No evidence for optimal fitness at intermediate levels of inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 98, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 501-510

  Robinson, Stephen P ^a   Kennington, W Jason ^a   Simmons, Leigh W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Genetic relatedness; Inbreeding depression; Inclusive fitness; Outbreeding depression; Reproductive fitness; Sperm competition

Indexed keywords

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EGG PRODUCTION; FLY; INBREEDING; INCLUSIVE FITNESS; MATING BEHAVIOR; NONLINEARITY; REPRODUCTIVE STATUS; SPERM COMPETITION; VIABILITY;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 70350549857     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01301.x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Alipaz JA, Karr TL, Wu CI. 2005. Evolution of sexual isolation in laboratory populations: fitness differences between mating types and the associated hybrid incompatibilities. American Naturalist 165 : 429 438.
2. Barnard CJ, Fitzsimons J. 1988. Kin recognition and mate choice in mice - the effects of kinship, familiarity and social interference on intersexual interaction. Animal Behaviour 36 : 1078 1090.
3. Barnard CJ, Fitzsimons J. 1989. Kin recognition and mate choice in mice: fitness consequences of mating with kin. Animal Behaviour 38 : 35 40.
4. Bateson P. 1980. Optimal outbreeding and the development of sexual preference in the Japanese quail. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie 53 : 231 244.
5. Bateson P. 1983. Optimal outbreeding. In : Bateson P, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
6. Boorman E, Parker GA. 1976. Sperm (ejaculate) competition in Drosophila melanogaster, and reproductive value of females to males in relation to female age and mating status. Ecological Entomology 1 : 145 155.
7. Borrell YJ, Pineda H, McCarthy I, Vazquez E, Sanchez JA, Lizana GB. 2004. Correlations between fitness and heterozygosity at allozyme and microsatellite loci in the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar. Heredity 92 : 585 593.
8. Byrne PG, Rice WR. 2005. Remating in Drosophila melanogaster: an examination of the trading-up and intrinsic male-quality hypotheses. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18 : 1324 1331.
9. Carr DE, Dudash MR. 2003. Recent approaches into the genetic basis of inbreeding depression in plants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 358 : 1071 1084.
10. Chapco W. 1979. Correlations between chromosome segments and fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. II. The chromosome and egg viability. Genetics 92 : 595 601.
11. Chapman T, Davies SJ. 2004. Functions and analysis of the seminal fluid proteins of male Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies. Peptides 25 : 1477 1490.
12. Chapman T, Trevitt S, Partridge L. 1994. Remating and male-derived nutrients in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 7 : 51 69.
13. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. 1999. The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genetical Research 74 : 329 340.
14. Civetta A, Rosing KR, Fisher JH. 2008. Differences in sperm competition and sperm competition avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster. Animal Behaviour 75 : 1739 1746.
15. Clark AG, Aguade M, Prout T, Harshman LG, Langley CH. 1995. Variation in sperm displacement and its association with accessory-gland protein loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 139 : 189 201.
16. Cohen LB, Derhorn DC. 2004. Great frigatebirds, Fregata minor, chose mates that are genetically similar. Animal Behaviour 68 : 1229 1236.
17. Crawley MJ. 2002. Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Chichester : Wiley.
18. Findlay GD, Yi X, MacCoss MJ, Swanson WJ. 2008. Proteomics reveals novel Drosophila seminal fluid proteins transferred at mating. PLoS Biology 6 : e178.
19. Fitzpatrick JL, Evans JP. 2009. Reduced heterozygosity impairs sperm quality in endangered mammals. Biology Letters 5 : 320 323.
20. Gage MJG, Surridge AK, Tomkins JL, Green E, Wiskin L, Bell DJ, Hewitt GM. 2006. Reduced heterozygosity depresses sperm quality in wild rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus. Current Biology 16 : 612 617.
21. Garcia N, Lopez-Fanjul C, Garcia-Dorado A. 1994. The genetics of viability in Drosophila melanogaster: effects of inbreeding and artificial selection. Evolution 48 : 1277 1285.
22. Garcia-Gonzalez F, Simmons LW. 2007. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Current Biology 17 : 32 36.
23. Gilchrist AS, Partridge L. 1999. A comparison of the genetic basis of wing size divergence in three parallel body size clines of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 153 : 1775 1787.
24. Goldstein LSB, Fyrberg EA. 1994. Drosophila melanogaster: practical uses in cell and molecular biology. San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
25. Greaves JH, Redfern R, Ayres PB, Gill JE. 1977. Warfarin resistance: a balanced polymorphism in the Norway rat. Genetical Research 30 : 257 263.
26. Helgason A, Pálsson S, Guobjartsson DF, Kristjánsson P, Stefánsson K. 2008. An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science 319 : 813 816.
27. Hughes KA. 1997. Quantitative genetics of sperm precedence in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 145 : 139 151.
28. Kalb JM, DiBenedetto AJ, Wolfner MF. 1993. Probing the function of Drosophila melanogaster accessory glands by directed cell ablation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 90 : 8093 8097.
29. Keane B. 1990. The effect of relatedness on reproductive success and mate choice in the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Animal Behaviour 39 : 264 273.
30. Keller LF, Waller DM. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17 : 230 241.
31. Kokko H, Ots I. 2006. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60 : 467 475.
32. Konior M, Keller L, Radwan J. 2005. Effect of inbreeding and heritability of sperm competition success in the bulb mite, Rhizoglyphus robini. Heredity 94 : 577 581.
33. Levine TR, Hullett CR. 2002. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research 28 : 612 625.
34. Lopez-Fanjul C, Villaverdea A. 1989. Inbreeding increases genetic variance for viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43 : 1800 1804.
35. Lynch M, Walsh B. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer Associates.
36. Mack PD, Hammock BA, Promislow DEL. 2002. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56 : 1789 1795.
37. Partridge L. 1983. Non-random mating and offspring fitness. In : Bateson P, ed. Mate choice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
38. Pitnick S, Spicer GS, Markow T. 1997. Phylogenetic examination of female incorporation of ejaculate in Drosophila. Evolution 51 : 833 845.
39. Ram KR, Wolfner MF. 2007. Seminal influences: Drosophila Acps and the molecular interplay between males and females during reproduction. Integrative and Comparative Biology 47 : 427 445.
40. Rodriguez-Ramilo ST, Perez-Figueroa A, Fernandez B, Fernandez J, Caballero A. 2004. Mutation-selection balance accounting for genetic variation for viability in Drosophila melanogaster as deduced from an inbreeding and artificial selection experiment. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17 : 528 541.
41. Swanson WJ, Clark AG, Waldrip-Dail HM, Wolfner MF, Aquadro CF. 2001. Evolutionary EST analysis identifies rapidly evolving male reproductive proteins in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98 : 7375 7379.
42. Templeton AR. 1986. Coadaption and outbreeding depression. In : Soule ME, ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer Associates.
43. Wolfner MF. 2002. The gifts that keep on giving: physiological functions and evolutionary dynamics of male seminal proteins in Drosophila. Heredity 88 : 85 93.