Investigating the interaction between inter-locus and intra-locus sexual conflict using hemiclonal analysis in Drosophila melanogaster.
Fitness
Intersexual genetic correlation for fitness
Male and female heritability
Sex ratio
Sexual antagonism
Sexually antagonistic coevolution
Journal
BMC ecology and evolution
ISSN: 2730-7182
Titre abrégé: BMC Ecol Evol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101775613
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 03 2022
28 03 2022
Historique:
received:
09
12
2021
accepted:
15
03
2022
entrez:
29
3
2022
pubmed:
30
3
2022
medline:
5
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Divergence in the evolutionary interests of males and females leads to sexual conflict. Traditionally, sexual conflict has been classified into two types: inter-locus sexual conflict (IeSC) and intra-locus sexual conflict (IaSC). IeSC is modeled as a conflict over outcomes of intersexual reproductive interactions mediated by loci that are sex-limited in their effects. IaSC is thought to be a product of selection acting in opposite directions in males and females on traits with a common underlying genetic basis. While in their canonical formalisms IaSC and IeSC are mutually exclusive, there is growing support for the idea that the two may interact. Empirical evidence for such interactions, however, is limited. Here, we investigated the interaction between IeSC and IaSC in Drosophila melanogaster. Using hemiclonal analysis, we sampled 39 hemigenomes from a laboratory-adapted population of D. melanogaster. We measured the contribution of each hemigenome to adult male and female fitness at three different intensities of IeSC, obtained by varying the operational sex ratio. Subsequently, we estimated the intensity of IaSC at each sex ratio by calculating the intersexual genetic correlation (r Our results indicate a statistically non-significant trend suggesting that increasing the strength of IeSC ameliorates IaSC in the population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Divergence in the evolutionary interests of males and females leads to sexual conflict. Traditionally, sexual conflict has been classified into two types: inter-locus sexual conflict (IeSC) and intra-locus sexual conflict (IaSC). IeSC is modeled as a conflict over outcomes of intersexual reproductive interactions mediated by loci that are sex-limited in their effects. IaSC is thought to be a product of selection acting in opposite directions in males and females on traits with a common underlying genetic basis. While in their canonical formalisms IaSC and IeSC are mutually exclusive, there is growing support for the idea that the two may interact. Empirical evidence for such interactions, however, is limited.
RESULTS
Here, we investigated the interaction between IeSC and IaSC in Drosophila melanogaster. Using hemiclonal analysis, we sampled 39 hemigenomes from a laboratory-adapted population of D. melanogaster. We measured the contribution of each hemigenome to adult male and female fitness at three different intensities of IeSC, obtained by varying the operational sex ratio. Subsequently, we estimated the intensity of IaSC at each sex ratio by calculating the intersexual genetic correlation (r
CONCLUSION
Our results indicate a statistically non-significant trend suggesting that increasing the strength of IeSC ameliorates IaSC in the population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35346023
doi: 10.1186/s12862-022-01992-0
pii: 10.1186/s12862-022-01992-0
pmc: PMC8962633
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
38Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Curr Biol. 2012 Feb 7;22(3):204-8
pubmed: 22226747
Heredity (Edinb). 2015 Apr;114(4):367-72
pubmed: 25649503
Biol Lett. 2016 Apr;12(4):
pubmed: 27122010
Evolution. 2017 Oct;71(10):2359-2369
pubmed: 28833077
Evolution. 2006 Sep;60(9):1868-73
pubmed: 17089971
J Evol Biol. 2005 May;18(3):568-75
pubmed: 15842486
PLoS Biol. 2019 Apr 25;17(4):e3000244
pubmed: 31022179
Am Nat. 2016 Oct;188(4):E98-E112
pubmed: 27622882
Evolution. 2014 Aug;68(8):2184-96
pubmed: 24766035
Biol Lett. 2012 Dec 23;8(6):976-8
pubmed: 22875819
Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Mar 22;282(1803):20142752
pubmed: 25694618
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Nov 26;116(48):24157-24163
pubmed: 31719204
Evolution. 2014 Feb;68(2):412-25
pubmed: 24117169
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Dec 11;281(1776):20132123
pubmed: 24335980
Evolution. 2016 Apr;70(4):781-95
pubmed: 27077679
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Dec 22;274(1629):3105-12
pubmed: 17925279
Am Nat. 2007 Jan;169(1):29-37
pubmed: 17206582
Ecol Evol. 2013 Jun;3(6):1819-34
pubmed: 23789088
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Aug 7;281(1788):20140987
pubmed: 24966317
Trends Ecol Evol. 2011 Jul;26(7):359-68
pubmed: 21507504
Behav Genet. 1982 May;12(3):295-307
pubmed: 6812562
Evolution. 2013 Jul;67(7):2133-41
pubmed: 23815666
Evol Lett. 2018 Feb 10;2(2):52-61
pubmed: 30283664
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 3;102 Suppl 1:6527-34
pubmed: 15851669
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 May 31;284(1855):
pubmed: 28539510
J Evol Biol. 2020 Jun;33(6):738-750
pubmed: 32176391
Nature. 2015 Dec 17;528(7582):405-8
pubmed: 26536110
Sci Rep. 2012;2:447
pubmed: 22685628
Mol Ecol. 2018 Sep;27(18):3572-3581
pubmed: 30055065
Evol Lett. 2019 Apr 29;3(3):254-262
pubmed: 31171981
Evolution. 2009 Dec;63(12):3124-35
pubmed: 19624721
Science. 1994 Jun 17;264(5166):1702-14
pubmed: 8209251
Evolution. 2020 Dec;74(12):2703-2713
pubmed: 32438467
Heredity (Edinb). 2014 Feb;112(2):143-8
pubmed: 24045292
Curr Biol. 2001 Apr 3;11(7):489-93
pubmed: 11412998
Curr Biol. 2005 Feb 22;15(4):316-21
pubmed: 15723791
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Feb 23;113(8):E978-86
pubmed: 26755609
Evolution. 2011 Mar;65(3):725-37
pubmed: 21050188
Am J Bot. 2016 Mar;103(3):541-52
pubmed: 26542842
Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 May;24(5):280-8
pubmed: 19307043
Ecol Lett. 2018 Mar;21(3):384-391
pubmed: 29341415
Evolution. 2018 Mar;72(3):518-530
pubmed: 29238970
PLoS Genet. 2016 Sep 22;12(9):e1006170
pubmed: 27658217
PLoS Biol. 2010 Mar 16;8(3):e1000335
pubmed: 20305719
Behav Genet. 1979 Nov;9(6):555-61
pubmed: 122271
Evolution. 1980 Mar;34(2):292-305
pubmed: 28563426
J Evol Biol. 2017 Oct;30(10):1898-1909
pubmed: 28763136
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083-8
pubmed: 10220422
Genetics. 2006 Sep;174(1):271-84
pubmed: 16783013
J Evol Biol. 2010 Feb;23(2):440-6
pubmed: 20039999
Evolution. 2011 Mar;65(3):713-24
pubmed: 21091981
Genetics. 1977 Jan;85(1):171-83
pubmed: 838269
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014 Dec 11;7(2):a017533
pubmed: 25502515
Mol Ecol. 2020 Mar;29(6):1173-1184
pubmed: 32077545
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Feb 13;98(4):1671-5
pubmed: 11172009
Spermatogenesis. 2012 Jul 1;2(3):224-235
pubmed: 23087839
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014 Sep 25;6(11):a017665
pubmed: 25256007
Curr Biol. 2020 Jan 6;30(1):143-149.e4
pubmed: 31839455
Curr Biol. 2014 Dec 1;24(23):2850-4
pubmed: 25454787
New Phytol. 2011 Oct;192(2):542-52
pubmed: 21726233
Ecol Evol. 2018 Dec 11;8(24):13035-13050
pubmed: 30619603
Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jun 7;276(1664):2009-14
pubmed: 19324806
Am Nat. 2005 May;165 Suppl 5:S5-18
pubmed: 15795862
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Apr 4;114(14):3690-3695
pubmed: 28325880
Nature. 1996 May 16;381(6579):232-4
pubmed: 8622764
BMC Evol Biol. 2013 Sep 28;13:212
pubmed: 24073883
Evolution. 2004 May;58(5):1028-37
pubmed: 15212383
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):531-9
pubmed: 11296866