4.2 Article

Between-sex genetic covariance constrains the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster

期刊

JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 1721-1732

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jeb.12429

关键词

B matrix; cuticular hydrocarbons; G matrix; intralocus sexual conflict; sexually antagonistic selection

资金

  1. O.E. and Edla Johansson's Scientific Foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council [2009331, 2011-3701]
  3. European Research Council [280632]
  4. Royal Society
  5. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [280632] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Males and females share much of their genome, and as a result, intralocus sexual conflict is generated when selection on a shared trait differs between the sexes. This conflict can be partially or entirely resolved via the evolution of sex-specific genetic variation that allows each sex to approach, or possibly achieve, its optimum phenotype, thereby generating sexual dimorphism. However, shared genetic variation between the sexes can impose constraints on the independent expression of a shared trait in males and females, hindering the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Here, we examine genetic constraints on the evolution of sexual dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster cuticular hydrocarbon (CHC) expression. We use the extended G matrix, which includes the between-sex genetic covariances that constitute the B matrix, to compare genetic constraints on two sets of CHC traits that differ in the extent of their sexual dimorphism. We find significant genetic constraints on the evolution of further dimorphism in the least dimorphic traits, but no such constraints for the most dimorphic traits. We also show that the genetic constraints on the least dimorphic CHCs are asymmetrical between the sexes. Our results suggest that there is evidence both for resolved and ongoing sexual conflict in D. melanogaster CHC profiles.

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

4.2
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