Experimental Evolution of a Novel Sexually Antagonistic Allele

English version České info

Evolutionary conflict permeates biological systems. In sexually reproducing organisms, sex-specific optima mean that the same allele can have sexually antagonistic expression, i.e. beneficial in one sex and detrimental in the other, a phenomenon known as intralocus sexual conflict. Intralocus sexual conflict is emerging as a potentially fundamental factor for the genetic architecture of fitness, with important consequences for evolutionary processes. However, no study to date has directly experimentally tested the evolutionary fate of a sexually antagonistic allele. Using genetic constructs to manipulate female fecundity and male mating success, we engineered a novel sexually antagonistic allele (SAA) in Drosophila melanogaster. The SAA is nearly twice as costly to females as it is beneficial to males, but the harmful effects to females are recessive and X-linked, and thus are rarely expressed when SAA occurs at low frequency. We experimentally show how the evolutionary dynamics of the novel SAA are qualitatively consistent with the predictions of population genetic models: SAA frequency decreases when common, but increases when rare, converging toward an equilibrium frequency of ∼8%. Furthermore, we show that persistence of the SAA requires the mating advantage it provides to males: the SAA frequency declines towards extinction when the male advantage is experimentally abolished. Our results empirically demonstrate the dynamics underlying the evolutionary fate of a sexually antagonistic allele, validating a central assumption of intralocus sexual conflict theory: that variation in fitness-related traits within populations can be maintained via sex-linked sexually antagonistic loci.

Vyšlo v časopise: Experimental Evolution of a Novel Sexually Antagonistic Allele. PLoS Genet 8(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002917
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002917

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. EllegrenH, SheldonBC (2008) Genetic basis of fitness differences in natural populations. Nature 452: 169–175.

2. TurelliM, BartonNH (2004) Polygenic variation maintained by balancing selection: pleiotropy, sex-dependent allelic effects and G×E interactions. Genetics 166: 1053–1079.

3. ParkerGA, PartridgeL (1998) Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353: 261–274.

4. BondurianskyR, ChenowethSF (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 280–288.

5. ConnallonT, ClarkAG (2012) A general population genetic framework for antagonistic selection that accounts for demography and recurrent mutation. Genetics 190: 1477–1489.

6. RiceWR (1984) Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution 38: 735–742.

7. LandeR (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292–305.

8. StewartAD, PischeddaA, RiceWR (2010) Resolving intralocus sexual conflict: genetic mechanisms and time frame. Journal of Heredity 101: S94–S99.

9. FoersterK, CoulsonT, SheldonBC, PembertonJM, Clutton-BrockTH, et al. (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447: 1107.

10. MokkonenM, KokkoH, KoskelaE, LehtonenJ, MappesT, et al. (2011) Negative frequency-dependent selection of sexually antagonistic alleles in Myodes glareolus. Science 334: 972–974.

11. ChippindaleAK, GibsonJR, RiceWR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 1671–1675.

12. FedorkaKM, MousseauTA (2004) Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature 429: 65–67.

13. PischeddaA, ChippindaleAK (2006) Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol 4: e356 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040356.

14. PrasadN, BedhommeS, DayT, ChippindaleA (2007) An evolutionary cost of separate genders revealed by male-limited evolution. The American Naturalist 169: 29–37.

15. BildeT, FogedA, SchillingN, ArnqvistG (2009) Postmating sexual selection favors males that sire offspring with low fitness. Science 324: 1705–1706.

16. DelcourtM, BlowsMW, RundleHD (2009) Sexually antagonistic genetic variance for fitness in an ancestral and a novel environment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 2009–2014.

17. InnocentiP, MorrowEH (2010) The sexually antagonistic genes of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol 8: e1000335 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000335.

18. Van DoornGS (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1168: 52–71.

19. MorrowEH, StewartAD, RiceWR (2008) Assessing the extent of genome-wide intralocus sexual conflict via experimentally enforced gender-limited selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21: 1046–1054.

20. GibsonJR, ChippindaleAK, RiceWR (2002) The X chromosome is a hot spot for sexually antagonistic fitness variation. Proc R Soc London Ser B 269: 499–505.

21. YapiciN, KimY-J, RibeiroC, DicksonBJ (2008) A receptor that mediates the post-mating switch in Drosophila reproductive behaviour. Nature 451: 33–37.

22. RabinowL, BirchlerJA (1989) A dosage-sensitive modifier of retrotransposon-induced alleles of the Drosophila white locus. The EMBO Journal 8: 879–889.

23. ChenPS, Stumm-ZollingerE, AigakiT, BalmerJ, BienzM, et al. (1988) A male accessory gland peptide that regulates reproductive behavior of female D. melanogaster. Cell 54: 291–298.

24. ReedSC, ReedEW (1950) Natural selection in laboratory populations of Drosophila. II. Competition between a white-eye gene and its wild type allele. Evolution 4: 34–42.

25. BurnetB, ConnollyK (1973) The visual component in the courtship of Drosophila melanogaster. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 29: 488–489.

26. GrandisonRC, WongR, BassTM, PartridgeL, PiperMDW (2009) Effect of a standardised dietary restriction protocol on multiple laboratory strains of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 4: e4067 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004067.

27. ParksAL, CookKR, BelvinM, DompeNA, FawcettR, et al. (2004) Systematic generation of high-resolution deletion coverage of the Drosophila melanogaster genome. Nat Genet 36: 288–292.

28. ImhofM, HarrB, BremG, SchlöttererC (1998) Multiple mating in wild Drosophila melanogaster revisited by microsatellite analysis. Mol Ecol 7: 915–917.

29. CivettaA (1999) Direct visualization of sperm competition and sperm storage in Drosophila. Curr Biol 9: 841–844.

30. ManierMK, BeloteJM, BerbenKS, NovikovD, StuartWT, et al. (2010) Resolving Mechanisms of Competitive Fertilization Success in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 328: 354–357.

31. ClarkAG, BegunDJ, ProutT (1999) Female×male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283: 217–220.

32. BretmanA, FrickeC, ChapmanT (2009) Plastic responses of male Drosophila melanogaster to the level of spermcompetition increase male reproductive fitness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276: 1705–1711.

33. TauberE, RoeH, CostaR, HennessyJM, KyriacouCP (2003) Temporal mating isolation driven by a behavioral gene in Drosophila. Current Biology 13: 140–145.

34. FujiiS, KrishnanP, HardinP, AmreinH (2007) Nocturnal male sex drive in Drosophila. Current Biology 17: 244–251.

35. HardelandR, StangeG (1971) Einflüsse von geschlecht und alter auf die lokomotorische aktivität von Drosophila. Journal of Insect Physiology 17: 427–434.

36. BroughtonSJ, PiperMDW, IkeyaT, BassTM, JacobsonJ, et al. (2005) Longer lifespan, altered metabolism, and stress resistance in Drosophila from ablation of cells making insulin-like ligands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102: 3105–3110.

37. FrickeC, WigbyS, HobbsR, ChapmanT (2009) The benefits of male ejaculate sex peptide transfer in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 275–286.