4.7 Article

The genetics of mate preferences in hybrids between two young and sympatric Lake Victoria cichlid species

Journal

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2332

Keywords

assortative mating; hybridization; Pundamilia nyererei; Pundamilia pundamilia; sensory drive; speciation-with-gene-flow

Funding

  1. BBSRC [G20313]
  2. Swedish Research Councils VR and Formas
  3. Earth and Life Systems Alliance ( ELSA), Norwich Research Park, UK
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [G20313] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The genetic architecture of mate preferences is likely to affect significant evolutionary processes, including speciation and hybridization. Here, we investigate laboratory hybrids between a pair of sympatric Lake Victoria cichlid fish species that appear to have recently evolved from a hybrid population between similar predecessor species. The species demonstrate strong assortative mating in the laboratory, associated with divergent male breeding coloration ( red dorsum versus blue). We show in a common garden experiment, using DNA-based paternity testing, that the strong female mate preferences among males of the two species are fully recovered in a large fraction of their F2 hybrid generation. Individual hybrid females often demonstrated consistent preferences in multiple mate choice trials ( more than or equal to five) across a year or more. This result suggests that female mate preference is influenced by relatively few major genes or genomic regions. These preferences were not changed by experience of a successful spawning event with a male of the non-preferred species in a no-choice single-male trial. We found no evidence for imprinting in the F2 hybrids, although the F1 hybrid females may have been imprinted on their mothers. We discuss this nearly Mendelian inheritance of consistent innate mate preferences in the context of speciation theory.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available