4.2 Article

Sperm competition and the evolution of the sperm hook in house mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 12, Pages 2505-2511

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01867.x

Keywords

geometric morphometry; Mus domesticus; multiple paternity; polyandry; sperm competition; sperm morphology

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sperm morphology varies considerably both between and within species. The sperm of many muroid rodents bear an apical hook at the proximal end of the head. The curvature of the sperm hook varies greatly across species, however the adaptive significance of the sperm hook is currently not known. In wood mice the apical hooks intertwine to form sperm 'trains', which exhibit faster swimming velocities than single cells. Thus, it has been suggested that if sperm 'trains' were advantageous in a competitive situation, then the apical sperm hook might be an evolutionary product of selection via sperm competition. A comparative study of rodent species provided support for the hypothesis, and showed that species with higher levels of sperm competition had more reflected sperm hooks. Here, we tested this hypothesis at the intraspecific level. We quantified sperm hook morphology from seven house mouse populations, and found that interpopulation variation in hook curvature was not explained by variation in sperm competition risk. Furthermore, observations of ejaculated sperm revealed that sperm groups are not a common characteristic of mouse ejaculates. We suggest that selection for sperm attachment to the oviduct epithelium, and thus better retainment of sperm fertilizing potential, may provide a more general explanation of the evolutionary relationship between sperm competition risk and the curvature of the sperm hook among rodents, and provide a phylogenetic comparison among rodent species that supports our hypothesis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available