Sexual selection and the evolution of evolvability

Heredity

Volumn 98, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 198-205

  Petrie, M ^a   Roberts, G ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Genetic variation; Lek paradox; Mate choice; Mutation rate; Mutator genes; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FITNESS; GENETIC VARIATION; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; LEK; MATE CHOICE; MUTATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; MALE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MUTATION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FEMALE; MALE; MUTATION; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33947687763     PISSN: 0018067X     EISSN: 13652540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800921     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Agrawal AF (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411: 692-695.
2. Barton NH, Charlesworth B (1998). Why sex and recombination? Science 281: 1986-1990.
3. Bartosch-Harlid A, Berlin S, Smith NGC, Møller AP, Ellegren H (2003). Life history and the male mutation bias. Evolution 57: 2398-2406.
4. Burt A, Bell G (1987). Mammalian chiasma frequencies as a test of two theories of recombination. Nature 326: 803-805.
5. Charlesworth B (1987). The heritability of fitness. In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester. pp 21-40.
6. Cox EC (1976). Bacterial mutator genes and the control of spontaneous mutation. Annu Rev Genet 10: 135-156.
7. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000). Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyes flies. Nature 406: 186-188.
8. de Visser JAGM, Zeyl CW, Gerrish PJ, Blanchard JL, Lenski RE (1999). Diminishing returns from mutation supply in asexual populations. Science 283: 404-406.
9. Drake JW, Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D, Crowe JF (1998). Rates of spontaneous mutation. Genetics 148: 1667-1686.
10. Ellegren H, Fridolfsson AK (1997). Male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in birds. Nat Genet 17: 182-184.
11. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman: London.
12. Gillespie JH (1981). Mutation modification in a random environment. Evolution 35: 468-476.
13. Hale M, Verduijn MH, Møller AP, Wolff K, Petrie M (ms). The peacock's train is an honest signal of genetic quality at the major histocompatibility complex. Nature Genetics (submitted).
14. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites. Science 218: 384-387.
15. Hartl DL, Clark AG (1989). Principles of Population Genetics. Sinauer: Sunderland, MA.
16. Höglund J, Alatalo RV (1995). Leks. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
17. Holland B, Rice WR (1998). Chase away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52: 1-7.
18. Houle D, Morikawa B, Lynch M (1996). Comparing mutational variabilities. Genetics 143: 1467-1483.
19. Janetos AC (1980). Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7: 107-112.
20. Johnson T (1999). Beneficial mutations, hitchhiking and the evolution of mutation rates in sexual populations. Genetics 151: 1621-1631.
21. Johnstone RA, Earn DJD (1999). Imperfect female choice and male mating skew on leks of different sizes. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45: 277-281.
22. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
23. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002). The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269: 1331-1340.
24. Kokko H, Lindstrom J (1996). Evolution of female preference for old mates. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1533-1538.
25. Leigh EG (1973). The evolution of mutation rates. Genetics 73: 1-18.
26. Lesna I, Sabells MW (1999). Diet dependent female choice for males with 'good genes' in a soil predatory mite. Nature 401: 581-584.
27. Metzgar D, Wills C (2000). Evolutionary changes in mutation rates and spectra and their influence on the adaptation of pathogens. Microbes Infect 2: 1513-1522.
28. Møller AP, Alatalo RV (1999). Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 266: 85-91.
29. Møller AP, Cuervo JJ (2003). Sexual selection, germline mutation rate and sperm competition. BMC Evol Biol 3: 6.
30. Neff BD (2000). Females aren't perfect: maintaining genetic variation and the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 15: 395.
31. Partridge L, Barton NH (2000). Evolving evolvability. Nature 407: 457-458.
32. Petrie M (1992). Peacocks with low mating success are more likely to suffer predation. Anim Behav 44: 585-586.
33. Petrie M (1994). Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371: 598-599.
34. Petrie M, Cotgreave P, Pike TW (ms). Variation in the peacock's train shows a genetic component. Heredity (submitted).
35. Petrie M, Doums C, Møller AP (1998). The degree of extra-pair paternity increases with genetic variability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 9390-9395.
36. Petrie M, Lipsitch M (1994). Avian polygyny is most likely in populations with high variability in heritable male fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B 256: 275-280.
37. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422-1430.
38. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995). A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260: 21-29.
39. Randerson JP, Jiggins FM, Hurst LD (2000). Male killing can select for male mate choice: a novel solution to the paradox of the lek. Proc R Soc Lond B 267: 867-874.
40. Rice WR (1988). Heritable variation in fitness as a prerequisite for adaptive female choice: the effect of mutation-selection balance. Evolution 42: 817-820.
41. Ritchie M (1996). What is 'the paradox of the lek'? Trends Ecol Evol 11: 175.
42. Roberts G (1998). Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 427-431.
43. Roff DA (1998). The maintenance of phenotypic and genetic variation in threshold traits by frequency-dependent selection. J Evol Biol 11: 513-529.
44. Rowe L, Houle D (1996). The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1415-1421.
45. Sheldon BC (1999). Revealing quantitative genetic relationships in sexual selection using molecular markers. In: Adams N, Slotow R (eds) Proceedings of the 22nd International Ornithology Congress, Durban. Birdlife South Africa: Johannesburg. pp 1099-1114.
46. Siller S (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411: 689-692.
47. Sniegowski P, Gerrish PJ, Jonson T, Shaver A (2000). The evolution of mutation rates: separating causes from consequences. Bioessays 22: 1057-1066.
48. Sniegowski PD, Gerrish PJ, Lenski RE (1997). Evolution of high mutation rates in experimental populations of E. coli. Nature 387: 703-705.
49. Stearns SC, Hoekstra RF (2000). Evolution: An Introduction. Oxford University Press: New York.
50. Taddei F, Radman M, Maynard Smith JM, Toupance B, Gouyon PH, Godelle B (1997). Role of mutator alleles in adaptive evolution. Nature 387: 700-702.
51. Tenaillon O, Le Nagard H, Godelle B, Taddei F (2000). Mutators and sex in bacteria: conflict between adaptive strategies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97: 10465-10470.
52. Tenaillon O, Toupance B, Le Nagard H, Taddei F, Godelle B (1999). Mutators, population size, adaptive landscape and the adaptation of asexual populations of bacteria. Genetics 152: 485-493.
53. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004). Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19: 323-328.
54. Turner GF (1995). The lek paradox resolved? Trends Ecol Evol 10: 473-474.
55. Wade MJ, Arnold SJ (1980). The intensity of sexual selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and sperm precedence. Anim Behav 28: 446-461.
56. Wilkinson GS, Presgraves DC, Crymes L (1998). Male eye span in stalk eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391: 223-224.