Dietary stress does not strengthen selection against single deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster

Heredity

Volumn 108, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 203-210

  MacLellan, K ^a   Kwan, L ^a,c   Whitlock, M C ^b   Rundle, H D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

deleterious mutations; fitness; mating success; mutation load; sexual selection; stress

Indexed keywords

DIETARY SHIFT; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; FLY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATING SUCCESS; MUTATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; DIET; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MALE; MATE CHOICE; MUTATION; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

ANIMALS; DIET; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MUTATION; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; STRESS, PHYSIOLOGICAL;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 84857238829     PISSN: 0018067X     EISSN: 13652540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2011.60     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Agrawal AF (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411: 692-695. (Pubitemid 32531673)
2. Agrawal AF, Whitlock MC (2010). Environmental duress and epistasis: How does stress affect the strength of selection on new mutations? Trends Ecol Evol 25: 450-458.
3. Baer CF, Phillips N, Ostrow D, Avalos A, Blanton D, Boggs A et al. (2006). Cumulative effects of spontaneous mutations for fitness in Caenorhabditis: Role of genotype, environment and stress. Genetics 174: 1387-1395. (Pubitemid 44808308)
4. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004). Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc Roy Soc London B 271: 771-783. (Pubitemid 38491262)
5. Fry JD, Heinsohn SL (2002). Environment dependence of mutational parameters for viability in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 161: 1155-1167. (Pubitemid 34831439)
6. Hoffmann AA, Hercus MJ (2000). Environmental stress as an evolutionary force. Bioscience 50: 217-226. (Pubitemid 30118888)
7. Houle D (1991). Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: What genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution 45: 630-648.
8. Jasnos L, Tomala K, Paczesniak D, Korona R (2008). Interactions between stressful environment and gene deletions alleviate the expected average loss of fitness in yeast. Genetics 178: 2105-2111.
9. Jennions MD, Moller AP, Petrie M (2001). Sexually selected traits and adult survival: A meta-analysis. Q Rev Biol 76: 3-36. (Pubitemid 32235227)
10. Keightley PD (1996). Metabolic models of selection response. J TheorBiol 182: 311-316. (Pubitemid 26377418)
11. Kishony R, Leibler S (2003). Environmental stresses can alleviate the average deleterious effect of mutations. J Biol 2: 14.
12. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1987). Anisogamy, sexual selection, and the evolution and maintenance of sex. Evol Ecol 1: 95-105.
13. Koeslag JH, Koeslag PD (1993). Evolutionarily stable meiotic sex. J Hered 84: 396-399. (Pubitemid 23312700)
14. Kondrashov AS, Houle D (1994). Genotype-environment interactions and the estimation of the genomic mutation rate in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Roy Soc London B 258: 221-227.
15. Korona R (1999). Genetic load of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae under diverse environmental conditions. Evolution 53: 1966-1971. (Pubitemid 30044827)
16. Lewis HW (1954). Studies on a melanoma-producing lethal in Drosophila. J Exp Zool 126: 235-275.
17. Lidgard DC, Boness DJ, Bowen WD, Mcmillan JI (2008). The implications of stress on male mating behavior and success in a sexually dimorphic polygynous mammal, the grey seal. Horm Behav 53: 241-248. (Pubitemid 350309383)
18. Lorch PD, Proulx S, Rowe L, Day T (2003). Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol Ecol Res 5: 867-881. (Pubitemid 38681657)
19. Maclellan K, Whitlock MC, Rundle HD (2009). Sexual selection against deleterious mutations via variable male search success. Biol Lett 5: 795-797.
20. Manning JT (1984). Males and the advantage of sex. J Theor Biol 108: 215-220. (Pubitemid 14075102)
21. Martin G, Lenormand T (2006). The fitness effect of mutations across environments: A survey in light of fitness landscape models. Evolution 60: 2413-2427. (Pubitemid 46220853)
22. Parsons PA (1987). Evolutionary rates under environmental stress. Evol Biol 21: 311-347.
23. Patton ZJ, Krebs RA (2001). The effect of thermal stress on the mating behavior of three Drosophila species. Physiol Biochem Zool 74: 783-788. (Pubitemid 34018108)
24. Pischedda A, Chippindale A (2005). Sex, mutation and fitness: Asymmetric costs and routes to recovery through compensatory evolution. J Evol Biol 18: 1115-1122. (Pubitemid 40968565)
25. Remold SK, Lenski RE (2001). Contribution of individual random mutations to genotypeby- environment interactions in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 11388-11393. (Pubitemid 32928738)
26. Rowe L, Houle D (1996). The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc Roy Soc London B 263: 1415-1421.
27. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF, Doughty P, Blows MW (2005). Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. PLoS Biol 3: 1988-1995. (Pubitemid 41652451)
28. Sanjuan R, Nebot MR (2008). A network model for the correlation between epistasis and genomic complexity. PLoS ONE 3: E2663.
29. Segre D, Deluna A, Church GM, Kishony R (2005). Modular epistasis in yeast metabolism. Nat Genet 37: 77-83. (Pubitemid 40070943)
30. Sharp NP, Agrawal AF (2008). Mating density and the strength of sexual selection against deleterious alleles in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 62: 857-867. (Pubitemid 351489926)
31. Siller S (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411: 689-692. (Pubitemid 32531672)
32. Szafraniec K, Borts RH, Korona R (2001). Environmental stress and mutational load in diploid strains of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 1107-1112. (Pubitemid 32121194)
33. Szathmary E (1993). Do deleterious mutations act synergistically? Metabolic control theory provides a partial answer. Genetics 133: 127-132. (Pubitemid 23011402)
34. Uyenoyama MK (1993). Ecological and genetic factors directing the evolution of selffertilization. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 9: 327-381.
35. Wang AD, Sharp NP, Spencer CC, Tedman-Aucoin K, Agrawal AF (2009). Selection, epistasis, and parent-of-origin effects on deleterious mutations across environments in Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 174: 863-874.
36. Whitlock MC (2000). Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: Drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54: 1855-1861. (Pubitemid 32113817)
37. Whitlock MC, Agrawal AF (2009). Purging the genome with sexual selection: Reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 63: 569-582.
38. Whitlock MC, Bourguet D (2000). Factors affecting the genetic load in Drosophila: Synergistic epistasis and correlations among fitness components. Evolution 54: 1654-1660.
39. Yang HP, Tanikawa AY, Van Voorhies WA, Silva JC, Kondrashov AS (2001). Whole-genome effects of ethyl methanesulfonate-induced mutation on nine quantitative traits in outbred Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 157: 1257-1265. (Pubitemid 32225017)
40. Young JA, Yourth CP, Agrawal AF (2009). The effect of pathogens on selection against deleterious mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol 22: 2125-2129.