4.5 Article

A dominant allele controls development into female mimic male and diminutive female ruffs

期刊

BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2013.0653

关键词

polymorphism; alternative male strategies; Philomachus pugnax; Mendelian genetics; female mimic

资金

  1. Royal NIOZ
  2. BBSRC [BB/J018937/1]
  3. NSF
  4. H.F. Guggenheim Foundation
  5. National Geographic Society
  6. NSERC
  7. Simon Fraser University's Work Study Program
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/J018937/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. BBSRC [BB/J018937/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maintaining polymorphisms for genes with effects of ecological significance may involve conflicting selection in males and females. We present data from a captive population of ruffs (Philomachus pugnax) showing that a dominant allele controls development into both small, 'female mimic' males ('faeders'), and a previously undescribed class of small 'female faeders'. Most male ruffs have elaborate breeding plumage and display behaviour, but 0.5-1.5% are faeders, which lack both. Females from a captive population previously lacking faeders were bred with two founder faedermales and their faeder sons. The faeders' offspring had a quadrimodal size distribution comprising normal-sized males and females, faeders and atypically small females. By contrast, ornamented males fathered only normal-sized offspring. We conclude that both founding faeders were heterozygous for a faeder allele absent from the original population. This allele is dominant to previously described genes that determine development into independent versus satellite ornamented males. Unlike those genes, the faeder allele is clearly expressed in females. Small body size is a component of the male faeder mating strategy, but provides no obvious benefit to females. Bisexual expression of the gene provides the opportunity to quantify the strength of sexually antagonistic selection on a Mendelian trait.

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

4.5
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