5083.)
22. Hosken, D. J., Garner, T. W. J. & Ward, P. I. 2001 Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr. Biol. 11, 489-493. (doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00146-4.)
23. Imhof, M., Harr, B., Brem, G. & Sclotterer, C. 1998 Multiple mating in wild Drosophila melanogaster revisited by microsatellite analysis. Mol. Ecol. 7, 915-917. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00382.x.)
24. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991 The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38. (doi:10.1038/ 350033a0.)
25. Linder, J. & Rice, W. R. 2005 Natural selection and genetic variation for female resistance to harm from males. J. Evol. Biol. 18, 568-575. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00872.x.)
26. Markow, T. A. 1988 Reproductive behaviour of Drosophila melanogaster and D. nigrospiracula in the field and in the laboratory. J. Camp. Psychol 102, 169-173. (doi:10.1037//0735-7036.102.2.169.)
27. McKinney, F., Derrickson, S. R. & Mineau, P. 1983 Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86, 250-294.
28. Møller, A. P. & Alatalo, R. V. 1999 Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B 266, 85-91. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1999.0607.)
29. Orteiza, N., Linder J. E., Rice, W. R. In press. Sexy sons from remating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system. J. Evol. Biol. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101. 2005.00923.x.)
30. Parker, G. A. 1979 Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 123-166. London: Academic Press.
31. Partridge, L. & Fowler, K. 1990 Non-mating costs of exposure to males in female Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 36, 419-425. (doi:10.1016/0022-1910(90)90059-O.)
32. Partridge, L., Green, A. & Fowler, K. 1987 Effects of egg-production and of exposure to males on female survival in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Insect Physiol. 33, 745-749. (doi:10.1016/0022-1910(87)90060-6.)
33. Partridge, L. & Hurst, L. D. 1998 Sex and conflict. Science 281, 2003-2008. (doi:10.1126/science.281.5385.2003.)
34. Rice, W. R. 1996 Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381,232-234. (doi:10.1038/381232a0.)
35. Rice, W. R. 2000 Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 12953-12955. (doi:10.1073/pnas.97.24.12953.)
36. Rice, W. R. & Holland, B. 1997 The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 1-10. (doi:10.1007/s002650050357.)
37. Rice, W. R., Linder, J. E., Friberg, U., Lew, T. A., Morrow, E.H. & Stewart, A. D. 2005 Inter-locus antagonistic coevolution as an engine of speciation: assessment with hemiclonal analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102(Suppl. 1), 6527-6534. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0501889102.)
38. Stutt, A. D. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. 2001 Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 5683-5687. (doi:10.1073/pnas.101440698.)
39. Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (ed. B. Campbell), pp. 136-179. London: Heinemann.
40. Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. 2004 Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution 58, 1028-1037.