The effect of dominance on polymorphism in Müllerian mimic species

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 337, Issue , 2013, Pages 101-110

  Llaurens, V ^a   Billiard, S ^b   Joron, M ^a  

^a MUSÉUM NATIONAL D'HISTOIRE NATURELLE   (France)

^b Univ Lille   (France)

Author keywords

Aposematism; Balancing selection; Mimicry; Spatial heterogeneity

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; APOSEMATISM; DOMINANCE; MIMICRY; POLYMORPHISM;

ARTICLE; DIPLOIDY; GENE FREQUENCY; GENE LOCUS; GENETIC DOMINANCE; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; HAPLOIDY; HETEROZYGOSITY; HETEROZYGOTE; MIGRATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR GENETICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; MULLERIAN MIMIC SPECIES; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PREDATION; PREDATOR PREY INTERACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCTION; SPECIES; THEORETICAL MODEL;

APOSEMATISM; BALANCING SELECTION; MIMICRY; SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY;

ALLELES; ANIMAL MIGRATION; ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; GENE FREQUENCY; GENES, DOMINANT; HETEROZYGOTE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOLECULAR MIMICRY; POLYMORPHISM, GENETIC; PREDATORY BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84883763481     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.08.006     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Barnett C.A., Skelhorn J., Bateson M., Rowe C. Educated predators make strategic decisions to eat defended prey according to their toxin content. Behavioral Ecology 2012, 23:418-424.
2. Billiard S., Castric V. Evidence for Fisher's dominance theory: how many "special cases"?. Trends in Genetics 2011, 27(11):441-445.
3. Charlesworth D. Balancing selection and its effects on sequences in nearby genome regions. PLOS Genetics 2006, 2:375-384.
4. Chouteau M., Angers B. The role of predators in maintaining the geographic organization of aposematic signals. American Naturalist 2011, 178:810-817.
5. Chouteau M., Summers K., Morales V., Angers B. Advergence in Mullerian mimicry: the case of the poison dart frogs of Northern Peru revisited. Biology Letters 2011, 7:796-800.
6. Clarke C., Clarke F.M.M., Collins S.C., Gill A.C.L., Turner J.R.G. Male-like females, mimicry and transvestism in butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Systematic Entomology 1985, 10:257-283.
7. Clarke C.A., Sheppard P.M. The evolution of dominance under disruptive selection. Heredity 1960, 14:73-87.
8. Dumbacher J.P., Fleischer R.C. Phylogenetic evidence for colour pattern convergence in toxic pitohuis: Mullerian mimicry in birds?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:1971-1976.
9. Edmunds M. Why are there good and poor mimics?. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 2000, 70:459-466.
10. Fisher R.A. The possible modification of the response of the wild type to recurrent mutations. American Naturalist 1928, 62:115-126.
11. Haldane J.B.S. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection, Part V: Selection and mutation. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 1927, 23:838-844.
12. Halpin C.G., Skelton J., Rowe C. The relationship between sympatric defended species depends upon predators discriminatiry behaviour. PLOS One 2012, 7:e44895.
13. Ihalainen E., Rowland H.M., Speed M.P., Ruxton G.D., Mappes J. Prey community structure affects how predators select for Mullerian mimicry. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2012, 279:2099-2105.
14. Jones R.T., Salazar P.A., Ffrench-Constant R.H., Jiggins C.D., Joron M. Evolution of a mimicry supergene from a multilocus architecture. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2012, 279:316-325.
15. Joron M., Iwasa Y. The evolution of a Mullerian mimic in a spatially distributed community. J. Theor. Biol 2005, 237:87-103.
16. Joron M., Wynne I.R., Lamas G., Mallet J. Variable selection and the coexistence of multiple mimetic forms of the butterfly Heliconius numata. Evol. Ecol. 1999, 13:721-754.
17. Joron M., et al. A conserved supergene locus controls colour pattern diversity in Heliconius butterflies. Plos Biology 2006, 4:1831-1840.
18. Joron M., et al. Chromosomal rearrangements maintain a polymorphic supergene controlling butterfly mimicry. Nature 2011, 477:203-206.
19. Kokko H., Mappes J., Lindström L. Alternative prey can change model-mimic dynamics between parasitism and mutualism. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6. (2068-1076).
20. Lenormand T. Gene flow and the limits to natural selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2002, 17:183-189.
21. Mallet J., Barton N. Inference from clines stabilized by frequency-dependent selection. Genetics 1989, 122:967-976.
22. Mappes J., Marples N., Endler J.A. The complex business of survival by aposematism. Trends in Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20:598-603.
23. Marek P.E., Bond J.E. A Mullerian mimicry ring in Appalachian millipedes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106:9755-9760.
24. Mendel G. The origin of genetics: a Mendel source book 1895, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco. C. Sherwood (Ed.).
25. Merrill R.M., et al. Disruptive ecological selection on a mating cue. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2012, 279:4907-4913.
26. Naisbit R.E., Jiggins C.D., Mallet J. Mimicry: developmental genes that contribute to speciation. Evol. Dev. 2003, 5:269-280.
27. Nijhout F.H. The development and evolution of butterfly wing patterns. Smithsonian series in comparative evolutionary biology 1991, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.
28. Nijhout F.H. Polymorphic mimicry in Papilio dardanus: mosaic dominance, big effect and origins. Evol. Dev. 2003, 5:579-592.
29. Orr H.A. A test of Fisher theory of dominance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88:11413-11415.
30. Orr H.A., Betancourt A.J. Haldane's sieve and adaptation from the standing genetic variation. Genetics 2001, 157:875-884.
31. Otto S.P., Bourguet D. Balanced polymorphisms and the evolution of dominance. American Naturalist 1999, 153:561-574.
32. Otto S.P., Day T. in A biologist's guide to mathematical modeling in ecology and evolution 2007, Princeton University Press.
33. Papa R., et al. Multi-Allelic Major Effect Genes Interact with Minor Effect QTLs to Control Adaptive Colour Pattern Variation in Heliconius erato. Plos One 2013, 8.
34. Pinheiro C.E.G. Does Mullerian mimicry work in nature? Experiments with butterflies and birds (Tyrannidae). Biotropica 2003, 35:356-364.
35. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Aposematism, and Mimicry 2004, Oxford University Press, Oxford. G.D. Ruxton, T.N. Sherratt, M.P. Speed (Eds.).
36. Ruxton G.D., Franks D.W., Balogh A.C.V., Leimar O. Evolutionary implications of the form of predator generalisation for aposematic signals and mimicry in prey. Evolution 2008, 62:2913-2921.
37. Sanders K.L., Malhotra A., Thorpe R.S. Evidence for a Mullerian mimetic radiation in Asian pitvipers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2006, 273:1135-1141.
38. Schierup M.H., Vekemans X., Christiansen F.B. Evolutionary dynamics of sporophytic self-incompatibility alleles in plants. Genetics 1997, 147:835-846.
39. Speed M.P., Turner J.R.G. Learning and memory in mimicry: II. Do we understand the mimicry spectrum?. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1999, 67:281-312.
40. Spichtig M., Kawecki T.J. The maintenance (or not) of polygenic variation by soft selection in heterogeneous environments. American Naturalist 2004, 164:70-84.
41. Symula R., Schulte R., Summers K. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for a mimetic radiation in Peruvian poison frogs supports a Mullerian mimicry hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2001, 268:2415-2421.
42. Yeaman S., Otto S.P. Establishment and maintenance of adaptive genetic divergence under migration, selection, and drift. Evolution 2011, 65:2123-2129.
43. Zrzavy J., Nedved O. Evolution of mimicry in the New World Dysdercus (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1999, 12:956-969.