4.6 Article

The effects of selection for early and late reproduction on metabolite pools in Acanthoscelides obtectus Say

期刊

INSECT SCIENCE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 303-314

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7917.2011.01457.x

关键词

ageing; energy resources; laboratory evolution; proteins; seed beetle; trade-off

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Serbia [173007]
  2. Czech Science Foundation [P501/10/1215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was aimed at revealing the responses of metabolite pools to selection for alternative reproductive schedules in the seed beetle, Acanthoscelides obtectus Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae). The levels of metabolites (free sugars, glycogen, lipids, soluble and hydrophobic proteins) that were determined in virgin females and males at three ages from adult eclosion onwards were compared among the base population (B) and two derived lines that were selected for either early (Y) or late (O) reproduction. The results showed differences in the accumulation of metabolites during pre-adult development, as well as in the pattern of their changes during adult ageing. Generally, in comparison to the B population, the short-lived beetles from the Y line showed increased protein content and reduced carbohydrate and lipid content, whereas the opposite was true for the long-lived beetles from the O line. Females from the O line exhibited slower utilization of energy reserves and a slower increase in protein contents than females from the Y line. Females contained higher levels of free sugars, glycogen and hydrophobic proteins and lower levels of lipids and soluble proteins than males, although the sexual dimorphism was not evenly expressed among lines. Age-specific changes in metabolite contents were slower in females than males. Our findings suggest that trade-offs among capital resources are a physiological basis of early/late fitness trade-offs and point to a conservation of resources that can be used for somatic maintenance.

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

4.6
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