4.7 Article

Sexual differences in telomere selection in the wild

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 2085-2099

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05085.x

关键词

lizards; sexual dimorphism; telomere; telomere length

资金

  1. Swedish Science Council
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. Wenner-Gren foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Telomere length is restored primarily through the action of the reverse transcriptase telomerase, which may contribute to a prolonged lifespan in some but not all species and may result in longer telomeres in one sex than the other. To what extent this is an effect of proximate mechanisms (e.g. higher stress in males, higher oestradiol/oestrogen levels in females), or is an evolved adaptation (stronger selection for telomere length in one sex), usually remains unknown. Sand lizard (Lacerta agilis) females have longer telomeres than males and better maintain telomere length through life than males do. We also show that telomere length more strongly contributes to life span and lifetime reproductive success in females than males and that telomere length is under sexually diversifying selection in the wild. Finally, we performed a selection analysis with number of recruited offspring into the adult population as a response variable with telomere length, life span and body size as predictor variables. This showed significant differences in selection pressures between the sexes with strong ongoing selection in females, with these three predictors explaining 63% of the variation in recruitment. Thus, the sexually dimorphic telomere dynamics with longer telomeres in females is a result of past and ongoing selection in sand lizards. Finally, we compared the results from our selection analyses based on Telometric-derived data to the results based on data generated by the software ImageJ. ImageJ resulted in shorter average telomere length, but this difference had virtually no qualitative effect on the patterns of ongoing selection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据