» Articles » PMID: 29806021

Evolutionary Divergence in Competitive Mating Success Through Female Mating Bias for Good Genes

Overview
Journal Sci Adv
Specialties Biology
Science
Date 2018 May 29
PMID 29806021
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Despite heritable variation for univariate sexually selected traits, recent analyses exploring multivariate traits find evidence consistent with the lek paradox in showing no genetic variation available to choosy females, and therefore no genetic benefits of choice. We used the preferences of females to exert bidirectional selection on competitive male mating success to test for the presence and nature of genetic variation underlying this multivariate trait. Male mating success diverged between selection regimens, and flies from success-selected lines had a smaller burden of deleterious, recessive mutations that affect egg-to-adult viability, were better sperm competitors (sperm offence), and did not demonstrate reduced desiccation resistance or components of female fitness (traits thought to trade off with attractiveness) relative to flies from failure-selected populations. Mating success remained subject to inbreeding depression in success-selected lines, suggesting that variation in mating success remains, thanks to numerous genes of small effect. Together, our results provide unique evidence for the evolutionary divergence in male mating success, demonstrating that genetic variation is not exhausted along the axis of precopulatory sexual selection and that female mating biases align with the avoidance of bad genes.

Citing Articles

Sexual selection for males with beneficial mutations.

Roberts G, Petrie M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):12613.

PMID: 35871224 PMC: 9308816. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-16002-y.


Genomic evidence that a sexually selected trait captures genome-wide variation and facilitates the purging of genetic load.

Parrett J, Chmielewski S, Aydogdu E, Lukasiewicz A, Rombauts S, Szubert-Kruszynska A Nat Ecol Evol. 2022; 6(9):1330-1342.

PMID: 35851852 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01816-w.


Effects of genetic vs. environmental quality on condition-dependent morphological and life history traits in a neriid fly.

Hooper A, Bonduriansky R J Evol Biol. 2022; 35(6):803-816.

PMID: 35514040 PMC: 9325454. DOI: 10.1111/jeb.14014.


Selection in males purges the mutation load on female fitness.

Grieshop K, Maurizio P, Arnqvist G, Berger D Evol Lett. 2021; 5(4):328-343.

PMID: 34367659 PMC: 8327962. DOI: 10.1002/evl3.239.


Evaluating the genetic architecture of quantitative traits via selection followed by inbreeding.

Dugand R, Kennington W, Tomkins J Heredity (Edinb). 2019; 123(3):407-418.

PMID: 30967644 PMC: 6781166. DOI: 10.1038/s41437-019-0219-x.


References
1.
McGuigan K, Van Homrigh A, Blows M . An evolutionary limit to male mating success. Evolution. 2008; 62(6):1528-37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00379.x. View

2.
Jarzebowska M, Radwan J . Sexual selection counteracts extinction of small populations of the bulb mites. Evolution. 2009; 64(5):1283-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00905.x. View

3.
Prokop Z, Michalczyk L, Drobniak S, Herdegen M, Radwan J . Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than "good genes". Evolution. 2012; 66(9):2665-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01654.x. View

4.
Simmons L, Emlen D . Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006; 103(44):16346-51. PMC: 1637585. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0603474103. View

5.
Andersson M . EVOLUTION OF CONDITION-DEPENDENT SEX ORNAMENTS AND MATING PREFERENCES: SEXUAL SELECTION BASED ON VIABILITY DIFFERENCES. Evolution. 2017; 40(4):804-816. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb00540.x. View