Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer

Nature

Volumn 447, Issue 7148, 2007, Pages 1107-1110

  Foerster, Katharina ^a   Coulson, Tim ^b   Sheldon, Ben C ^c   Pemberton, Josephine M ^a   Clutton Brock, Tim H ^d   Kruuk, Loeske E B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTAGONISM; BREEDING POPULATION; DEER; EVOLUTIONARY THEORY; FITNESS; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MUTATION; SEXUAL SELECTION; WILD POPULATION;

ARTICLE; BREEDING; FEMALE; FITNESS; GENETIC CORRELATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOTYPE; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RED DEER;

CERVUS ELAPHUS;

EID: 34347363070     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature05912     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Merila, J., Sheldon, B. C. & Kruuk, L. E. B. Explaining stasis: microevolutionary studies in natural populations. Genetica 112, 199-222 (2001).
2. Barton, N. H. & Keightley, P. D. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nature Rev. Genet. 3, 11-21 (2002).
3. Turelli, M. & Barton, N. H. Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: Pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and G X E interactions. Genetics 166, 1053-1079 (2004).
4. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1998).
5. Hedrick, P. W. Antagonistic pleiotropy and genetic polymorphism: a perspective. Heredity 82, 126-133 (1999).
6. Rice, W. R. & Chippindale, A. K. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 685-693 (2001).
7. Rice, W. R. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 38, 735-742 (1984).
8. Chippindale, A. K., Gibson, J. R. & Rice, W. R. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1671-1675 (2001).
9. Fedorka, K. M. & Mousseau, T. A. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429, 65-67 (2004).
10. Rice, W. R. Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science 256, 1436-1439 (1992).
11. Gibson, J. R., Chippindale, A. K. & Rice, W. R. The X chromosome is a hot spot for sexually antagonistic fitness variation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 499-505 (2002).
12. Meagher, T. R. The quantitative genetics of sexual dimorphism in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). 1. Genetic variation. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 46, 445-457 (1992).
13. Forsman, A. Opposing fitness consequences of colour pattern in male and female snakes. J. Evol. Biol. 8, 53-70 (1995).
14. Calsbeek, R. & Sinervo, B. Within-clutch variation in offspring sex determined by differences in sire body size: cryptic mate choice in the wild. J. Evol. Biol. 17, 464-470 (2004).
15. Robinson, M. R., Pilkington, J. G., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Pemberton, J. M. & Kruuk, L. E. B. Live fast, die young: Trade-offs between fitness components and sexually antagonistic selection on weaponry in Soay sheep. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 60, 2168-2181 (2006).
16. Rice, W. R. Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 12953-12955 (2000).
17. Coulson, T. et al. Estimating individual contributions to population growth: evolutionary fitness in ecological time. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273, 547-555 (2006).
18. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry 3rd edn (Freeman, New York, 1995).
19. Kruuk, L. E. B. Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the 'animal model'. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 359, 873-890 (2004).
20. Kruuk, L. E. B. et al. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 698-703 (2000).
21. Houle, D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130, 195-204 (1992).
22. Kruuk, L. E. B. et al. Antler size in red deer: heritability and selection but no evolution. Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 56, 1683-1695 (2002).
23. Kokko, H. Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4, 322-326 (2001).
24. Pischedda, A. & Chippindale, A. K. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 4, e356 (2006).
25. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E. & Albon, S. D. Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of Two Sexes (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982).
26. Kruuk, L. E. B., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Rose, K. E. & Guinness, F. E. Early determinants of lifetime reproductive success differ between the sexes in red deer. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1655-1661 (1999).
27. Coulson, T., Albon, S., Guinness, F., Pemberton, J. & Clutton-Brock, T. Population substructure, local density, and calf winter survival in red deer (Cervus elaphus). Ecology 78, 852-863 (1997).
28. Marshall, T. C. et al. Estimating the prevalence of inbreeding from incomplete pedigrees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1533-1539 (2002).
29. Gilmour, A. R., Gogel, B. J., Cullis, B. R., Welham, S. J. & Thompson, R. ASReml User Guide 1.0. (VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, 2002).
30. Metcalf, C. J. E. & Pavard, S. Why evolutionary biologists should be demographers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 205-212 (2007).
31. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E. & Albon, S. D. The costs of reproduction to red deer hinds. J. Anim. Ecol. 52, 367-383 (1983).