Condition dependence and the nature of genetic variation for male sex comb bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster

Genetica

Volumn 139, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 505-510

  Ahuja, Abha ^a   de Vito, Scott ^b   Singh, Rama S ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Condition; Condition dependence; Drosophila melanogaster; Genetic variation; Sex comb

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MALE; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; MALE; PHENOTYPE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 79955130536     PISSN: 00166707     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10709-011-9572-2     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ahuja A, Singh RS (2008) Variation and evolution of male sex combs in Drosophila: nature of selection response and theories of genetic variation for sexual traits. Genetics 179: 503-509.
2. Andersson MB (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17: 375-393.
3. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
4. Birkhead TR, Pellatt EJ, Matthews IM, Roddis NJ, Hunter FM, McPhie F, Castillo-Juarez H (2006) Genic capture and the genetic basis of sexually selected traits in the zebra finch. Evolution 60: 2389-2398.
5. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Measurement error. BMJ 312: 1654.
6. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L (2005) Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly, Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution 59: 138-151.
7. Boughman JW (2007) Condition dependent expression of red color differs between stickleback species. J Evol Bio 20: 1577-1590.
8. Connallon T (2010) Genic capture, sex linkage, and the heritability of fitness. Am Nat 175: 564-576.
9. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc R Soc Lond B 271: 771-783.
10. Cowley DE, Atchley WR (1988) Quantitative genetics of Drosophila melanogaster II. Heritabilities and genetic correlations between sexes for head and thorax traits. Genetics 119: 421-433.
11. Coyne JA (1985) Genetic studies of three sibling species of Drosophila with relationship to theories of speciation. Genet Res 46: 169-192.
12. Falconer D, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Press, Essex.
13. Green AJ (2001) Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology 82: 1473-1483.
14. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T (1999) Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400: 358-360.
15. Held LI, Grimson MJ, Du Z (2004) Proving an old prediction: the sex comb rotates at 16 to 24 hours after pupariation. Dros Inf Serv 87: 76-78.
16. Hine E, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2004) Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58: 2754-2762.
17. Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
18. Imasheva AG, Bosenko DV, Bubli OA (1999) Variation in morphological traits of Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) under nutritional stress. Heredity 87: 187-192.
19. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preference for multiple handicaps. Evolution 48: 853-867.
20. Judge KA, Ting JJ, Gwynne DT (2008) Condition dependence of male life span and calling effort in a field cricket. Evolution 62: 868-878.
21. Kopp A, True JR (2002) Evolution of male sexual characters in the Oriental Drosophila melanogaster species group. Evol Dev 4: 278-291.
22. Kotiaho JS (1999) Estimating fitness: comparison of body condition indices revisited. Oikos 87: 399-400.
23. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410: 684-686.
24. Long TAF, Rice WR (2007) Adult locomotory activity mediates intralocus sexual conflict in a laboratory-adapted population of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 274: 3105-3122.
25. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.
26. Mackay TFC (1985) Transposable element induced response to artificial selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 111: 351-374.
27. Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S (1996) Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav 52: 759-766.
28. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82: 591-605.
29. Ng CS, Kopp A (2008) Sex combs are important for male mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet 38: 195-201.
30. Polak M, Starmer WT, Wolf LL (2004) Sexual selection for size and symmetry in a diversifying secondary sexual character in Drosophila bipectinata. Evolution 58: 597-607.
31. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260: 21-29.
32. Punzalan D, Cooray M, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2008) Condition dependence of sexually dimorphic colouration and longevity in the ambush bug Phymata americana. J Evol Bio 21: 1297-1306.
33. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition-dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 1415-1421.
34. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86: 155-163.
35. Spieth HT (1952) Mating behavior within the genus Drosophila (Diptera). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 99: 395-474.
36. Tokunaga C (1962) Cell lineage and differentiation on the male foreleg of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol 4: 489-516.
37. Van-Homrigh A, Higgie M, McGuigan K, Blows MW (2007) The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr Biol 17: 528-532.