Display options
Cite
Duffy E, Joag R, Radwan J, et al. Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans. Ecol Evol. 2014;4(17):3330-8doi: 10.1002/ece3.1153.
Duffy, E., Joag, R., Radwan, J., Wedell, N., & Hosken, D. J. (2014). Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans. Ecology and evolution, 4(17), 3330-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1153
Duffy, Eoin, et al. "Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans." Ecology and evolution vol. 4,17 (2014): 3330-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1153
Duffy E, Joag R, Radwan J, Wedell N, Hosken DJ. Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans. Ecol Evol. 2014 Sep;4(17):3330-8. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1153. Epub 2014 Aug 05. PMID: 25535550; PMCID: PMC4228608.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ecol Evol. 2014 Sep;4(17):3330-8. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1153. Epub 2014 Aug 05.

Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans.

Ecology and evolution

Eoin Duffy, Richa Joag, Jacek Radwan, Nina Wedell, David J Hosken

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Science, Jagiellonian University Gronostawa 7, Krakow, Poland.
  2. Centre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter Tremough, Penryn, TR10 9FE, U.K.

PMID: 25535550 PMCID: PMC4228608 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1153

Abstract

Intralocus sexual conflict results from sexually antagonistic selection on traits shared by the sexes. This can displace males and females from their respective fitness optima, and negative intersexual correlations (r mf) for fitness are the unequivocal indicator of this evolutionary conflict. It has recently been suggested that intersexual fitness correlations can vary depending on the segregating genetic variation present in a population, and one way to alter genetic variation and test this idea is via inbreeding. Here, we test whether intersexual correlations for fitness vary with inbreeding in Drosophila simulans isolines reared under homogenous conditions. We measured male and female fitness at different times following the establishment of isofemale lines and found that the sign of the association between the two measures varied with time after initial inbreeding. Our results are consistent with suggestions that the type of genetic variation segregating within a population can determine the extent of intralocus sexual conflict and also support the idea that sexually antagonistic alleles segregate for longer in populations than alleles with sexually concordant effects.

Keywords: Drosophila simulans; inbreeding; intralocus sexual conflict; ontogenetic conflict

References

  1. Genetics. 1999 May;152(1):345-53 - PubMed
  2. Trends Ecol Evol. 1999 Mar;14(3):96-101 - PubMed
  3. Genet Res. 1999 Oct;74(2):165-78 - PubMed
  4. Genetics. 2000 Jan;154(1):213-27 - PubMed
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671-5 - PubMed
  6. Genetica. 2000;110(1):31-41 - PubMed
  7. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205-14 - PubMed
  8. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Sep 22;270(1527):1933-8 - PubMed
  9. Evolution. 2005 Apr;59(4):871-80 - PubMed
  10. PLoS Biol. 2006 Nov;4(11):e356 - PubMed
  11. PLoS One. 2007 Jan 17;2(1):e155 - PubMed
  12. Evolution. 2006 Nov;60(11):2218-25 - PubMed
  13. Nature. 2007 Jun 28;447(7148):1107-10 - PubMed
  14. Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Sep;8(9):689-98 - PubMed
  15. PLoS One. 2007 Aug 15;2(8):e744 - PubMed
  16. Genetica. 2008 Sep;134(1):113-27 - PubMed
  17. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Dec 22;274(1629):3105-12 - PubMed
  18. Nature. 2007 Oct 18;449(7164):909-12 - PubMed
  19. Evolution. 2008 Apr;62(4):857-67 - PubMed
  20. Evolution. 2008 Sep;62(9):2236-49 - PubMed
  21. Annu Rev Entomol. 2009;54:361-78 - PubMed
  22. Am Nat. 2009 Feb;173(2):176-87 - PubMed
  23. Evolution. 2009 Mar;63(3):569-82 - PubMed
  24. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35 - PubMed
  25. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 May;24(5):280-8 - PubMed
  26. Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 7;276(1664):2009-14 - PubMed
  27. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jun;1168:52-71 - PubMed
  28. Evolution. 2010 Jan;64(1):97-107 - PubMed
  29. Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Nov;10(11):783-96 - PubMed
  30. Evolution. 2010 May;64(5):1283-9 - PubMed
  31. Science. 1991 Mar 1;251(4997):1030-3 - PubMed
  32. J Hered. 2010 Mar-Apr;101 Suppl 1:S94-9 - PubMed
  33. J Evol Biol. 2010 Aug;23(8):1672-9 - PubMed
  34. Curr Biol. 2010 Nov 23;20(22):2036-9 - PubMed
  35. BMC Evol Biol. 2011 Jun 06;11:156 - PubMed
  36. Evolution. 2011 Jul;65(7):2085-97 - PubMed
  37. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Nov;26(11):556-7; author reply 558-9 - PubMed
  38. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 May 22;279(1735):1889-95 - PubMed
  39. Ecol Lett. 2012 Mar;15(3):193-7 - PubMed
  40. Curr Biol. 2012 Feb 7;22(3):204-8 - PubMed
  41. Genetics. 2012 Apr;190(4):1477-89 - PubMed
  42. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Oct 22;279(1745):4296-302 - PubMed
  43. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2013 Jan 21;368(1613):20120047 - PubMed
  44. Evolution. 2013 Apr;67(4):1189-95 - PubMed
  45. Ecol Evol. 2013 Jun;3(6):1819-34 - PubMed
  46. Heredity (Edinb). 2014 Feb;112(2):143-8 - PubMed
  47. Evolution. 1986 Jul;40(4):692-701 - PubMed
  48. Evolution. 1986 Jul;40(4):804-816 - PubMed
  49. Evolution. 1986 May;40(3):633-639 - PubMed
  50. Evolution. 1999 Dec;53(6):1678-1691 - PubMed
  51. Evolution. 1994 Jun;48(3):853-867 - PubMed
  52. Evolution. 1996 Apr;50(2):723-733 - PubMed
  53. J Theor Biol. 1988 Jul 8;133(1):85-98 - PubMed
  54. Genetics. 1987 May;116(1):161-7 - PubMed
  55. Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):232-4 - PubMed
  56. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 28;353(1366):261-74 - PubMed

Publication Types