4.2 Article

Winter is coming: hibernation reverses the outcome of sperm competition in a fly

Journal

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 371-379

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12792

Keywords

Drosophila pseudoobscura; long-term sperm storage; meiotic drive; overwintering; paternity share; polyandry; selfish genetic element; sperm competition; sperm storage

Funding

  1. NERC [NE/H015604/1, NE/I0277/11/1]
  2. Genetics Society
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NBAF010001, NE/H015604/1, NE/I025905/1, NE/I027711/1, NBAF010002] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/I027711/1, NBAF010002, NE/I025905/1, NBAF010001, NE/H015604/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sperm commonly compete within females to fertilize ova, but research has focused on short-term sperm storage: sperm that are maintained in a female for only a few days or weeks before use. In nature, females of many species store sperm for months or years, often during periods of environmental stress, such as cold winters. Here we examine the outcome of sperm competition in the fruit fly Drosophila pseudoobscura, simulating the conditions in which females survive winter. We mated females to two males and then stored the female for up to 120days at 4 degrees C. We found that the outcome of sperm competition was consistent when sperm from two males was stored for 0, 1 or 30days, with the last male to mate fathering most of the offspring. However, when females were stored in the cold for 120days, the last male to mate fathered less than 5% of the offspring. Moreover, when sperm were stored long term the first male fathered almost all offspring even when he carried a meiotic driving sex chromosome that drastically reduces sperm competitive success under short-term storage conditions. This suggests that long-term sperm storage can radically alter the outcome of sperm competition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available