No evidence for postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in Drosophila melanogaster

Evolution

Volumn 65, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 2699-2705

  Ala Honkola, Outi ^a   Manier, Mollie K ^a   Lüpold, Stefan ^a   Pitnick, Scott ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cryptic female choice; Inbreeding depression; Mate choice; Postcopulatory sexual selection; Sperm competition

Indexed keywords

COPULATION; CRYPSIS; EGG PRODUCTION; FLY; INBREEDING AVOIDANCE; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; MATE CHOICE; POPULATION STRUCTURE; RELATEDNESS; REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY; REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERM COMPETITION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COPULATION; CROSS BREEDING; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; FLUORESCENCE; GENETICS; INBREEDING; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; SPERMATOZOON; TRANSGENIC ANIMAL;

ANIMALS; ANIMALS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; COPULATION; CROSSES, GENETIC; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; FLUORESCENCE; INBREEDING; MALE; SPERM HEAD; SPERMATOZOA;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 80052269581     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01317.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ala-Honkola, O., A. Uddström, B. Diaz Pauli, and K. Lindström. 2009. Strong inbreeding depression in male mating behaviour in a poeciliid fish. J. Evol. Biol. 22:1396-1406.
2. Ala-Honkola, O., L. Tuominen, and K. Lindström. 2010. Inbreeding avoidance in a poeciliid fish (Heterandria formosa). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64:1403-1414.
3. Birkhead, T. R. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52:1212-1218.
4. Bjork, A., W. T. Starmer, D. M. Higginson, C. J. Rhodes, and S. Pitnick. 2007. Complex interactions with females and rival males limit the evolution of sperm offence and defence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:1779-1788.
5. Bretman, A., N. Wedell, and T. Tregenza. 2004. Molecular evidence of post-copulatory inbreeding avoidance in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271:159-164.
6. Bretman, A., D. Newcombe, and T. Tregenza. 2009. Promiscuous females avoid inbreeding by controlling sperm storage. Mol. Ecol. 18:3340-3345.
7. Caracristi, G., and C. Schlötterer. 2003. Genetic differentiation between American and European Drosophila melanogaster populations could be attributed to admixture of African alleles. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20:792-799.
8. Charlesworth, B., and D. Charlesworth. 1999. The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genet. Res. 74:329-340.
9. Chippindale, A. K., J. R. Gibson, and W. R. Rice. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:1671-1675.
10. Coyne, J. A., and B. Milstead. 1987. Long-distance migration of Drosophila. 3. Dispersal of Drosophila melanogaster alleles from a Maryland orchard. Am. Nat. 130:70-82.
11. Denk, A. G., A. Holzmann, A. Peters, E. L. M. Vermeissen, and B. Kempenaers. 2005. Paternity in mallards: effects of sperm quality and female sperm selection for inbreeding avoidance. Behav. Ecol. 16:825-833.
12. Evans J. P., R. C. Brooks, S. R. K. Zajitschek, and S. C. Griffith. 2008. Does genetic relatedness of mates influence competitive fertilization success in guppies? Evolution 62:2929-2935.
13. Firman, R. C., and L. W. Simmons. 2008. Polyandry facilitates postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Evolution 62:603-611.
14. Fricke, C., O.Y. Martin, A. Bretman, L. F. Bussière, and T. Chapman. 2010. Sperm competitive ability and indices of lifetime reproductive success. Evolution 64:2746-2757.
15. Frommen, J. G., and T. C. M. Bakker. 2006. Inbreeding avoidance through nonrandom mating in sticklebacks. Biol. Lett. 2:232-235.
16. Garner, T. W. J., and B. R. Schmidt. 2003. Relatedness, body size and paternity in the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 270:619-624.
17. Harshman, L. G., and A. G. Clark. 1998. Inference of sperm competition from broods of field-caught Drosophila. Evolution 52:1334-1341.
18. Hosken, D. J., M. L. Taylor, K. Hoyle, S. Higgins, and N. Wedell. 2008. Attractive males have greater success in sperm competition. Curr. Biol. 18:R553-R554.
19. Imhoff, M., B. Harr, G. Brem, and C. Schlötterer. 1998. Multiple mating in wild Drosophila melanogaster revisited by microsatellite analysis. Mol. Ecol. 7:915-917.
20. Keller, L. F., and D. M. Waller. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:230-241.
21. Kokko, H., and I. Ots. 2006. When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:467-475.
22. Kraaijeveld-Smit, F. J. L., S. J. Ward, P. D. Temple-Smith, and D. Paetkau. 2002. Factors influencing paternity success in Antechinus agilis: last-male sperm precedence, timing of mating and genetic compatibility. J. Evol. Biol. 15:100-107.
23. Kuijper, B. and Morrow E. H. 2009. Direct observation of female mating frequency using time-lapse photography. Fly 3:118-120.
24. Kusakabe, S., Y. Yamaguchi, H. Baba, and T. Mukai. 2000. The genetic structure of the Raleigh natural population of Drosophila melanogaster revisited. Genetics 154:679-685.
25. Lane, J. E., S. Boutin, M. R. Gunn, J. Slate, and D. W. Coltman. 2007. Genetic relatedness of mates does not predict patterns of parentage in North American red squirrels. Anim. Behav. 74:611-619.
26. Lihoreau, M., C. Zimmer, and C. Rivault. 2007. Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav. Ecol. 18:880-887.
27. Lüpold, S., M. K. Manier, O. Ala-Honkola, J. M. Belote, and S. Pitnick. 2011. Male Drosophila melanogaster adjust ejaculate size based on female mating status, fecundity and age. Behav. Ecol. 22:184-191.
28. Mack, P. D., B. A. Hammock, and D. E. L. Promislow. 2002. Sperm competitive ability and genetic relatedness in Drosophila melanogaster: similarity breeds contempt. Evolution 56:1789-1795.
29. Manier, M. K., J. M. Belote, K. S. Berben, D. Novikov, W. T. Stuart, and S. Pitnick. 2010. Resolving mechanisms of competitive fertilization success in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 328:354-357.
30. Olsson, M., A. Gullberg, and H. Tegelstrom. 1996b. Malformed offspring, sibling matings, and selection against inbreeding in the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis). J. Evol. Biol. 9:229-242.
31. Olsson, M., R. Shine, and T. Madsen. 1996a. Sperm selection by females. Nature 383:585.
32. Pizzari, T., H. Løvlie, and C. K. Cornwallis. 2004. Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271:2115-2121.
33. Pusey, A., and M. Wolf. 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:201-206.
34. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL (accessed December 1, 2010).
35. Ruetz III, C. R., J. C. Trexler, F. Jordan, W. F. Loftus, and S. A. Perry. 2005. Population dynamics of wetland fishes: spatio-temporal patterns synchronized by hydrological disturbance? J. Anim. Ecol. 74:322-332.
36. Saccheri, I., M. Kuussaari, M. Kankare, P. Vikman, W. Fortelius, and I. Hanski. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392:491-494.
37. Shapiro, J. A., W. Huang, C. H. Zhang, M. J. Hubisz, J. Lu, D. A. Turissini, S. Fang, H. Y. Wang, R. R. Hudson, R. Nielsen et al. 2007. Adaptive genic evolution in the Drosophila genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:2271-2276.
38. Sherman, C. D. H., E. Wapstra, T. Uller, and M. Olsson. 2008. Males with high genetic similarity to females sire more offspring in sperm competition in Peron's tree frog Litoria peronii. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275:971-978.
39. Simmons, L. W., M. Beveridge, N. Wedell, and T. Tregenza. 2006. Postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance by female crickets only revealed by molecular markers. Mol. Ecol. 15:3817-3824.
40. Stockley, P. 1997. No evidence of sperm selection by female common shrews. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 264:1497-1500.
41. Swindell, W. R., and J. L. Bouzat. 2006a. Reduced inbreeding depression due to historical inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster: evidence for purging. J. Evol. Biol. 19:1257-1264.
42. Swindell, W. R., and J. L. Bouzat. 2006b. Ancestral inbreeding reduces the magnitude of inbreeding depression in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 60:762-767.
43. Taylor, M. L., N. Wedell, and D. J. Hosken. 2007. The heritability of attractiveness. Curr. Biol. 17:R959-R960.
44. Teixeira, S., K. Foerster, and G. Bernasconi. 2009. Evidence for inbreeding depression and post-pollination selection against inbreeding in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Heredity 102:101-112.
45. Teng, Z., and L. Kang. 2007. Egg-hatching benefits gained by polyandrous female locusts are not due to the fertilization advantage of nonsibling males. Evolution 61:470-476.
46. Thuman, K. A., and S. C. Griffith. 2005. Genetic similarity and the nonrandom distribution of paternity in a genetically highly polyandrous shorebird. Anim. Behav. 69:765-770.
47. Tregenza, T., and N. Wedell. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9:1013-1027.
48. Wedell, N., M. J. G. Gage, and G. A. Parker. 2002. Sperm competition, male prudence, and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17:313-320.
49. Zuur, A. F., E. N. Ieno, N. J. Walker, A. A. Saveliev, and G. S. Smith. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York, NY.