Runaway sexual selection leads to good genes

Evolution

Volumn 67, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 110-119

  Chandler, Christopher H ^a,b   Ofria, Charles ^a,c   Dworkin, Ian ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO   (United States)

^c Michigan State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Fisherian runaway; Good genes; Indicator traits

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GENETIC STRUCTURE; GENOTYPE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; HANDICAP PRINCIPLE; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; PLEIOTROPY; SEXUAL SELECTION; VIABILITY;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; MATE CHOICE;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENES; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84872004197     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01750.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Agrawal, A. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411:692-695.
2. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804-816.
3. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Chow, S. S., C. O. Wilke, C. Ofria, R. E. Lenski, and C. Adami. 2004. Adaptive radiation from resource competition in digital organisms. Science 305:84-86.
5. Clune, J., H. J. Goldsby, C. Ofria, and R. T. Pennock. 2011. Selective pressures for accurate altruism targeting: evidence from digital evolution for difficult-to-test aspects of inclusive fitness theory. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278:666-674.
6. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004a. Heightened condition dependence is not a general feature of male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae). J. Evol. Biol. 17:1310-1316.
7. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004b. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271:771-783.
8. Curtsinger, J., and I. Heisler. 1988. A diploid sexy son model. Am. Nat. 132:437-453.
9. Egger, B., Y. Klaefiger, A. Theis, and W. Salzburger. 2011. A sensory bias has triggered the evolution of egg-spots in Cichlid fishes. PLoS One 6:e25601.
10. Fisher, R. A. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugen. Rev. 7:184-192.
11. Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
12. Fuller, R. C. 2009. A test of the critical assumption of the sensory bias model for the evolution of female mating preference using neural networks. Evolution 63:1697-1711.
13. Fuller, R. C., D. Houle, and J. Travis. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am. Nat. 166: 437-446.
14. Getty, T. 2006. Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21:83-88.
15. Gwynne, D. 1982. Mate selection by female katydids (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae, Conocephalus nigropleurum). Anim. Behav. 30:734-738.
16. Haldane, J. 1924. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. Part I. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23:19-41.
17. Head, M. L., J. Hunt, M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2005. The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biol. 3:e33.
18. Holland, B. 2002. Sexual selection fails to promote adaptation to a new environment. Evolution 56:721-730.
19. Hollis, B., J. L. Fierst, and D. Houle. 2009. Sexual selection accelerates the elimination of a deleterious mutant in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 63:324-333.
20. Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45:1431-1442.
21. Jones, T. M., R. J. Quinnell, and A. Balmford. 1998. Fisherian flies: benefits of female choice in a lekking sandfly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265:1651-1657.
22. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
23. Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:1331-1340.
24. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:43-66.
25. Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:3721-3725.
26. Lenski, R., C. Ofria, T. Collier, and C. Adami. 1999. Genome complexity, robustness and genetic interactions in digital organisms. Nature 400:661-664.
27. Lenski, R., C. Ofria, R. Pennock, and C. Adami. 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139-144.
28. Lorch, P., S. Proulx, and L. Rowe. 2003. Condition-dependent sexual selection can accelerate adaptation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5:867-881.
29. Maan, M. E., and O. Seehausen. 2011. Ecology, sexual selection and speciation. Ecol. Lett. 14:591-602.
30. Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264-271.
31. Misevic, D., C. Ofria, and R. Lenski. 2006. Sexual reproduction reshapes the genetic architecture of digital organisms. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 273:457-464.
32. Ofria, C., and C. Wilke. 2004. Avida: a software platform for research in computational evolutionary biology. Artif. Life 10:191-229.
33. Pomiankowski, A. 1987a. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128:195-218.
34. Pomiankowski, A. 1987b. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work-sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 231:123-145.
35. Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422-1430.
36. Proulx, S. 2001. Female choice via indicator traits easily evolves in the face of recombination and migration. Evolution 55:2401-2411.
37. Proulx, S. 2002. Niche shifts and expansion due to sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4:351-369.
38. Proulx, S. R. 1999. Matings systems and the evolution of niche breadth. Am. Nat. 154:89-98.
39. Ritchie, M. G. 2007. Sexual selection and speciation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 38:79-102.
40. Rodd, F. H., K. A. Hughes, G. F. Grether, and C. T. Baril. 2002. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:475-481.
41. Rogers, D. W., and D. Greig. 2009. Experimental evolution of a sexually selected display in yeast. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276:543-549.
42. Rowe, L., and D. Houle. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263:1415-1421.
43. Siller, S. 2001. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature 411:689-692.
44. Smith, C., and D. Greig. 2010. The cost of sexual signaling in yeast. Evolution 64:3114-3122.
45. Smith, J. M. 1991. Theories of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6:146-151.
46. Weatherhead, P., and R. Robertson. 1979. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "the sexy son hypothesis. Am. Nat. 113:201-208.
47. Welch, A., R. Semlitsch, and H. Gerhardt. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928-1930.
48. Whitlock, M. C. 2000. Fixation of new alleles and the extinction of small populations: drift load, beneficial alleles, and sexual selection. Evolution 54:1855-1861.
49. Wilke, C., J. Wang, C. Ofria, R. Lenski, and C. Adami. 2001. Evolution of digital organisms at high mutation rates leads to survival of the flattest. Nature 412:331-333.
50. Wilkinson, G., D. Presgraves, and L. Crymes. 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391:276-279.
51. Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205-214.
52. Zuk, M., and G. Kolluru. 1998. Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Q. Rev. Biol. 73:415-438.