Differential effects of genetic vs. environmental quality in Drosophila melanogaster suggest multiple forms of condition dependence

Ecology Letters

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 317-326

  Bonduriansky, Russell ^a   Mallet, Martin A ^b   Arbuthnott, Devin ^c   Pawlowsky Glahn, Vera ^d   Egozcue, Juan José ^e   Rundle, Howard D ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GIRONA   (Spain)

^e UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Condition dependent; Diet; Genic capture; Good genes; Mutation load; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; FLY; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC VARIATION; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; MORPHOLOGY; MUTATION; PHENOTYPE; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

HYDROCARBON;

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; DIET; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; MALE; MUTATION; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; DIET; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; ENVIRONMENT; FEMALE; GENETIC FITNESS; GENOTYPE; HYDROCARBONS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; MUTATION; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 84925813496     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12412     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Abbott, J.K. & Morrow, E.H. (2011). Obtaining snapshots of genetic variation using hemiclonal analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 359-368.
2. Abbott, J.K., Bedhomme, S. & Chippindale, A.K. (2010). Sexual conflict in wing size and shape in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Evol. Biol., 23, 1989-1997.
3. Agrawal, A.F. (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature, 411, 692-695.
4. Ahuja, A. & Singh, R.S. (2008). Variation and evolution of male sex combs in Drosophila: nature of selection response and theories of genetic variation for sexual traits. Genetics, 179, 503-509.
5. Ahuja, A., De Vito, S. & Singh, R.S. (2011). Condition dependence and the nature of genetic variation for male sex comb bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica, 139, 505-510.
6. Andersson, M. (1982). Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 17, 375-393.
7. Berglund, A.O., Genissel, A., Nuzhdin, S.V. & Tatar, M. (2008). Quantitative trait loci affecting phenotypic plasticity and the allometric relationship of ovariole number and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 180, 567-582.
8. Birkhead, T.R., Pellatt, E.J., Matthews, I.M., Roddis, N.J., Hunter, F.M., McPhie, F. et al. (2006). Genic capture and the genetic basis of sexually selected traits in the zebra finch. Evolution, 60, 2389-2398.
9. Bolund, E., Schielzeth, H. & Forstmeier, W. (2010). No heightened condition dependence of zebra finch ornaments - a quantitative genetic approach. J. Evol. Biol., 23, 586-597.
10. Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. (2013). Nongenetic inheritance and the evolution of costly female preference. J. Evol. Biol., 26, 76-87.
11. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. (2004). Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271, 771-783.
12. David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. (2000). Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature, 406, 186-188.
13. Ejima, A., Smith, B.P.C., Lucas, C., Van Naters, W.V., Miller, C.J., Carlson, J.R. et al. (2007). Generalization of courtship learning in Drosophila is mediated by cis-vaccenyl acetate. Curr. Biol., 17, 599-605.
14. Emlen, D.J., Warren, I.A., Johns, A., Dworkin, I. & Corely Levine, L. (2012). A mechanism of extreme growth and reliable signaling in sexually selected ornaments and weapons. Science, 337, 860-864.
15. Everaerts, C., Farine, J.-P., Cobb, M. & Ferveu, J.-F. (2010). Drosophila cuticular hydrocarbons revisited: mating status alters cuticular profiles. PLoS ONE, 5, e9607.
16. Ferveur, J.-F. (2005). Cuticular hydrocarbons: their evolution and roles in Drosophila pheromonal communication. Behav. Genet., 35, 279-295.
17. Forstmeier, W., Schielzeth, H., Mueller, J.C., Ellegren, H. & Kempenaers, B. (2012). Heterozygosity-fitness correlations in zebra finches: microsatellite markers can be better than their reputation. Mol. Ecol., 21, 3237-3249.
18. Grillet, M., Dartevelle, L. & Ferveur, J.F. (2006). A Drosophila male pheromone affects female sexual receptivity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 273, 315-323.
19. Hill, G.E. (2011). Condition-dependent traits as signals of the functionality of vital cellular processes. Ecol. Lett., 14, 625-634.
20. Houle, D. (1991). Genetic covariance of fitness correlates: what genetic correlations are made of and why it matters. Evolution, 45, 630-648.
21. Hunt, J., Bussiere, L.F., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. (2004). What is genetic quality?. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19, 329-333.
22. Jallon, J.-M. (1984). A few chemical words exchanged by Drosophila during courtship and mating. Behav. Genet., 14, 441-478.
23. Johnstone, R.A., Rands, S.A. & Evans, M.R. (2009). Sexual selection and condition-dependence. J. Evol. Biol., 22, 2387-2394.
24. Kimber, C.M. & Chippindale, A.K. (2013). Mutation, condition, and the maintenance of extended lifespan in Drosophila. Curr. Biol., 23, 2283-2287.
25. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W. & Tomkins, J.L. (2001). Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature, 410, 684-686.
26. 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.
27. Mallet, M.A., Bouchard, J.M., Kimber, C.M. & Chippindale, A.K. (2011). Experimental mutation-accumulation on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster reveals stronger selection on males than females. BMC Evol. Biol., 11, 156.
28. Mallet, M.A., Kimber, C.M. & Chippindale, A.K. (2012). Susceptibility of the male fitness phenotype to spontaneous mutation. Biol. Lett., 8, 426-429.
29. Menezes, B.F., Vigoder, F.M., Peixoto, A.A., Varaldi, J. & Bitner-Mathe, B.C. (2013). The influence of male wing shape on mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim. Behav., 85, 1217-1223.
30. Ng, C.S. & Kopp, A. (2008). Sex combs are important for male mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav. Genet., 38, 195-201.
31. Nur, N. & Hasson, O. (1984). Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. l Biol., 110, 275-297.
32. Pavković-Lučić, S. & Kekić, V. (2011). Are larger and/or more symmetrical Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera, Drosophilidae) males more successful in matings in nature? Rev. Bras. Entomol., 55, 583-588.
33. Pavković-Lučić, S., Kekić, V. & Čvoro, A. (2009). Larger male mating advantage depends on the sex ratio in Drosophila melanogaster. Ethol. Ecol. Evol., 21, 155-160.
34. Prokop, Z.M., Leś, J.E., Banaś, P.K., Koteja, P. & Radwan, J. (2010). Low inbreeding depression in a sexual trait in the stalk-eyed fly Teleopsis dalmanni. Evol. Ecol., 24, 827-837.
35. Rode, N.O. & Morrow, E.H. (2009). An examination of genetic variation and selection on condition in Drosophila melanogaster males. Entomol. Exp. Appl., 131, 167-177.
36. 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.
37. Rybak, F., Sureau, G. & Aubin, T. (2002). Functional coupling of acoustic and chemical signals in the courtship behaviour of the male Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 269, 695-701.
38. Savarit, F., Sureau, G., Cobb, M. & Ferveur, J.-F. (1999). Genetic elimination of known pheromones reveals the fundamental chemical bases of mating and isolation in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 9015-9020.
39. Schielzeth, H., Kempenaers, B., Ellegren, H. & Forstmeier, W. (2012). QTL linkage mapping of zebra finch beak color shows an oligogenic control of a sexually selected trait. Evolution, 66, 18-30.
40. Schneider, C.A., Rasband, W.S. Eliceiri, K.W. (2012). NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nature Methods, 9, 671-675.
41. Sentinella, A.T., Crean, A.J. & Bonduriansky, R. (2013). Dietary protein mediates a trade-off between larval survival and the development of male secondary sexual traits. Funct. Ecol., 27, 1134-1144.
42. Shingleton, A.W., Estep, C.M., Driscoll, M.V. & Dworkin, I. (2009). Many ways to be small: different environmental regulators of size generate distinct scaling relationships in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 276, 2625-2633.
43. Siller, S. (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature, 411, 689-692.
44. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J.S. & Tregenza, T. (2004). Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19, 323-328.
45. Walsh, B. & Blows, M.W. (2009). Abundant genetic variation + strong selection = multivariate genetic constraints: A geometric view of adaptation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 40, 41-59.
46. Whitlock, M.C. & Agrawal, A.F. (2009). Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution, 63, 569-582.
47. Wilkinson, G.S. & Taper, M. (1999). Evolution of genetic variation for condition-dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 266, 1685-1690.
48. 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.
49. Yew, J.Y., Dreisewerd, K., Luftmann, H., Muthing, J., Pohlentz, G. & Kravitz, E.A. (2009). A new male sex pheromone and novel cuticular cues for chemical communication in Drosophila. Curr. Biol., 19, 1245-1254.
50. Zera, A.J., Potts, J. & Kobus, K. (1998). The physiology of life-history trade-offs: experimental analysis of a hormonally induced life-history trade-off in Gryllus assimilis. Am. Nat., 152, 7-23.