Parents' genetic dissimilarity and offspring sex in a polygynous mammal

Molecular Ecology

Volumn 18, Issue 23, 2009, Pages 4964-4973

  Carranza, J ^a   PErez GonzAlez J ^a   Mateos, C ^a   FernAndez GarcIa J L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXTREMADURA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cervus elaphus; Disassortative mating; Inbreeding; Red deer; Sex differences; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

MICROSATELLITE DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DEER; DNA SEQUENCE; FEMALE; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; POPULATION GENETICS; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPAIN;

ANIMALS; DEER; FEMALE; GENETICS, POPULATION; GENOTYPE; HETEROZYGOTE; MALE; MICROSATELLITE REPEATS; MODELS, GENETIC; REPRODUCTION; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPAIN;

CERVUS ELAPHUS; MAMMALIA;

EID: 70350746900     PISSN: 09621083     EISSN: 1365294X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04401.x     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Amos W, Balmford A (2001) When does conservation genetics matter?. Heredity, 87, 257 265.
2. Amos W, Worthington Wilmer J, Fullard K et al. (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 268, 2021 2027.
3. Anderson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Balloux F, Amos W, Coulson T (2004) Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations? Molecular Ecology, 13, 3021 3031.
5. Bateson P (1982) Preferences for cousins in Japanese quail. Nature, 295, 236 237.
6. Bonnet A, Thevenon S, Maudet F, Maillard JC (2002) Efficiency of semi-automated fluorescent multiplex PCRs with 11 microsatellite markers for genetic studies of deer populations. Animal Genetics, 33, 343 350.
7. Carranza J (1995) Female attraction by males versus sites in territorial rutting red deer. Animal Behaviour, 50, 445 453.
8. Carranza J (1996) Sexual selection for male body mass and the evolution of litter size in mammals. American Naturalist, 148, 81 100.
9. Carranza J (2000) Environmental effects on the evolution of mating systems in endotherms. In : Vertebrate Mating Systems (eds Apollonio M, Festa-Bianchet M, Mainardi D pp. 106 139. World Scientific, Singapore.
10. Carranza J, Valencia J (1999) Red deer females collect on male clumps at mating areas. Behavioral Ecology, 10, 525 532.
11. Carranza J, Álvarez F, Redondo T (1990) Territoriality as a mating strategy in red deer. Animal Behaviour, 40, 79 88.
12. Carranza J, Fernández-Llario P, Gomendio M (1996) Correlates of territoriality in rutting red deer. Ethology, 102, 793 805.
13. Carranza J, Alarcos S, Sánchez-Prieto CB, Valencia J, Mateos C (2004) Disposable-soma senescence mediated by sexual selection in an ungulate. Nature, 432, 215 218.
14. Charlton BD, Redy D, McComb K (2007) Female red deer prefer the roars of larger males. Biology Letters, 3, 382 385.
15. Charmantier A, Sheldon BC (2006) Testing genetic models of mate choice evolution in the wild. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21, 417 419.
16. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drososphila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 1671 1675.
17. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1982) Red Deer: Behavior and Ecology of two Sexes. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
18. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1986) Great expectations: dominance, breeding success and offspring sex ratios in red deer. Animal Behaviour, 34, 460 471.
19. Clutton-Brock TH, Guinness FE, Albon SD (1987) Interactions between population density and maternal characteristics affecting fecundity and juvenile survival in red deer. Journal of Animal Ecology, 56, 857 871.
20. Clutton-Brock TH, Albon SD, Guinness FE (1988). Reproductive success in male and female red deer. In : Reproductive Success (ed. Clutton-Brock TH pp. 325 343. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.
21. Colegrave NJ, Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL (2002) Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 4, 911 917.
22. Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a freeliving, island population. Evolution, 53, 1259 1267.
23. Coulson TN, Pemberton JM, Albon SD et al. (1998) Microsatellite reveal heterosis in red deer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 489 495.
24. Da Silva A, Gaillard JM, Yoccoz NG et al. (2009) Heterozygosity-Fitness correlations revealed by neutral and candidate gene markers in roe deer from a long-term study. Evolution, 63, 403 417.
25. Darwin C (1871) The Descent of man and Selection in Relation to sex. Appleton, New York.
26. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2004) Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature, 429, 65 67.
27. Fiumera AC, Asmussen MA (2001) Difficulties in parentage analysis: the probability that an offspring and parent have the same heterozygous genotype. Genetical Research, 78, 163 170.
28. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature, 425, 714 717.
29. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature, 447, 1107 1110.
30. Forsman A (1995) Opposing fitness consequences of colour pattern in male and females snakes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 8, 53 70.
31. Gomendio M, Malo AF, Soler AJ et al. (2006) Male fertility and sex ratio at birth in red deer. Science, 314, 1445 1447.
32. Hansson B, Westerberg L (2002) On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 11, 2467 2474.
33. Hardy OJ, Vekemans X (2002) SPAGeDI: a versatile computer program to analyse spatial genetic structure at the individual or population level. Molecular Ecology Notes, 2, 618.
34. Hedrick PW, Fredrickson R, Ellegren H (2001) Evaluation of d2, a microsatellite measure of inbreeding and outbreeding, in wolves with a known pedigree. Evolution, 55, 1256 1260.
35. Hoffman JI, Forcada J, Trathan PN, Amos W (2007) Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature, 445, 912 914.
36. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 96, 5083 5088.
37. Höner OP, Wachter B, East ML et al. (2007) Female mate-choice drives the evolution of male-biased dispersal in a social mammal. Nature, 448, 798 801.
38. Huggett AS, Widdas W (1951) The relationship between mammalian foetal weight and conception age. Journal of Physiology, 114, 306 317.
39. James WH (1986) Hormonal control of sex ratio. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 118, 427 441.
40. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature, 407, 296 299.
41. Jones AG, Walker D, Kvarnemo C, Lindström K, Avise JC (2001) How cuckoldry can decrease the opportunity for sexual selection: data and theory from a genetic parentage analysis of the sand goby, Pomatoschistus minitus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 98, 9151 9156.
42. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 270, 653 664.
43. Kotiaho JS, Puurtinen M (2007) Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Functional Ecology, 21, 638 644.
44. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature, 410, 684 686.
45. Kotiaho JS, Lebas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL (2008a) On female choice, heterozygosity and the lek paradox. Animal Behaviour, 75, 1 e3.
46. Kotiaho JS, Lebas NR, Puurtinen M, Tomkins JL (2008b) On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 1 3.
47. Kruuk LEB, Slate J, Pemberton JM, Brotherstone S, Guinness FE, Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Antler size in red deer: heritability and selection but no evolution. Evolution, 56, 1683 1695.
48. Kuehn R, Schroeder W, Pirchner F, Rottmann O (2003) Genetic diversity, gene flow and drift in Bavarian red deer populations (Cervus elaphus). Conservation Genetics, 4, 157 166.
49. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology, 7, 639 655.
50. Martínez JG, Carranza J, Fernández-García JL, Sánchez-Prieto CB (2002) Genetic variation of red deer populations under hunting exploitation in southwest Spain. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66, 1273 1282.
51. Martínez M, Rodríguez-Vigal C, Jones OR, Coulson T, San Miguel A (2005) Different hunting strategies select for different weights in red deer. Biology Letters, 1, 353 356.
52. Mays LM, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 554 559.
53. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF (1988) A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acid Research, 16, 1215.
54. Mitchel B (1967) Growth layers in dental cement for determining the age of red deer (Cervus elephus L.). Journal of Animal Ecology, 36, 279 293.
55. Neff BD, Pitcher TE (2008) Mate choice for non-additive genetic benefits: a resolution to the lek paradox. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 254, 147 155.
56. Oh KP, Badyaev AV (2006) Adaptive genetic complementary coexist with selection for elaborate sexual traits in mate choice of passerine bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 273, 1913 1919.
57. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology, 108, 1 21.
58. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. American Naturalist, 153, 145 164.
59. Pérez-González J, Mateos C, Carranza J (2009) Polygyny can increase rather than decrease genetic diversity contributed by males relative to females: evidence from red deer. Molecular Ecology, 18, 1591 1600.
60. Pfeiffer I, Brenig B (2005) X- and Y-chromosome specific variants of the amelogenin gene allow sex determination in sheep (Ovis aries) and European red deer (Cervus elaphus). BMC Genetics, 6, 16 19.
61. Piálek J, Albrecht T (2005) Chosing mates: complementary versus compatible genes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 63.
62. Potts WK, Jo Manning C, Wakeland EK (1991) Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature, 352, 619 621.
63. Pryke SR, Griffith S (2009) Genetic incompatibility drives sex allocation and maternal investment in a polymorphic finch. Science, 323, 1605 1607.
64. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) genepop (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity, 86, 248 249.
65. Reid JM (2007) Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 274, 1395 1402.
66. Rice WR (1992) Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science, 256, 1436 1439.
67. Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature, 361, 232 234.
68. Ritland K (1996) Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients. Genetics Research, 67, 175 185.
69. Roberts SC, Gosling LM (2003) Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nature Genetics, 35, 103 106.
70. Robinson MR, Pilkington JG, Clutton-Brock TH, Pemberton JM, Kruuk LEB (2006) Live fast, die young: trade-offs between fitness components and sexually antagonistic selection on weaponry in Soay sheep. Evolution, 60, 2168 2181.
71. Rosenfeld CS, Roberts RM (2004) Maternal diet and other factors affecting offspring sex ratio: a review. Biology of Reproduction, 71, 1063 1070.
72. Ruiz-López MJ, Roldán ERS, Espeso G, Gomendio M (2009) Pedigrees and microsatellite among endangered ungulates: what do they tell us? Molecular Ecology, 18, 1352 1364.
73. Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Marshall TC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH (2000) Inbreeding depression influences lifetime breeding success in a wild population of red deer. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 267, 1657 1662.
74. Slate J, David P, Dodds KG et al. (2004) Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity, 93, 255 265.
75. Stapleton MK, Kleven O, Lifjeld JT, Robertson RJ (2007) Female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolour) increase offspring heterozygosity through extrapair mating. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology, 61, 1725 1733.
76. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature, 425, 71 73.
77. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In : Sexual Selection and the Descendant of man (ed. Campbell B pp. 136 179. Chicago, Aldine.
78. Vekemans X, Hardy OJ (2004) New insights from fine-scale genetic structure analyses in plant populations. Molecular Ecology, 13, 921 935.
79. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PE, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 264, 1491 1495.