Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:25:20.031Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertility and viability at the Sod locus in Drosophila melanogaster: non-additive and asymmetric selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Mirjana Milosevic ,
Andrés Moya  and
Francisco J. Ayala
Mirjana Milosevic
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A. Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg. 16, 11000 Beograd, Yugoslavia
Andrés Moya
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A. Departmento de Genética, Facultad de Biologia, University of Valencia, 46100 Burjasot, Spain
Francisco J. Ayala*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, U.S.A.
*
* Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Experiments were designed to test in Drosophila melanogaster the effect of mating type at the Sod locus on fertility and viability. The experiments show that fertility is neither additive (or multiplicative) nor symmetric, i.e. that the fertility of a mating type cannot be predicted from the average fertility of the two genotypes involved in the mating. There is no significant male x female interaction with respect or progeny viability; but the interaction is significant for productivity, i.e. when fertility and viability are jointly taken into account. There is overdominance with respect to female fertility, but not with respect to male fertility or to viability. There also is alloprocoptic selection with respect to fertility and with respect to productivity, i.e. matings between like homozygotes are less fertile and productive than matings between dissimilar homozygotes. Selection at the Sod locus yields stable polymorphic equilibria, with the frequency of the F allele predicted at P = 0·641 or 0·695, respectively for low and high larval density.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 267 - 272
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

References

Antony, C., Davis, T. L., Carlson, D. A., Pechine, J.-M. & Jallon, J.-M. (1985). Compared behavioral responses of male Drosophila melanogaster (Canton-S) to natural and synthetic aphrodisiacs. Journal of Chemical Ecology 11, 1617–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, C. & Jallon, J.-M. (1982). The chemical basis for sex recognition in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Insect Physiology 28, 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodmer, W. F. (1965). Differential fertility in population genetic models. Genetics 51, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brittnacher, J. G. (1981). Genetic variation and genetic load due to male reproductive component of fitness Drosophila. Genetics 97, 719–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. G. & Feldman, M. (1986). A numerical simulation of the one-locus, multiple-allele fertility model. Genetics 113, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, M. & Liberman, U. (1985). A symmetric two-locus fertility model. Genetics 109, 229–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, D. G., Richmond, R. C. & Sheehan, K. B. (1981). Studies of esterase 6 in Drosophila melanogaster. V. Progeny production and sperm use of females inseminated by males having active or null alleles. Evolution 35, 21–37.Google ScholarPubMed
Gromko, M. H., Gilbert, D. G. & Richmond, R. C. (1985). Sperm transfer and use in the repeat mating system of Drosophila. In Sperm, Competition, and Evolution of Animal Mating Systems (ed. Smith, R. L.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hadeler, K. P. & Liberman, U. (1975). Selection models with fertility differences. Journal Mathematical Biology 2, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jallon, J.-M. (1984). A few chemical words exchanged by Drosophila during courtship and mating. Behavioral Genetics 14, 441–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markow, T. A. & Ankney, P. F. (1984). Drosophila males contribute to oogenesis in a multiple mating species. Science 224, 302–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mourão, C. A., Ayala, F. J. & Anderson, W. W. (1972). Darwinian fitness and adaptedness in experimental populations of Drosophila willistoni. Genetics 43, 552–574.Google Scholar
Moya, A. & Ayala, F.J. (1989). Fertility interactions in Drosophila: theoretical model and experimental tests. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moya, A., Latorre, A. & Ayala, F. J. (1989). Male-female interactions in Drosophila melanogaster: model with one-locus and three alleles. J. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-forschung 27, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, T. X., Moya, A. & Ayala, F. J. (1991). Two modes of balancing selection in Drosophila melanogaster: Overcompensation and overdominance. Genetics (submitted)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prout, T. (1971). The relation between fitness components and population prediction in Drosophila. I. Estimates of fitness components. Genetics 68, 127–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, D. (1986). Sexual mimicry regulates the attractiveness of mated Drosophila melanogaster females. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, USA 83, 8429–8433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, D. & Richmond, R. C. (1988). A genetic analysis of male-predominant pheromones in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 119, 639–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, D., Richmond, R. C. & Carleson, D. A. (1988). Pheromes exchanged during mating: A mechanism for mate assesment in Drosophila. Animal Behaviour 36, 1164–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seager, R. D., Ayala, F. J. & Marks, R. W. (1982). Chromosome interactions in Drosophila melanogaster. Total fitness. Genetics 102, 485–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serradilla, J. M. & Ayala, F.J. (1983 a). Alloprocoptic selection: a mode of natural selection promoting polymorphism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 80, 2022–2025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Serradilla, J. M. & Ayala, F. J. (1983 b). Effects of allozyme variation on fitness components in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 62, 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sved, J. A. (1971). An estimation of heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 18, 97–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sved, J. A. & Ayala, F. J. (1970). Population cage test for heterosis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 66, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tosic, M. & Ayala, F. J. (1980). Overcompensation at an enzyme locus in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetical Research 36, 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracey, M. L. & Ayala, F. J. (1974). Genetic load in natural populations: is it compatible with the hypothesis that many polymorphisms are maintained by natural selection? Genetics 77, 569–589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, M. E. & Anderson, W. W. (1983). Multiple mating and female fitness in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 37, 714–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, M. J., Thomas, G., Hendricks, M. & van Delden, W. (1984). A reexamination of the negative assortative mating phenomenon and its underlying mechanisms in Drosophila melanogaster. Behavioral Genetics 14, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed