Nongenetic inheritance and the evolution of costly female preference

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 76-87

  Bonduriansky, R ^a   Day, T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Female mate choice; Indirect selection; Lek paradox; Nongenetic inheritance; Parental investment; Paternal effects; Sexual coevolution; Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

Indexed keywords

COEVOLUTION; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FEMALE BEHAVIOR; FITNESS; GENETIC VARIATION; MATE CHOICE; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; PARENTAL INVESTMENT; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL SELECTION; SPERM;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENVIRONMENT; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC EPIGENESIS; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; MALE; MATE CHOICE; SEX RATIO;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ENVIRONMENT; EPIGENESIS, GENETIC; FEMALE; GENETIC VARIATION; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX RATIO;

EID: 84871048250     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12028     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Anderson, L.M., Riffle, L., Wilson, R., Travlos, G.S., Lubomirski, M.S. & Alvord, W.G. 2006. Preconceptional fasting of fathers alters serum glucose in offspring of mice. Nutrition 22: 327-331.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
3. Anway, M.D., Cupp, A.S., Uzumucu, M. & Skinner, M.K. 2005. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of endocrine disruptors and male fertility. Science 308: 1466-1469.
4. Avital, E. & Jablonka, E. 2000. Animal Traditions: Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
5. Blows, M.W., Chenoweth, S.F. & Hine, E. 2004. Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. Am. Nat. 163: 329-340.
6. Bonduriansky, R. & Head, M. 2007. Maternal and paternal condition effects on offspring phenotype in Telostylinus angusticollis (Diptera: Neriidae). J. Evol. Biol. 20: 2379-2388.
7. Bonduriansky, R. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2009. Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 280-288.
8. Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. 2009. Nongenetic inheritance and its evolutionary implications. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 40: 103-125.
9. Borgia, G. 1979. Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M.S. Blum, N.A. Blum, eds), pp. 19-80. Academic Press, New York.
10. Bradbury, J.W. & Gibson, R.M. 1983. Leks and mate choice. In: Mate Choice (P. Bateson, ed.), pp. 109-138. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
11. Breivik, J. & Gaudernack, G. 2004. Resolving the evolutionary paradox of genetic instability: a cost-benefit analysis of DNA repair in changing environments. FEBS Lett. 563: 7-12.
12. Brommer, J.E., Kirkpatrick, M., Qvarnstrom, A. & Gustafsson, L. 2007. The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implications for sexual selection. PLoS ONE 2: e744.
13. Bussiere, L.F., Hunt, J., Stolting, K.N., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2008. Mate choice for genetic quality when environments vary: suggestions for empirical progress. Genetica 134: 69-78.
14. Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between the sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1671-1675.
15. Chow, P.H., Jiang, H.Y., Poon, H.K., Lee, K.H. & O, W.S. 2003. Embryos sired by males without accessory sex glands induce failure of uterine support: a study of VEGF, MMP and TGF expression in the golden hamster. Anat. Embryol. 206: 203-213.
16. Danchin, E., Charmantier, A., Champagne, F.A., Mesoudi, A., Pujol, B. & Blanchet, S. 2011. Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12: 475-486.
17. Day, T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54: 715-730.
18. Day, T. & Bonduriansky, R. 2011. A unified approach to the evolutionary consequences of genetic and nongenetic inheritance. Am. Nat. 178: E18-E136.
19. Diaz, H. & Esponda, P. 2004. Ageing-induced changes in the cortical granules of mouse eggs. Zygote 12: 95-103.
20. Dominey, W.J. 1983. Sexual selection, additive genetic variance and the 'phenotypic handicap'. J. Theor. Biol. 101: 495-502.
21. Enquist, M., Strimling, P., Eriksson, K., Laland, K.N. & Sjostrand, J. 2010. One cultural parent makes no culture. Anim. Behav. 79: 1353-1362.
22. Fedorka, K.M. & Mousseau, T.A. 2004. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429: 65-67.
23. Feil, R. & Fraga, M.F. 2012. Epigenetics and the environment: emerging patterns and implications. Nat. Rev. Genet. 13: 97-109.
24. Feldman, M.W. & Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1989. On the theory of evolution under genetic and cultural transmission with application to the lactose absorption problem. In: Mathematical Evolutionary Theory (M.W. Feldman, ed.), pp. 145-173. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.
25. Field, L.M., Lyko, F., Mandrioli, M. & Prantera, G. 2004. DNA methylation in insects. Insect Mol. Biol. 13: 109-115.
26. Foerster, K., Coulson, T., Sheldon, B.C., Pemberton, J.M., Clutton-Brock, T.H. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2007. Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447: 1107-1109.
27. Freeberg, T.M. 2000. Culture and courtship in vertebrates: a review of social learning and transmission of courtship systems and mating patterns. Behav. Process. 51: 177-192.
28. Fromhage, L., Kokko, H. & Reid, J.M. 2009. Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterozygosity. Evolution 63: 684-694.
29. García-González, F. & Simmons, L.W. 2007. Paternal indirect genetic effects on offspring viability and the benefits of polyandry. Curr. Biol. 17: 32-36.
30. Gavrilets, S. & Hayashi, T.I. 2006. The dynamics of two- and three-way sexual conflicts over mating. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 361: 345-354.
31. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 531-539.
32. Gerbault, P., Moret, C., Currat, M. & Sanchez-Mazas, A. 2009. Impact of selection and demography on the diffusion of lactase persistence. PLoS ONE 4: 36369.
33. Guerrero-Bosagna, C., Settles, M., Lucker, B. & Skinner, M.K. 2010. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of vinclozolin on promoter regions of the sperm epigenome. PLoS ONE 5: e13100.
34. Hamilton, W.D. & Zuk, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218: 384-387.
35. Heywood, J.S. 1989. Sexual selection by the handicap mechanism. Evolution 43: 1387-1397.
36. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2004. Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58: 2754-2762.
37. Hoelzer, G.A. 1989. The good parent process of sexual selection. Anim. Behav. 38: 1067-1078.
38. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L.W. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54: 936-941.
39. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. The role of genotype-by-environment interactions in sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2031-2045.
40. Innocenti, P. & Morrow, E.H. 2010. The sexually antagonistic genes of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol. 8: e1000335.
41. Ivy, T.M. 2007. Good genes, genetic compatibility and the evolution of polyandry: use of the diallel cross to address competing hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 20: 479-487.
42. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377: 420-422.
43. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200: 97-109.
44. Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M.J. 1995. Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
45. Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M.J. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
46. Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M.J. 2010. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. In: Evolution - The Extended Synthesis (M. Pigliucci, G.B. Müller, eds), pp. 137-174. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
47. Johannes, F., Porcher, E., Teixeira, F.K., Saliba-Colombani, V., Simon, M., Agier, N. et al. 2009. Assessing the impact of transgenerational epigenetic variation on complex traits. PLoS Genet. 5: e1000530.
48. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36: 1-12.
49. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
50. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
51. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
52. Kirkwood, T.B.l. & Rose, M.R. 1991. Evolution of senescence: late survival sacrificed for reproduction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 332: 15-24.
53. Kokko, H. 1999. Cuckoldry and the stability of biparental care. Ecol. Lett. 2: 247-255.
54. Kokko, H. & Heubel, K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 132: 209-216.
55. Kokko, H. & Jennions, M.D. 2008. Parental investment, sexual selection and sex roles. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 919-948.
56. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D. & Morley, J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270: 653-664.
57. Laland, K.N. 1994. On the evolutionary consequences of sexual imprinting. Evolution 48: 477-489.
58. Laland, K.N., Odling-Smee, F.J. & Myles, S. 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11: 137-148.
59. Magiafoglou, A. & Hoffmann, A.A. 2003. Cross-generation effects due to cold exposure in Drosophila serrata. Funct. Ecol. 17: 664-672.
60. Manikkam, M., Guerrero-Bosagna, C., Tracey, R., Haque, M.M. & Skinner, M.K. 2012. Transgenerational actions of environmental compounds on reproductive disease and identification of epigenetic biomarkers of ancestral exposures. PLoS ONE 7: e31901.
61. Maynard Smith, J. 1976. Sexual selection and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 57: 239-242.
62. Miller, C.W. & Moore, A.J. 2007. A potential resolution of the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274: 1279-1286.
63. Mousseau, T.A. & Dingle, H. 1991. Maternal effects in insect life histories. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 36: 511-534.
64. Neff, B.D. & Pitcher, T.E. 2008. Mate choice for non-additive genetic benefits: a resolution to the lek paradox. J. Theor. Biol. 254: 147-155.
65. Ng, S.-F., Lin, R.C.Y., Laybutt, D.R., Barres, R., Owens, J.A. & Morris, M.J. 2010. Chronic high-fat diet in fathers programs β-cell dysfunction in female rat offspring. Nature 467: 963-967.
66. Park, Y. & Gerson, S.L. 2005. DNA repair defects in stem cell function and aging. Annu. Rev. Med. 56: 495-508.
67. Pischedda, A. & Chippindale, A.K. 2006. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 4: 2099-2103.
68. Pizzari, T. & Bonduriansky, R. 2010. Sexual behaviour: conflict, cooperation and co-evolution. In: Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution (T. Szekely, A.J. Moore, J. Komdeur, eds), pp. 230-266. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
69. Pomiankowski, A. & Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260: 21-29.
70. Price, T., Schluter, D. & Heckman, N.E. 1993. Sexual selection when the female directly benefits. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 48: 187-211.
71. Priest, N.K., Roach, D.A. & Galloway, L.F. 2008. Cross-generational fitness benefits of mating and male seminal fluid. Biol. Lett. 4: 6-8.
72. Radwan, J. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134: 113-127.
73. Rassoulzadegan, M., Grandjean, V., Gounon, P., Vincent, S., Gillot, I. & Cuzin, F. 2006. RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse. Nature 441: 469-474.
74. Rassoulzadegan, M., Grandjean, V., Gounon, P. & Cuzin, F. 2007. Inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse: a new role for RNA. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 35: 623-625.
75. Reynolds, J.D. & Gross, M.R. 1990. Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am. Nat. 136: 230-243.
76. Richerson, P.J. & Boyd, R. 2005. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transforms Human Evolution. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.
77. Rossiter, M.C. 1996. Incidence and consequences of inherited environmental effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 451-476.
78. Roux, F., Colomé-Tatché, M., Edelist, C., Wardenaar, R., Guerche, P., Hospital, F. et al. 2011. Genome-wide epigenetic perturbation jump-starts patterns of heritable variation found in nature. Genetics 188: 1015-1017.
79. 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.
80. Ryabokon, N.I. & Goncharova, R.I. 2006. Transgenerational accumulation of radiation damage in small mammals chronically exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 45: 167-177.
81. Schluter, D. & Price, T. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 253: 117-122.
82. Seong, K.-H., Li, D., Shimizu, H., Nakamura, R. & Ishii, S. 2011. Inheritance of stress-induced, ATF-2-dependent epigenetic change. Cell 145: 1049-1061.
83. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411: 689-692.
84. Simpson, S.J. & Miller, G.A. 2007. Maternal effects on phase characteristics in the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria: a review of current understanding. J. Insect Physiol. 53: 869-876.
85. Stouder, C. & Paoloni-Giacobino, A. 2010. Transgenerational effects of the endocrine disruptor vinclozolin on the methylation pattern of imprinted genes in the mouse sperm. Reproduction 139: 373-379.
86. Suter, C.M. & Martin, D.I.K. 2009. Paramutation: the tip of an epigenetic iceberg? Trends Genet. 26: 9-14.
87. Swallow, D.M. 2003. Genetics of lactase persistence and lactose intolerance. Annu. Rev. Genet. 37: 197-219.
88. Taylor, P.D. & Williams, G.C. 1982. The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor. Popul. Biol. 22: 392-409.
89. Teixeira, F.K., Heredia, F., Sarazin, A., Roudier, F., Boccara, M., Ciaudo, C. et al. 2009. A role for RNAi in the selective correction of DNA methylation defects. Science 323: 1600-1604.
90. Trivers, R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971 (B. Campbell, ed.), pp. 136-179. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, IL, USA.
91. Vahed, K. 1998. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. 73: 43-78.
92. Valtonen, T.M., Kangassalo, K., Polkki, M. & Rantala, M. 2012. Transgenerational effects of parental larval diet on offspring development time, adult body size and pathogen resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 7: e31611.
93. Van Homrigh, A., Higgie, M., McGuigan, K. & Blows, M.W. 2007. The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr. Biol. 17: 528-532.
94. Vaughn, M.W., Tanurdžić, M., Lippman, Z., Jiang, H., Carrasquillo, R., Rabinowicz, P.D. et al. 2007. Epigenetic natural variation in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Biol. 5: e174.
95. Vijendravarma, R.K., Narasimha, S. & Kawecki, T.J. 2010. Effects of parental larval diet on egg size and offspring traits in Drosophila. Biol. Lett. 6: 238-241.
96. Wolf, J.B., Moore, A.J. & Brodie, E.D. III 1997. The evolution of indicator traits for parental quality: the role of maternal and paternal effects. Am. Nat. 150: 639-649.
97. Wyman, M.J., Agrawal, A.F. & Rowe, L. 2010. Condition-dependence of the sexually dimorphic transcriptome in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 64: 1836-1848.
98. Ying, Y., Chow, P.H. & O, W.S. 1998. Effects of male accessory sex glands on deoxyribonucleic acid synthesis in the first cell cycle of golden hamster embryos. Biol. Reprod. 58: 659-663.
99. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection - selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53: 205-214.
100. Zeh, J.A. & Zeh, D.W. 2008. Maternal inheritance, epigenetics and the evolution of polyandry. Genetica 134: 45-54.
101. Zhou, Y., Kuster, H.K., Pettis, J.S., Danka, R.G., Gleason, J.M. & Greenfield, M.D. 2008. Reaction norm variants for male calling song in populations of Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): toward a resolution of the lek paradox. Evolution 62: 1317-1334.