Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterozygosity

Evolution

Volumn 63, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 684-694

  Fromhage, Lutz ^a,d   Kokko, Hanna ^b   Reid, Jane M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^d JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Compatible genes; Genetic quality; Good genes; Inbreeding depression; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

DISPERSAL; FITNESS; GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENETIC VARIATION; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; HETEROZYGOSITY; INBREEDING; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; POPULATION SIZE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; INBREEDING; MALE; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; INBREEDING; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 60849138794     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00575.x     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aguilar, A., G. Roemer, S. Debenham, M. Binns, D. Garcelon, and R. K. Wayne. 2004. High MHC diversity maintained by balancing selection in an otherwise genetically monomorphic mammal. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101 : 3490 3494.
2. Amos, W., J. Worthington Wilmer, and H. Kokko. 2001. Do female grey seals select genetically diverse mates? Anim. Behav. 62 : 157 164.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Aspi, J. 2000. Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in male courtship song characters in Drosophila montana. Heredity 84 : 273 282.
5. Batista, F., and P. A. Sosa. 2002. Allozyme diversity in natural populations of Viola palmensis (Violaceae) from La Palma (Canary Islands): implications for conservation genetics. Ann. Bot. 90 : 725 733.
6. Bensch, S., H. Andrén, B. Hansson, H. C. Pedersen, H. Sand, D. Sejberg, P. Wabakken, M. Åkesson, and O. Liberg. 2006. Selection for heterozygosity gives hope to a wild population of inbred wolves. PloS One 1 : e72.
7. Brown, J. L. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8 : 60 65.
8. Charlesworth, B. 1988. The evolution of mate choice in a fluctuating environment. J. Theor. Biol. 130 : 191 204.
9. Charlesworth, D., and Z. Yang. 1998. Allozyme diversity in Leavenworthia populations with different inbreeding levels. Heredity 81 : 453 461.
10. Colegrave, N., J. S. Kotiaho, and J. L. Tomkins. 2002. Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4 : 911 917.
11. Coltman, D. W., and J. Slate. 2003. Microsatellite measures of inbreeding: a meta-analysis. Evolution 57 : 971 983.
12. Crnokrak, P., and D. A. Roff. 1999. Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity 83 : 260 270.
13. Drayton, J. M., J. Hunt, R. Brooks, and M. D. Jennions. 2007. Sounds different: inbreeding depression in sexually selected traits in the cricket Teleogryllus commodus. J. Evol. Biol. 20 : 1138 1147.
14. Falconer, D. S., and T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, London.
15. Hamrick, J. L., and D. A. Murawski. 1991. Levels of allozyme diversity in populations of uncommon neotropical tree species. J. Trop. Ecol. 7 : 395 399.
16. Hunt, J., L. F. Bussière, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 329 333.
17. Irwin, A. J., and P. D. Taylor. 2000. Heterozygous advantage and the evolution of female choice. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2 : 119 128.
18. Keller, L. F., and D. M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17 : 230 241.
19. Kempenaers, B. 2007. Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv. Stud. Behav. 37 : 189 278.
20. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50 : 2125 2140.
21. Kirkpatrick, M., and N. H. Barton. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94 : 1282 1286.
22. Kirkpatrick, M., and M. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350 : 33 39.
23. Kokko, H. 2007. Modelling for field biologists and other interesting people. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
24. Kokko, H., and I. Ots. 2006. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60 : 467 475.
25. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269 : 1331 1340.
26. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, M. D. Jennions, and J. Morley. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270 : 653 664.
27. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 37 : 43 66.
28. Kotiaho, J. S., N. R. LeBas, M. Puurtinen, and J. L. Tomkins. 2008a On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 : 1 3.
29. Kotiaho, J. S., N. R. LeBas, M. Puurtinen, and J. L. Tomkins. 2008b. On female choice, heterozygosity and the lek paradox. Anim. Behav. 75 : e1 e3.
30. Lehmann, L., and N. Perrin. 2003. Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am. Nat. 162 : 638 652.
31. Lehmann, L., L. F. Keller, and H. Kokko. 2007. Mate choice evolution, dominance effects and the maintenance of genetic variation. J. Theor. Biol. 244 : 282 295.
32. Mariette, M., J. L. Kelley, R. Brooks, and J. P. Evans. 2006. The effects of inbreeding on male courtship behaviour and coloration in guppies. Ethology 112 : 807 814.
33. Mays, H. L., and G. E. Hill. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 554 559.
34. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 264 271.
35. Mitton, J. B., W. S. F. Schuster, E. G. Cothran, and J. C. de Fries. 1993. Correlation between the individual heterozygosity of parents and their offspring. Heredity 71 : 59 63.
36. Neff, B. D., and T. E. Pitcher. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Mol. Ecol. 14 : 19 38.
37. Neff, B. D., and T. E. Pitcher. 2008. Mate choice for non-additive genetic benefits: a resolution to the lek paradox. J. Theor. Biol. 254 : 147 155.
38. Oh, K. P., and A. V. Badyaev. 2006. Adaptive genetic complementarity in mate choice coexists with selection for elaborate sexual traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273 : 1913 1919.
39. Partridge, L. 1983. Non-random mating and offspring fitness. Pp. 227 256 in P. Bateson, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
40. Petrie, M., and G. Roberts. 2007. Sexual selection and the evolution of evolvability. Heredity 98 : 198 205.
41. Radwan, J. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134 : 113 127.
42. Reid, J. M. 2007. Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274 : 1395 1402.
43. Reid, J. M., P. Arcese, A. L. E. V. Cassidy, A. B. Marr, J. N. M. Smith, and L. F. Keller. 2005. Hamilton and Zuk meet heterozygosity? Song repertoire size signals inbreeding and immunity in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272 : 481 487.
44. Reid, J. M., P. Arcese, and L. F. Keller. 2006. Intrinsic parent-offspring correlation in inbreeding level in a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) population open to immigration. Am. Nat. 168 : 1 13.
45. Reinhold, K. 2002. Modelling the evolution of female choice strategies under inbreeding conditions. Genetica 116 : 189 195.
46. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependence traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263 : 1415 1421.
47. Thom, M. D., P. Stockley, F. Jury, W. E. R. Ollier, R. J. Beynon, and J. L. Hurst. 2008. The direct assessment of genetic heterozygosity through scent in the mouse. Curr. Biol. 18 : 619 623.
48. Tomkins, J. L., J. Radwan, J. S. Kotiaho, and T. Tregenza. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 : 323 328.
49. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9 : 1013 1027.
50. van Oosterhout, C., R. E. Trigg, G. R. Carvalho, A. E. Magurran, L. Hauser, and P. W. Shaw. 2003. Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J. Evol. Biol. 16 : 273 281.