4.8 Article

Phenotypic Engineering Unveils the Function of Genital Morphology

Journal

CURRENT BIOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 23, Pages 2258-2261

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.009

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Science Foundation [AdG-294333]
  2. Swedish Research Council [621-2010-5266]
  3. National Science Foundation [DEB-1118599]
  4. College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Cincinnati
  5. Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Cincinnati
  6. Lennanders Stiftelse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The rapidly evolving and often extraordinarily complex appearance of male genital morphology of internally fertilizing animals has been recognized for centuries [1]. Postcopulatory sexual selection is regarded as the likely evolutionary engine of this diversity [2], but direct support for this hypothesis is limited. We used two complementary approaches, evolution through artificial selection and microscale laser surgery, to experimentally manipulate genital morphology in an insect model system. We then assessed the competitive fertilization success of these phenotypically manipulated males and studied the fate of their ejaculate in females using high-resolution radioisotopic labeling of ejaculates. Males with longer genital spines were more successful in gaining fertilizations, providing experimental evidence that male genital morphology influences success in postcopulatory reproductive competition. Furthermore, a larger proportion of the ejaculate moved from the reproductive tract into the female body following mating with males with longer spines, suggesting that genital spines increase the rate at which seminal fluid passes into the female hemolymph. Our results show that genital morphology affects male competitive fertilization success and imply that sexual selection on genital morphology may be mediated in part through seminal fluid [3].

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available