The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 2031-2045

  Ingleby, F C ^a   Hunt, J ^a   Hosken, D J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

GEI; Genotype by environment interaction; Mate choice; Mate competition

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; LITERATURE REVIEW; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; ENVIRONMENT; GENETIC SELECTION; GENOTYPE; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; REVIEW; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; ENVIRONMENT; GENOTYPE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 77956595415     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02080.x     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Bailey NW, Zuk M. Acoustic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2008, 275:2645-2650.
2. Bailey NW, Zuk M. Field crickets change mating preferences using remembered social information. Biol. Lett. 2009, 5:449-451.
3. Bakker TCM. The study of intersexual selection using quantitative genetics. Behaviour 1999, 136:1237-1265.
4. Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithewaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA. Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2001, 268:71-76.
5. Bush GL. Modes of animal speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1975, 6:339-364.
6. Bussière LF, Hunt J, Stolting KN, Jennions MD, Brooks R. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 2008, 143:69-78.
7. Candolin U. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol. Rev. 2003, 78:575-595.
8. Charmantier A, Garant D. Environmental quality and evolutionary potential: lessons from wild populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2005, 272:1415-1425.
9. Danielson-François AM, Kelly JK, Greenfield MD. Genotype x environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J. Evol. Biol. 2006, 19:532-542.
10. Danielson-François AM, Zhou Y, Greenfield MD. Indirect genetic effects and the lek paradox: inter-genotypic competition may strengthen genotype x environment interactions and conserve genetic variance. Genetica 2009, 136:27-36.
11. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 2000, 406:186-188.
12. Dukas R. Evolutionary biology of insect learning. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2008, 53:145-160.
13. Emmons SW, Lipton J. Genetic basis of male sexual behavior. J. Neurobiol. 2003, 54:93-100.
14. Engqvist L. Genetic variance and genotype reaction norms in response to larval food manipulation for a trait important in scorpionfly sperm competition. Funct. Ecol. 2008, 22:127-133.
15. Etges WJ, Cardoso de Oliveira C, Gragg E, Ortiz-Barrientos D, Noor MAF, Ritchie MG. Genetics of incipient speciation in Drosophila mojavensis. I. Male courtship song, mating success, and genotype x environment interactions. Evolution 2007, 61:1106-1119.
16. Falconer DS. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 1952, 86:293-298.
17. Gillespie JH, Turelli M. Genotype-environment interactions and the maintenance of polygenic variation. Genetics 1989, 121:129-138.
18. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 1990, 144:517-546.
19. Grant PR, Grant BR. Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches. Science 2002, 296:707-711.
20. Greenfield MD, Rodriguez RL. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 2004, 68:1461-1468.
21. Grether GF. Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 2000, 54:1712-1724.
22. Hebets EA. Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100:13390-13395.
23. Hedrick PW, Ginevan ME, Ewing EP. Genetic polymorphism in heterogeneous environments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1976, 7:1-32.
24. Hegyi G, Rosivall B, Torok J. Paternal age and offspring growth: separating the intrinsic quality of young from rearing effects. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2006, 60:672-682.
25. Higginson AD, Reader T. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2009, 279:1153-1159.
26. Hoffmann AA, Merilä J. Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14:96-101.
27. Holzer B, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG. Condition-dependent signaling affects male sexual attractiveness in male field crickets, Gryllus campestris. Behav. Ecol. 2003, 14:353-359.
28. Jia F-Y, Greenfield MD. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1997, 264:1057-1063.
29. Jia F-Y, Greenfield MD, Collins RD. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype x environment interaction. Evolution 2000, 54:953-967.
30. Johnstone RA. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 1995, 70:1-65.
31. Kang MS, Gauch HG. Genotype-by-Environment Interaction 1996, CRC Press, New York
32. Kemp DJ, Rutowski RL. Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly coloration. Evolution 2007, 61:168-183.
33. Kent C, Azanchi R, Smith B, Formosa A, Levine JD. Social context influences chemical communication in D. melanogaster males. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18:1384-1389.
34. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 1991, 350:33-38.
35. Kokko H, Heubel K. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 2008, 132:209-216.
36. Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2006, 37:42-66.
37. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection of polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78:3721-3725.
38. Landry CR, Oh J, Hartl DL, Cavalieri D. Genome-wide scan reveals that genetic variation for transcriptional plasticity in yeast is biased towards multi-copy and dispensable genes. Gene 2006, 366:343-351.
39. Lewandowski E, Boughman J. Effects of genetics and light environment on colour expression in threespine sticklebacks. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2008, 94:663-673.
40. Li Y, Alvarez OA, Gutteling EW, Tijsterman M, Fu J, Riksen JAG, Hazendonk E, Prins P, Plasterk RHJ, Jansen RC, Breitling R, Kammenga JE. Mapping determinants of gene expression plasticity by genetical genomics in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2006, 2:2155-2161.
41. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits 1998, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA
42. Mackay TFC. Genetic variance, fitness, and homeostasis in varying environments: an experimental check of the theory. Evolution 1980, 34:1219-1222.
43. Mead LS, Arnold SJ. Quantitative models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19:264-271.
44. Miller LK, Brooks R. The effects of genotype, age, and social environment on male ornamentation, mating behavior, and attractiveness. Evolution 2005, 59:2414-2425.
45. Miller CW, Moore AJ. A potential resolution to the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2007, 274:1279-1286.
46. Mills SC, Alatano RV, Koskela E, Mappes J, Mappes T, Oksanen TA. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 2007, 61:1748-1757.
47. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1999, 266:85-91.
48. Morrow EH, Leijon A, Meerupati A. Hemiclonal analysis reveals significant genetic, environmental and genotype x environment effects on sperm size in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 2008, 21:1692-1702.
49. Nussey DH, Wilson AJ, Brommer JE. The evolutionary ecology of individual phenotypic plasticity in wild populations. J. Evol. Biol. 2007, 20:831-844.
50. O'Donald P. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection 1980, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
51. Olvido AE, Mousseau TA. Effect of rearing environment on calling-song plasticity in the striped ground cricket. Evolution 1995, 49:1271-1277.
52. Qvarnström A. Genotype-by-environment interactions in the determination of the size of a secondary sexual character in the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis). Evolution 1999, 53:1564-1572.
53. Rodriguez RL, Greenfield MD. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 2003, 57:1304-1313.
54. Rosenthal R. Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research 1991, Sage Publications, California
55. Santos M, Eisses KT, Fontdevila A. Competition and genotype-by-environment interaction in natural breeding substrates of Drosophila. Evolution 1999, 53:175-186.
56. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG. Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim. Behav. 2003a, 65:721-727.
57. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG. The effect of past condition on a multicomponent sexual signal. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003b, 270:1779-1784.
58. Schmoll T, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Schhurr F, Lubjuhn T. Paternal genetic effects on offspring fitness are context dependent within the extrapair mating system of a socially monogamous passerine. Evolution 2005, 59:645-657.
59. Shook DR, Johnson TR. Quantitative trait loci affecting survival and fertility-related traits in Caenorhabditis elegans show genotype-environment interactions, pleiotropy and epistasis. Genetics 1999, 153:1233-1243.
60. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. Mating Systems and Strategies 2003, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
61. Simmons LW, Ritchie MG. Symmetry in the songs of crickets. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1996, 263:1305-1311.
62. Taylor ML, Wedell N, Hosken DJ. The heritability of attractiveness. Curr. Biol. 2007, 17:R959-R960.
63. Via S, Connor J. Evolution in heterogeneous environments: genetic variability within and across different grains in Tribolium castaneum. Heredity 1995, 74:80-90.
64. Via S, Lande R. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 1985, 39:505-522.
65. Wade MJ. Genotype-environment interaction for climate and competition in a natural population of flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum. Evolution 1990, 44:2004-2011.
66. Wade MJ. Epistasis as a genetic constraint within populations and an accelerant of adaptive divergence among them. Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process 2000, 213-231. Wolf JBBrodie EDWade MJ. In, eds, pp, Oxford University Press, New York
67. Wedell N, Tregenza T. Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution 1999, 53:620-625.
68. Welch AM. Genetic benefits of a female mating preference in gray tree frogs are context-dependent. Evolution 2003, 57:883-893.
69. West-Eberhard MJ. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 1983, 58:155-183.
70. White BG, Galef DJ. Evidence of social effects on mate choice in vertebrates. Behav. Process. 2000, 51:167-175.
71. Wolf JB, Moore AJ. Interacting phenotypes and indirect genetic effects. Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology 2010, 225-245. Westneat DF, Fox CW. In, eds, pp, Oxford University Press, New York
72. Wolf JB, Brodie ED, Cheverud JM, Moore AJ, Wade MJ. Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:64-69.
73. Wolf JB, Brodie ED, Moore AJ. Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. Am. Nat. 1999, 153:254-266.
74. Wolf JB, Wade MJ, Brodie ED. The genotype-environment interaction and evolution when the environment contains genes. Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual Approaches 2004, 173-190. DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM, In, eds, pp, Oxford University Press, New York
75. Wolf JB, Harris WE, Royle NJ. The capture of heritable variation for genetic quality through social competition. Genetica 2008, 134:89-97.
76. Zahavi A. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 1975, 53:205-214.