Genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrocarbon expression in Drosophila simulans

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 94-107

  Ingleby, F C ^a   Hosken, D J ^a   Flowers, K ^a   Hawkes, M F ^a   Lane, S M ^a   Rapkin, J ^a   Dworkin, I ^b   Hunt, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cuticular hydrocarbons; Drosophila simulans; Genotype environment interaction; Honest signalling; Sexual selection; Signal quality

Indexed keywords

HYDROCARBON;

CUTICLE; FLY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HERITABILITY; HONEST SIGNALING; HYDROCARBON; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DIET; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; MALE; METABOLISM; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; TEMPERATURE;

ANIMALS; DIET; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOTYPE; HYDROCARBONS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; TEMPERATURE;

DROSOPHILA SIMULANS;

EID: 84871088197     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12030     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Blows, M.W. 2002. Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 1113-1118.
2. Bussière, 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 143: 69-78.
3. Byrne, P.G. & Rice, W.R. 2006. Evidence for adaptive male mate choice in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273: 917-922.
4. Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2005. Contrasting mutual sexual selection on homologous signal traits in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 165: 281-289.
5. Chenoweth, S.F., Rundle, H.D. & Blows, M.W. 2008. Genetic constraints and the evolution of display trait sexual dimorphism by natural and sexual selection. Am. Nat. 171: 22-34.
6. Cobb, M. & Ferveur, J.F. 1995. Evolution and genetic control of mate recognition and stimulation in Drosophila. Behav. Processes 35: 35-54.
7. Danielson-François, A.M., Kelly, J.K. & Greenfield, M.D. 2006. Genotype × environment interaction for male attractiveness in an acoustic moth: evidence for plasticity and canalization. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 532-542.
8. David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signaling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406: 186-188.
9. David, J.R., Gilbert, P., Legout, H., Pétavy, G., Capy, P. & Moreteau, B. 2005. Isofemale lines in Drosophila: an empirical approach to quantitative trait analysis in natural populations. Heredity 94: 3-12.
10. Falconer, D.S. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. Am. Nat. 86: 293-298.
11. Ferveur, J.F. 2005. Cuticular hydrocarbons: their evolution and roles in Drosophila pheromonal communication. Behav. Genet. 35: 279-295.
12. Ferveur, J.F. & Cobb, M. 2010. Behavioral and evolutionary roles of cuticular hydrocarbons in Diptera. In: Insect Hydrocarbons (G.J. Blomquist & A.G. Bagnères, eds), pp. 325-348. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.
13. Foley, B.R. & Telonis-Scott, M. 2011. Quantitative genetic analysis suggests causal association between cuticular hydrocarbon composition and dessication survival in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 106: 68-77.
14. Frentiu, F.D. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2010. Clines in cuticular hydrocarbons in two Drosophila species with independent population histories. Evolution 64: 1784-1794.
15. Gibbs, A.G., Louie, A.K. & Ayala, J.A. 1998. Effects of temperature on cuticular lipids and water balance in a desert Drosophila: is thermal acclimation beneficial? J. Exp. Biol. 201: 71-80.
16. Gosden, T.P. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2011. On the evolution of heightened condition dependence of male sexual displays. J. Evol. Biol. 24: 685-692.
17. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 517-546.
18. Greenfield, M.D. & Rodríguez, R.L. 2004. Genotype-environment interaction and the reliability of mating signals. Anim. Behav. 68: 1461-1468.
19. Grether, G.F. 2000. Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution 54: 1712-1724.
20. Hadfield, J.D. 2010. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33: 1-22.
21. Hadfield, J.D., Wilson, A.J., Garant, D., Sheldon, B.C. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2010. The misuse of BLUP in ecology and evolution. Am. Nat. 175: 116-125.
22. Higginson, A.D. & Reader, T. 2009. Environmental heterogeneity, genotype-by-environment interactions and the reliability of sexual traits as indicators of mate quality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 1153-1159.
23. Hine, E., Lachish, S., Higgie, M. & Blows, M.W. 2002. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 2215-2219.
24. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 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.
25. 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.
26. Ingleby, F.C., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. (2012). Heritability of male attractiveness persists despite evidence for unreliable sexual signals in Drosophila simulans. J. Evol. Biol. in press, doi: 10.1111/jeb.12045.
27. Ivy, T.M., Weddle, C.B. & Sakaluk, S.K. 2005. Females use self-referent cues to avoid mating with previous mates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272: 2475-2478.
28. Jia, F.-Y., Greenfield, M.D. & Collins, R.D. 2000. Genetic variance of sexually selected traits in waxmoths: maintenance by genotype × environment interaction. Evolution 54: 953-967.
29. Kang, M.S. & Gauch, H.G. 1996. Genotype-by-Environment Interaction. CRC Press, New York, USA.
30. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33-38.
31. Kokko, H. & Heubel, K. 2008. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox. Genetica 134: 55-62.
32. Kwan, L. & Rundle, H.D. 2010. Adaptation to desiccation fails to generate pre- and postmating isolation in replicate Drosophila melanogaster laboratory populations. Evolution 64: 710-723.
33. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.
34. Lewandowski, E. & Boughman, J. 2008. Effects of genetics and light environment on colour expression in threespine sticklebacks. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 94: 663-673.
35. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.
36. Mills, S.C., Alatano, R.V., Koskela, E., Mappes, J., Mappes, T. & Oksanen, T.A. 2007. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution 61: 1748-1757.
37. Morrow, E.H., Leijon, A. & Meerupati, A. 2008. Hemiclonal analysis reveals significant genetic, environmental and genotype × environment effects on sperm size in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol. 21: 1692-1702.
38. Narraway, C., Hunt, J., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Genotype by environment interactions for female preference. J. Evol. Biol. 23: 2550-2557.
39. Radwan, J. 2008. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica 134: 113-127.
40. Rodríguez, R.L. & Al-Wathiqui, N. 2011. Genotype × environment interaction is weaker in genitalia than in mating signals and body traits in Enchenopa treehoppers (Hemiptera: Membracidae). Genetica 139: 871-884.
41. Rodríguez, R.L. & Greenfield, M.D. 2003. Genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity in a component of female mate choice in an ultrasonic moth. Evolution 57: 1304-1313.
42. Roff, D.A. & Fairbairn, D.J. 2006. The evolution of trade-offs: where are we? J. Evol. Biol. 20: 433-437.
43. 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.
44. Rundle, H.D., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2008. Comparing complex fitness surfaces: among-population variation in mutual sexual selection in Drosophila serrata. Am. Nat. 171: 443-454.
45. Rundle, H.D., Chenoweth, S.F. & Blows, M.W. 2009. The diversification of mate preferences by natural and sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 1608-1615.
46. Savarit, F. & Ferveur, J.F. 2002. Temperature affects the ontogeny of sexually dimorphic cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 205: 3241-3249.
47. Sharma, M.D., Hunt, J. & Hosken, D.J. 2012a. Antagonistic responses to natural and sexual selection and the sex-specific evolution of cuticular hydrocarbons in Drosophila simulans. Evolution 66: 665-677.
48. Sharma, M.D., Mitchell, C., Hunt, J., Tregenza, T. & Hosken, D.J. 2012b. The genetics of cuticular hydrocarbon profiles in the fruit fly Drosophila simulans. J. Hered. 103: 230-239.
49. Sih, A., Bell, A.M. & Kerby, J.L. 2004. Two stressors are far deadlier than one. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 274-276.
50. Singer, T.L. 1998. Roles of hydrocarbons in the recognition systems of insects. Integr. Comp. Biol. 38: 394-405.
51. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P. & Van Der Linde, A. 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 64: 583-639.
52. Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. 1989. Using Multivariate Statistics. Harper Collins, New York, NY, USA.
53. Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2007. The heritability of attractiveness. Curr. Biol. 17: R959-R960.
54. Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2008. Sexual selection and female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62: 721-728.
55. Taylor, M.L., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D.J. 2010. Attractive males do not sire superior daughters. Evol. Ecol. 24: 195-205.
56. Thomas, M.L. & Simmons, L.W. 2009. Sexual selection on cuticular hydrocarbons in the Australian field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. BMC Evol. Biol. 9: 162.
57. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J.S. & Tregenza, T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 323-328.
58. Vereecken, N.J., Mant, J. & Schiestl, F.P. 2007. Population differentiation in female sex pheromone and male preferences in a solitary bee. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61: 811-821.
59. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1985. Genotype-environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39: 505-522.
60. Via, S. & Lande, R. 1987. Evolution of genetic variability in a spatially heterogeneous environment: effects of genotype-environment interaction. Genet. Res. 49: 147-156.
61. Wicker-Thomas, C. 2007. Pheromonal communication involved in courtship behavior in Diptera. J. Insect Physiol. 53: 1089-1100.
62. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection- a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53: 205-214.