4.4 Article

Macroevolutionary Patterning in Glucocorticoids Suggests Different Selective Pressures Shape Baseline and Stress-Induced Levels

期刊

AMERICAN NATURALIST
卷 193, 期 6, 页码 866-880

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/703112

关键词

stress; comparative physiology; cortisol; corticosterone; steroid; evolutionary endocrinology

资金

  1. National Science Foundation, Division of Integrative Organismal Systems [NSF-IOS 1457251]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA D17AP00033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glucocorticoid (GC) hormones are important phenotypic mediators across vertebrates, but their circulating concentrations can vary markedly. Here we investigate macroevolutionary patterning in GC levels across tetrapods by testing seven specific hypotheses about GC variation and evaluating whether the supported hypotheses reveal consistent patterns in GC evolution. If selection generally favors the supportive role of GCs in responding effectively to challenges, then baseline and/or stress-induced GCs may be higher in challenging contexts. Alternatively, if selection generally favors protection from GC-induced costs, GCs may be lower in environments where challenges are more common or severe. The predictors of baseline GCs were all consistent with supportive effects: levels were higher in smaller organisms and in those inhabiting more energetically demanding environments. During breeding, baseline GCs were also higher in populations and species with fewer lifetime opportunities to reproduce. The predictors of stress-induced GCs were instead more consistent with the protection hypothesis: during breeding, levels were lower in organisms with fewer lifetime reproductive opportunities. Overall, these patterns indicate a surprising degree of consistency in how some selective pressures shape GCs across broad taxonomic scales; at the same time, in challenging environments selection appears to operate on baseline and stress-induced GCs in distinct ways.

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

4.4
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