4.5 Article

SEXUAL CONFLICT AND INTERACTING PHENOTYPES: A QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF FECUNDITY AND COPULA DURATION IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 68, 期 6, 页码 1651-1660

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/evo.12376

关键词

Heritability; mating systems; sexually antagonistic coevolution; sexual selection

资金

  1. Leverhulme Trust
  2. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Marie Curie Fellowships
  4. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (United Kingdom)
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/J024244/1, NE/C510516/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/C510516/1, NE/J024244/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many reproductive traits that have evolved under sexual conflict may be influenced by both sexes. Investigation of the genetic architecture of such traits can yield important insight into their evolution, but this entails that the heritable component of variation is estimated for males and femalesas an interacting phenotype. We address the lack of research in this area through an investigation of egg production and copula duration in the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Despite egg production rate being determined by both sexes, which may cause sexual conflict, an assessment of this trait as an interacting phenotype is lacking. It is currently unclear whether copula duration is determined by males and/or females. We found significant female, but not male, genetic variance for egg production rate that may indicate reduced potential for ongoing sexually antagonistic coevolution. In contrast, copula duration was determined by significant genetic variance in both sexes. We also identified genetic variation in egg retention among virgin females. Although previously identified in wild populations, it is unclear why this should be present in a laboratory stock. This study provides a novel insight into the shared genetic architecture of reproductive traits that are the subject of sexual conflict.

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