Meiotic drive influences the outcome of sexually antagonistic selection at a linked locus

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 27, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 2360-2370

  Patten, M M ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic conflict; Genome architecture; Meiotic drive; Sexual antagonism

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; ANTAGONISM; CHROMOSOME; FITNESS; FLY; GENOME; GENOMICS; HERITABILITY; POLYMORPHISM; PREDICTION; RECOMBINATION; REPRODUCTIVE COST; SEXUAL SELECTION;

MUS; TURKEY;

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DROSOPHILA; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC LINKAGE; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; HAPLOTYPE; MALE; MEIOSIS; MOUSE; SEX; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; DROSOPHILA; FEMALE; GENETIC LINKAGE; GENETIC VARIATION; HAPLOTYPES; LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; MALE; MEIOSIS; MICE; MODELS, GENETIC; POLYMORPHISM, GENETIC; SELECTION, GENETIC; SEX; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 84925071073     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12493     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Ardlie, K.G. & Silver, L.M. 1998. Low frequency of t haplotypes in natural populations of house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Evolution 52: 1185-1196.
2. Arnqvist, G. 2011. Assortative mating by fitness and sexually antagonistic genetic variation. Evolution 65: 2111-2116.
3. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2005. Sexual Conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
4. Arnqvist, G., Vellnow, N. & Rowe, L. 2014. The effect of epistasis on sexually antagonistic genetic variation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 281: 20140489.
5. Blackburn, G.S., Albert, A.Y.K. & Otto, S.P. 2010. The evolution of sex ratio adjustment in the presence of sexually antagonistic selection. Am. Nat. 176: 264-275.
6. Bodmer, W.F. & Felsenstein, J. 1967. Linkage and selection: theoretical analysis of the deterministic two locus random mating model. Genetics 57: 237-265.
7. Bonduriansky, R. & Chenoweth, S.F. 2009. Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24: 280-288.
8. Brommer, J.E., Kirkpatrick, M., Qvärnstrom, A. & Gustafsson, L. 2007. The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implication for sexual selection. PLoS ONE 2: e744.
9. Burt, A. & Trivers, R. 2006. Genes in Conflict. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
10. Carroll, L.S., Meagher, S., Morrison, L., Penn, D.J. & Potts, W.K. 2004. Fitness effects of a selfish gene (the Mus t complex) are revealed in an ecological context. Evolution 58: 1318-1328.
11. Charlesworth, B. & Hartl, D.L. 1978. Population dynamics of the segregation distorter polymorphism of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 89: 171-192.
12. Chippindale, A.K., Gibson, J.R. & Rice, W.R. 2001. Negative genetic correlation for fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 1671-1675.
13. Connallon, T. & Clark, A.G. 2011. The resolution of sexual antagonism by gene duplication. Genetics 187: 919-937.
14. Connallon, T. & Clark, A.G. 2012. A general population genetic framework for antagonistic selection that accounts for demography and recurrent mutation. Genetics 190: 1477-1489.
15. Connallon, T. & Clark, A.G. 2013. Antagonistic versus nonantagonistic models of balancing selection: characterizing the relative timescales and hitchhiking effects of partial selective sweeps. Evolution 67: 908-917.
16. Dapper, A.L. & Lively, C.M. 2014. Interlocus sexually antagonistic coevolution can create indirect selection for increased recombination. Evolution 68: 1216-1224.
17. Delcourt, M., Blows, M.W. & Rundle, H.D. 2009. Sexually antagonistic genetic variance for fitness in an ancestral and a novel environment. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 276: 2009-2014.
18. van Doorn, G.S. 2009. Intralocus sexual conflict. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1168: 52-71.
19. van Doorn, G.S. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2007. Turnover of sex chromosomes induced by sexual conflict. Nature 449: 909-912.
20. van Doorn, G.S. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2010. Transitions between male and female heterogamety caused by sex-antagonistic selection. Genetics 186: 629-645.
21. Dunn, L.C. & Suckling, J. 1956. Studies of the genetic variability in wild populations of house mice. I. Analysis of seven alleles at locus T. Genetics 41: 344-352.
22. Dunn, L.C., Beasley, A.B. & Tinker, H. 1958. Relative fitness of house mice heterozygous for a lethal allele. Am. Nat. 865: 215-220.
23. Dyer, K.A., Charlesworth, B. & Jaenike, J. 2007. Chromosome-wide linkage disequilibrium as a consequence of meiotic drive. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 1587-1592.
24. Fedorka, K.M. & Mousseau, T.A. 2004. Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429: 65-67.
25. Feldman, M.W. 1972. Selection for linkage modification: I. Random mating populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 3: 324-346.
26. Feldman, M.W. & Otto, S.P. 1991. A comparative approach to the population-genetics theory of segregation distortion. Am. Nat. 137: 443-456.
27. Feldman, M.W., Otto, S.P. & Christiansen, F.B. 1996. Population genetic perspectives on the evolution of recombination. Annu. Rev. Genet. 30: 261-295.
28. Fishman, L. 2013. Female meiotic drive in monkeyflowers: insight into the population genetics of selfish centromeres. In: Plant Centromere Biology (J. Jiang & J.A. Birchler, eds), pp. 129-146. John Wiley & Sons, Ames, IA.
29. Fishman, L. & Saunders, A. 2008. Centromere-associated female meiotic drive entails male fitness costs in monkeyflowers. Science 322: 1559-1562.
30. 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.
31. Fry, J.D. 2010. The genomic location of sexually antagonistic variation: some cautionary comments. Evolution 64: 1510-1516.
32. Ganetzky, B. 1977. Components of segregation distortion in Drosophila-melanogaster. Genetics 86: 321-355.
33. Gershenson, S. 1928. A new sex-ratio abnormality in Drosophila obscura. Genetics 13: 488-507.
34. Grognet, P., Lalucque, H., Malagnac, F. & Silar, P. 2014. Genes that bias Mendelian segregation. PLoS Genet. 5: e1004387.
35. Haig, D. 1997. The social gene. In: Behavioural Ecology, 4th edn (J.R. Krebs & N.B. Davies, eds), pp. 284-304. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK.
36. Haig, D. & Bergstrom, C.T. 1995. Multiple mating, sperm competition and meiotic drive. J. Evol. Biol. 8: 265-282.
37. Haig, D., Úbeda, F. & Patten, M.M. 2014. Specialists and generalists: the sexual ecology of the genome. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017525.
38. Haldane, J.B.S. 1926. A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection III. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 23: 363-372.
39. Hammer, M.F., Schimenti, J. & Silver, L.M. 1989. Evolution of mouse chromosome-17 and the origin of inversions associated with t-haplotypes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86: 3261-3265.
40. Hartl, D.L. 1970. A mathematical model for recessive lethal segregation distorters with differential viabilities in the sexes. Genetics 66: 147-163.
41. Hurst, L.D. & Pomiankowski, A. 1991. Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane's Rule and related phenomena. Genetics 128: 841-858.
42. Innocenti, P. & Morrow, E.H. 2010. The sexually antagonistic genes of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol. 8: e1000335.
43. Jaenike, J. 2001. Sex chromosome meiotic drive. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32: 25-49.
44. Jordan, C.Y. & Charlesworth, D. 2012. The potential for sexually antagonistic polymorphism in different genome regions. Evolution 66: 505-516.
45. Kanizay, L.B., Pyhäjärvi, T., Lowry, E.G., Hufford, M.B., Peterson, D.G., Ross-Ibarra, J. et al. 2013. Diversity and abundance of the abnormal chromosome 10 meiotic drive complex in Zea mays. Heredity 110: 570-577.
46. Karlin, S. 1975. General two-locus selection models: some objectives, results, and interpretations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 7: 364-398.
47. Karlin, S. & McGregor, J. 1974. Towards a theory of evolution of modifier genes. Theor. Popul. Biol. 5: 59-103.
48. Kidwell, J.F., Clegg, M.T., Stewart, F.M. & Prout, T. 1977. Regions of stable equilibria for models of differential selection in two sexes under random mating. Genetics 85: 171-183.
49. Kozielska, M., Weissing, F.J., Beukeboom, L.W. & Pen, I. 2010. Segregation distortion and the evolution of sex-determining mechanisms. Heredity 104: 100-112.
50. Larracuente, A.M. & Presgraves, D.C. 2012. The selfish segregation distorter gene complex of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 192: 33-53.
51. Lenington, S. 1991. The t-complex - a story of genes, behavior, and populations. Adv. Stud. Behav. 20: 51-86.
52. Lenington, S., Drickamer, L.C., Robinson, A.S. & Erhart, M. 1996. Genetic basis for male aggression and survivorship in wild house mice (Mus domesticus). Agg. Behav. 22: 135-145.
53. Li, W.H. & Nei, M. 1974. Linkage disequilibrium without epistasis in a subdivided population. Theor. Popul. Biol. 6: 173-183.
54. Lyttle, T.W. 1991. Segregation distorters. Annu. Rev. Genet. 25: 511-557.
55. Mathworks, Inc 2014. MATLAB and Statistic Toolbox Release 2014a. Natick, MA.
56. Nei, M. 1967. Modification of linkage intensity by natural selection. Genetics 57: 625-641.
57. Nei, M. & Li, W.-H. 1973. Linkage disequilibrium in subdivided populations. Genetics 75: 213-219.
58. Owen, A.R.G. 1953. A genetical system admitting of two distinct stable equilibria under natural selection. Heredity 7: 97-102.
59. Patten, M.M. & Haig, D. 2009. Maintenance or loss of genetic variation under sexual and parental antagonism. Evolution 63: 2888-2895.
60. Patten, M.M., Haig, D. & Úbeda, F. 2010. Fitness variation due to sexual antagonism and linkage disequilibrium. Evolution 64: 3638-3642.
61. Pennell, T.M. & Morrow, E.H. 2013. Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict. Ecol. Evol. 3: 1819-1834.
62. Prasad, N.G., Bedhomme, S., Day, T. & Chippindale, A.K. 2007. An evolutionary cost of separate genders revealed by male-limited evolution. Am. Nat. 169: 29-37.
63. Presgraves, D.C. 2012. Drive and sperm: the evolutionary genetics of male meiotic drive. In: Sperm Biology (T.R. Birkhead, D.J. Hosken & S. Pitnick, eds), pp. 471-506. Academic Press, Burlington, MA.
64. Price, T.A., Bretman, A., Gradilla, A.C., Reger, J., Taylor, M.L., Giraldo-Perez, P. et al. 2014. Does polyandry control population sex ratio via regulation of a selfish gene? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 281: 20133259.
65. Prout, T. 2000. How well does opposing selection maintain variation? In: Evolutionary Genetics: From Molecules to Morphology (R.S. Singh & C.B. Krimbas, eds), pp. 157-181. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
66. Queller, D.C. & Strassman, J.E. 2013. The veil of ignorance can favour biological cooperation. Biol. Lett. 9: 20130365.
67. Rhoades, M.M. 1942. Preferential segregation in maize. Genetics 27: 395-407.
68. Rice, W.R. 1984. Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 735-742.
69. Rice, W.R. 1986. On the instability of polygenic sex determination: the effect of sex-specific selection. Evolution 40: 633-639.
70. Rice, W.R. 1987. The accumulation of sexually antagonistic genes as a selective agent promoting the evolution of reduced recombination between primitive sex chromosomes. Evolution 41: 911-914.
71. Rice, W.R. 1992. Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science 256: 1436-1439.
72. Rice, W.R. 2013. Nothing in genetics makes sense except in light of genomic conflict. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44: 217-237.
73. Roze, D. & Otto, S.P. 2012. Differential selection between the sexes and selection for sex. Evolution 66: 558-574.
74. Sandler, L. & Novitski, E. 1957. Meiotic drive as an evolutionary force. Am. Nat. 857: 105-110.
75. Schimenti, J. 2014. The mouse T complex. In: Encyclopedia of Genetics (E.C.R. Reeve, ed.), pp. 287-292. Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, IL.
76. Silver, L.M. 1993. The peculiar journey of a selfish chromosome - mouse t-haplotypes and meiotic drive. Trends Genet. 9: 250-254.
77. Úbeda, F. & Haig, D. 2005. On the evolutionary stability of Mendelian segregation. Genetics 170: 1345-1357.
78. Úbeda, F., Haig, D. & Patten, M.M. 2011. Stable linkage disequilibrium owing to sexual antagonism. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 278: 855-862.
79. Wade, M.J., Winther, R.G., Agrawal, A.F. & Goodnight, C.J. 2001. Alternative definitions of epistasis: dependence and interaction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16: 498-504.
80. Werren, J.H. 2011. Selfish genetic elements, genetic conflict, and evolutionary innovation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108: 10863-10870.
81. Wilkinson, G.S., Johns, P.M., Kelleher, E.S., Muscedere, M.L. & Lorsong, A. 2006. Fitness effects of X chromosome drive in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. J. Evol. Biol. 19: 1851-1860.