Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ecology and Evolution logoLink to Ecology and Evolution
. 2014 Aug 5;4(17):3330–3338. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1153

Inbreeding alters intersexual fitness correlations in Drosophila simulans.

Eoin Duffy 1, Richa Joag 1, Jacek Radwan 1, Nina Wedell 2, David J Hosken 2
PMCID: PMC4228608  PMID: 25535550

Abstract

Intralocus sexual conflict results from sexually antagonistic selection on traits shared by the sexes. This can displace males and females from their respective fitness optima, and negative intersexual correlations (rmf) for fitness are the unequivocal indicator of this evolutionary conflict. It has recently been suggested that intersexual fitness correlations can vary depending on the segregating genetic variation present in a population, and one way to alter genetic variation and test this idea is via inbreeding. Here, we test whether intersexual correlations for fitness vary with inbreeding in Drosophila simulans isolines reared under homogenous conditions. We measured male and female fitness at different times following the establishment of isofemale lines and found that the sign of the association between the two measures varied with time after initial inbreeding. Our results are consistent with suggestions that the type of genetic variation segregating within a population can determine the extent of intralocus sexual conflict and also support the idea that sexually antagonistic alleles segregate for longer in populations than alleles with sexually concordant effects.

Keywords: Drosophila simulans, inbreeding, intralocus sexual conflict, ontogenetic conflict

Introduction

Intralocus sexual conflict occurs when an allele has opposing fitness effects depending on whether it is expressed in males or females (Rice 1996; Arnqvist and Rowe 2005; Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009). Negative intersexual fitness correlations (rmf) are the unequivocal signature of this sexual conflict (Chippindale et al. 2001; Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009), which can displace one or both sexes from their respective fitness optimum (Rice 1996; Arnqvist and Rowe 2005; Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009). The current interest in intralocus sexual conflict stems from its ubiquity and potential importance in many evolutionary processes including speciation, sexual selection, and the maintenance of genetic variation (reviewed in Bonduriansky and Chenoweth 2009; Van Doorn 2009; but see Pennell and Morrow 2013).

The empirical evidence for intralocus sexual conflict in both laboratory and natural populations is growing (Chippindale et al. 2001; Brommer et al. 2007; Foerster et al. 2007; Long and Rice 2007; Harano et al. 2010; Lewis et al. 2011; Mills et al. 2011; Punzalan et al. 2014). However, some studies have not detected intralocus sexual conflict, but instead find strong positive intersexual genetic correlations for components of male and female fitness (Hosken et al. 2003; Zajitschek et al. 2007; Poissant et al. 2010; Berg and Maklakov 2012). Recently, Long et al. (2012) proposed that the discrepancies between studies could result from differences in the genetic variation segregating in the populations under investigation. They found that high fitness males sired high fitness daughters in populations that were poorly adapted to their experimental conditions and low fitness daughters in well-adapted populations.

The explanation offered for this difference was that in well-adapted populations, most deleterious mutations had been eliminated by selection, such that genetic polymorphisms were maintained by some form of balancing selection, like sexually antagonistic selection (Long et al. 2012). Under this scenario, sexually antagonistic alleles are major contributors to genetic variation in fitness. On the other hand, in the less well-adapted populations where maladaptive alleles are abundant (because they had come from other populations in other environments), segregating genetic variation for fitness was suggested to be dominated by alleles with the same fitness effects for males and females – they either positively or negatively impact fitness regardless of gender. Recent modeling also shows that mutations which have sexually antagonistic effects inflate genetic variance in populations compared to mutations with sexually concordant effects (Connallon and Clark 2012). This result even holds when the conditions for balanced polymorphism are not met – in such case, sexual antagonism changes mutation–selection balance and inflates heterozygosity (Connallon and Clark 2012). In sum, these results suggest that population history, via its effects on the nature of genetic variation segregating in a population, is key to our understanding of intralocus sexual conflict and its effects on sexual selection.

If allelic effects act in the same direction for fitness in both sexes, then sexual and natural selection can be congruent, as predicted by “good genes” theory (Andersson 1994; Rowe and Houle 1996; Kuijper et al. 2012). Under such conditions, females' daughters may benefit from high genetic quality sires (i.e., those not burdened with maladapted alleles) (Zahavi 1975; Andersson 1986; Iwasa and Pomiankowski 1994; Rowe and Houle 1996; Radwan 2008). Furthermore, sexual selection should help populations reach adaptive peaks (Lande and Kirkpatrick 1988; Brooks et al. 2005). If, however, most genetic variation segregating in a population is maintained by sexually antagonistic selection, such benefits will not arise (Radwan 2008; Hosken et al. 2009; Connallon and Clark 2012). However, the nature of these effects may well vary due to changes in the genetic variation segregating in populations, although this idea has been subjected to few explicit tests (Long et al. 2012; Punzalan et al. 2014).

In previous tests of intersexual fitness and segregating genetic variation, alleles that were assumed to be deleterious were introduced into populations occupying different environments (e.g., Long et al. 2012). An alternative approach for testing the hypothesis that deleterious alleles can alter genetic variation and hence the sign of rmf is by increasing the frequency of homozygotes in a population. Increasing the frequency of homozygotes increases the expression of deleterious recessive alleles, altering genetic variances (Fernández et al. 1995; Falconer and MacKay 1996; Wade et al. 1996; Whitlock and Fowler 1999). This can easily be achieved through inbreeding, which also erodes any benefits of overdominance.

Thus, one way to investigate the effects of segregating genetic variation on intralocus conflict, and its knock-on implications for sexual selection, is to inbreed populations and to test for changes in the intersexual correlation for fitness as inbreeding proceeds, and more and more deleterious recessive alleles are expressed. As large effect mutations tend to be both highly recessive (Willis 1999; Fox et al. 2008) and deleterious for both sexes (Sharp and Agrawal 2008, 2013; Whitlock and Agrawal 2009; Mallet et al. 2011), positive correlations between the sexes are expected during the initial stages of inbreeding (cf. the Long et al. (2012) results). Such large effect mutations are expected to be purged after their initial exposure (Charlesworth and Willis 2009; Jarzebowska and Radwan 2010) but as inbreeding proceeds, alleles with opposing sex-specific effects on fitness are expected to remain segregating (Chippindale et al. 2001; Connallon and Clark 2012), and then, genetic correlations between the sexes should change from positive to uncorrelated or negative as the contribution to standing genetic variation is predominately determined by alleles with sexually antagonistic effects.

To test these predictions, we measured male and female fitness during inbreeding in D. simulans. We generated intersexual genetic correlations for fitness to examine the sign of rmf at different stages of inbreeding. Any changes in the sign of this association would indicate altered genetic variation because of changes in levels of homozygosity and could potentially support the notion that sexually antagonistic alleles are harder to purge than unconditionally deleterious alleles.

Materials and Methods

Base population

Flies had been maintained in six large population cages (ca. 800–1000 flies per cage) with overlapping generations and gene flow between cages for 6 years prior to beginning the current investigation. Cage populations cured of Wolbachia infection (Hoffmann et al. 1986) were established for another study, and from them, we established a single population using offspring from 378 inseminated, Wollbachia-cured females. This cage population was maintained at a size of ca. 800 flies with overlapping generations and housed in the laboratory at an ambient temperature between 23°C and 25°C for 40 generations, at which time we established isofemale lines used to test intersexual fitness correlations.

Isolines and maintenance

To establish isofemale lines (isolines), 40 inseminated females were collected from the population cage and transferred to individual vials with ample food and allowed to oviposit for 48 h before they were removed. After 9–11 days, offspring emerged and were used to initiate isolines. Each isoline was subsequently maintained with n = 25 males and n = 25 females per line allowing for full-sib matings to occur within a single vial during generation 1. Further increase in inbreeding resulted from limited population size and proceeded at the minimum rate of 1/2N = 1% per generation, but most likely faster, due to for example, uneven male mating success and not all females contributing to the next generation. Such design achieved substantial initial increase in genome to identity by descent (25% under full-sib mating), but later, slower inbreeding allowed for more efficient selection against such exposed deleterious recessives than sib mating (Wang et al. 1999). Lines were inbred this way for four generations before conducting the first fitness assays. All isolines were housed at 25°C and at a 12:12 h light/dark cycle in 200-mL vials with approximately 30 mL of food media (1.2 L deionized water, 72 g oatmeal, 102 g brown sugar, 24 g yeast and 12 g agar and adding 0.75 g benzoic acid, 1 g methyl 4 hydroxybenzoate and 7 mL propionic acid as antimold and bacterial agents). After brothers and sisters within each isoline were allowed to mate and oviposit for 48 h, they were discarded and virgin offspring were collected after a 10- to 11-day development period. Virgin males and females were housed separately in 50-mL vials with ample food media (n = 5 individuals per vial) until sexually mature, 3- to 4-day posteclosion (Ashburner et al. 2005), and the process began again. Of the initial 40 isolines derived from the base population, seven had gone extinct before the first block of fitness assays and the remainder survived the duration of our experiment, for a final sample size of 33 isolines.

Measuring fitness

Fitness for each isoline was assessed for ten individuals/sex over three blocks (hereafter inbreeding stage) which equated to short (five generations), medium (nine generations), and long (13 generations) periods of inbreeding, giving a total of 30 males and 30 females measured/isoline. This means that when isolines were assayed at each time point, they should harbor differing segregating genetic variation as a result of ongoing inbreeding relative to that present initially. For logistical purposes, assays for male and female fitness were not performed concurrently, but this should not consistently affect relative fitness ranks.

Female fitness

Female reproductive success (the number of offspring produced surviving to adulthood) was used as a measure of female fitness. This was scored as the total number of eclosed offspring produced by a single female (focal female) ovipositing over 7 days where each female was housed with two virgin sexually mature males collected from the base population cage the isolines were originally derived from (hereafter tester males). To collect virgin tester males from the base population cage, ten 100 mL food vials were placed in the cage for 24 h. Virgin tester males were then collected during the collection period of the virgin focal females following the same protocol described above.

During fitness assays, flies were transferred to new 35-mL vials (containing 10 mL of food) after 48 h in vials 1 and 2, after which time they were housed in a third vial for 72 h. Transfers were performed without anesthesia using aspiration to avoid any confounding effects on female ovipositing behavior or fertility due to CO2 anesthesia (Champion de Crespigny and Wedell 2008). After the final 72 h, all flies were removed and progeny allowed to develop. This measure of fitness includes an individual female's fecundity and the larval and early adult survivorship of her resulting offspring (Rundle et al. 2006; Delcourt et al. 2009). All offspring that eclosed from each vial were counted 8 days after the first eclosions were recorded to ensure only the offspring of focal females were scored – rather than risk including grand offspring (cf. Taylor et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2010).

Male fitness

The fitness of males was determined by placing one sexually mature, virgin isoline (focal) male with four sexually mature virgin competitor males that were randomly chosen from an ebony recessive mutant Wolbachia free stock population in a mating vial. The isoline and ebony males competed for fertilizations with a randomly chosen sexually mature virgin ebony female.

Each cohort of flies was housed in three different vials over seven days as above. After the final 72 h, all flies were removed and vials incubated for offspring development. Offspring from each vial were counted on the eighth day after the first eclosions were observed as per female assay (Taylor et al. 2008; Sharma et al. 2010). The gray-black cuticle pigmentation of ebony flies allowed for easy scoring (using light microscopy) of wild-type relative to ebony offspring. The fitness of an isoline male was scored as the ratio of wild-type: ebony offspring in each vial. As ebony is a recessive allele, progeny have a wild-type phenotype if fertilization is by focal males (Ashburner et al. 2005). Using male competitiveness as a measure of male fitness has been used in other studies (Chippindale et al. 2001; Delcourt et al. 2009; Mills et al. 2011) and includes several components of fitness including male mating success, the subsequent productivity of the female the male mates with, and the survival to emergence of the male and female offspring in direct competition with half-sibling offspring sired by the ebony competitors (Delcourt et al. 2009).

Statistical analysis

Our main question was: Does rmf change at different stages of inbreeding in the isolines? We also asked was there evidence for intersexual variation in fitness between isolines? Prior to analysis, data were first Z-transformed using the mean and standard deviation for each inbreeding stage to express male and female fitness on the same scale. Means for each line were calculated and used to calculate Pearson's correlation coefficients between male and female fitness (rmf) at each inbreeding stage. In order to test the significance of differences in rmf, between different stages of inbreeding, we followed (Zar 1999) and used the following formula:

graphic file with name ece30004-3330-mu1.jpg

Each correlation coefficient (rmf) was transformed using Fisher's Z transformation (zi). Differences between correlation coefficients were tested using the preceding equation, which has a chi-square distribution with k–1 degrees of freedom. ni represents the number of isolines assayed at each inbreeding stage (n = 33). To examine the total intersexual variation in fitness between different isolines, we fitted mixed-effect models using the lme4 package (Bates et al. 2011) in R version 3.0 (R Core Team 2013). Sex and inbreeding duration were included as fixed factors and isoline as a random factor, with isoline nested within stage of inbreeding. Interactions involving random terms were also coded as random effects. The significance of each term was tested against the full model with nonsignificant terms removed, and significant terms retained on the basis of likelihood ratio tests (compared against a χ2 distribution) to find a minimum adequate model (Crawley 2012) using standard maximum-likelihood estimation (Bolker et al. 2009). Our model indicated no evidence for overdispersion (ratio of residual deviance/residual df < 1.5 (0.86) (Ramsey and Schafer 2012). Outliers were identified and removed from female fitness data from the first (short) inbreeding stage (n = 2, n = 4 and n = 1 outliers from three separate isolines) and the third (long) inbreeding stage (n = 2 outliers from one isoline). Effect sizes (η2 and ηp2) of isoline, sex, and their interaction were calculated from two-way mixed-effect ANOVAs performed for each stage of inbreeding using SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp. Released 2011; New York, U.S.A.).

Results

The intersexual correlation coefficients for fitness (rmf) were found to be significantly different at the different stages of inbreeding (χ2 = 6.972, P = 0.031), that is, as P is < 0.05, we can reject the H0: ρ1 = ρ2 = ρ3 where ρ(1–3) is the population correlation coefficient at each inbreeding stage (short, medium, and long periods of inbreeding). We further investigated the difference between correlation coefficients by determining which correlation coefficients are different from which others, using a Tukey-type test as per the below equation, outlined below in Zar (1999):

graphic file with name ece30004-3330-mu2.jpg

where Z is the Z(B/A)-transformed rmf for each pair of correlation coefficients being compared, q is the studentized range, and SE is the standard error where Inline graphic The correlation coefficient from lines after the short duration of inbreeding was significantly different from the coefficient obtained after the medium duration of inbreeding (q = 3.51, P = 0.014) and tended to be different from the coefficient obtained when inbreeding had been going on longest (q = 2.84, P = 0.075). Coefficients for the medium and longest duration of inbreeding were however not significantly different (q = 0.68, P = 0.496).

After the short period of inbreeding, rmf was significantly positive (df = 31, rmf = 0.3596, P = 0.039, Fig.1), and the association became negative, although not statistically significantly so, at later stages of inbreeding (medium inbreeding duration: df = 31, rmf = −0.259, P = 0.145; long inbreeding duration: df = 31, rmf = −0.140, P = 0.437, Fig.1). Although these latter associations are not significantly negative, they are still significantly lower than at the earlier stage, as we find correlation coefficients from the medium and long inbreeding stages tended to be significantly different from the short stage, our lowest level of inbreeding.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The intersexual fitness correlations at the three levels of inbreeding: (A) after 5 generations of inbreeding (short duration of inbreeding = I), (B) 9 generations of inbreeding (medium duration of inbreeding = II), and (C) 13 generations of inbreeding (long duration of inbreeding = III). For the short duration of inbreeding, (A) correlation of standardized line means revealed a positive male–female fitness association (df = 31, P = 0.039, r = 0.359. Linear regression F1, 31 = 4.6, P = 0.039, r2 = 0.101; B = 0.330, SE: 0.15). For the medium duration of inbreeding (intermediate inbreeding – B), correlation of standardized line means revealed a negative but nonsignificant male–female fitness association (df = 31, P = 0.145, r = −0.259. Linear regression F1, 31 = 2.2, P = 0.145, r2 = 0.037; B = −0.278, SE: 0.18). For the long duration of inbreeding (high inbreeding – C), correlation of standardized line means also revealed a negative but nonsignificant male–female fitness association (df = 31, P = 0.44, r = −0.140. Linear regression F1,31 = 0.62, P = 0.44, r2 = 0.012; B = −0.08, SE: 0.10). Blue lines around regression lines represent 95% confidence envelopes.

In order to examine the sources of total intersexual variation in fitness, we fitted a three-way mixed-effect model, which indicated a highly significant sex-by-isoline by inbreeding stage interaction (likelihood ratio test, χ22 = 23.173, P < 0.001). To get an insight into the nature of this three-way interaction, we ran two-way mixed-effect ANOVAs independently for each inbreeding duration. Terms were tested for significance as described above (sex: fixed effect, isoline: random effect). After the shortest duration of inbreeding, the sex-by-isoline interaction was nonsignificant (F32, 594 = 1.3383, P = 0.081), but there was a significant effect of isoline (F32, 594 = 2.39, P = 0.008). However, after the medium and long durations of inbreeding, the isoline-by-sex interactions were highly significant (medium duration: F32, 594 = 1.814, P = 0.005; long duration: F32, 594 = 2.601, P < 0.0001 Fig.2.), while the main effect of isoline at these stages of inbreeding was nonsignificant (medium stage: F32, 594 = 0.573, P = 0.940; long stage: F32, 594 = 0.791, P = 0.744). See Table S1 for effect sizes.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The sex (male–female) × isoline (genotype) interaction plots at the three levels of inbreeding: (A) after 5 generations of inbreeding (Short duration of inbreeding), (B) 9 generations of inbreeding (medium duration of inbreeding), and (C) 13 generations of inbreeding (long duration of inbreeding). Lines in plots represent standardized means of male (competitive success) and female (reproductive success) fitness for individual isolines (n = 33) where colors represent individual isolines.

Discussion

Intralocus sexual conflict has important implications for a range of phenomena, including speciation (Parker and Partridge 1998; Rice and Chippindale 2002), the evolution of sex chromosomes (Bull 1983; Rice 1987; Charlesworth 1991), the evolution of sex determination (Rice 1986; Kraak et al. 2002; Van Doorn and Kirkpatrick 2007), the regulation of gene expression (Ellegren and Parsch 2007; Mank et al. 2013), aging (Vieira et al. 2000; Bonduriansky et al. 2008), sexual selection (Pischedda and Chippindale 2006; Brommer et al. 2007), and sex allocation (Alonzo and Sinervo 2007; Katsuki et al. 2012). It is therefore crucial to understand why, despite selection for conflict resolution and multiple mechanisms of achieving this resolution (Hosken et al. 2009; Stewart et al. 2010; Pennell and Morrow 2013; but see Hosken 2011), intralocus sexual conflict is pervasive (Cox and Calsbeek 2009; Poissant et al. 2010).

While under certain circumstances sexually antagonistic selection can maintain genetic polymorphism (Rice and Chippindale 2001), recent modeling showed that a dynamic process of mutation–selection balance is more likely to maintain intersexual genetic correlations for sexually antagonistic traits (Connallon and Clark 2012). This latter mechanism arises because mutations that have an average deleterious effect but are sexually antagonistic segregate in populations for much longer than mutations deleterious for both sexes – because purifying selection against them is weaker. In principle, the same dynamics should result if the source of deleterious alleles is gene flow from populations adapted to different environments, rather than mutations (Long et al. 2012). If alleles underlying intralocus sexual conflict are maintained in populations transiently via mutation/migration–selection balance, the intersexual genetic correlation for fitness (rmf) should change with the rate of influx of maladapted alleles or with inbreeding, as it exposes recessive deleterious alleles. Indeed, we have found that the sign of the male–female fitness association changed with time from initial positive to negative (or zero depending on interpretation). This supposition is also supported by the three-way interaction between sex, isoline, and duration of inbreeding. As we argue below, these changes can be explained by selection against previously hidden genetic variation that has been exposed by inbreeding, and possibly, but less likely, due to subtle changes in the environments to which flies were subjected upon establishment of isolines (see below).

Inbreeding exposes recessive deleterious mutations, which are the most important source of inbreeding depression (Charlesworth and Willis 2009). Initial inbreeding, which can increase homozygosity by up to 25%, should reveal many deleterious recessives, and most of these are likely to have deleterious effects in both sexes (Mack et al. 2000; Sharp and Agrawal 2008, 2013; Whitlock and Agrawal 2009; Mallet et al. 2011). This should therefore generate a positive intersexual fitness correlation, as we observed. However, isolines are expected to show differences in the number and fitness effects of deleterious recessives fixed in them, due to initial differences in the genetic load of the founder females.

During further inbreeding of isolines, genome homozygosity should increase in smaller increments (Falconer and MacKay 1996). However, we expected selection to purge deleterious recessives from isolines as inbreeding proceeds, and those with sexually antagonistic effects should be eliminated at the slowest rate (Connallon and Clark 2012). Indeed, purging is most likely with slow inbreeding (Wang et al. 1999). Thus, we expected the change of the rmf from positive to zero or even negative, which again is exactly what was observed. Many of the variants with opposing effects on male and female fitness should segregate or fix in isolines, so the negative genetic correlation between sexes should persist, as observed at the second and third test periods after relatively moderate (intermediate) and long durations of inbreeding. Furthermore, as deleterious recessives for both sexes are eliminated, inbreeding might initially lead to a decrease in genetic variance between lines. There is evidence for this as the isoline effect becomes nonsignificant at the intermediate level of inbreeding, while the line-by-sex interaction becomes highly significant there. This is also found after the longest duration of inbreeding, where the effect size of the interaction further increased (see Table S1). This is likely to have resulted from random assortment of male benefit-female harm alleles (and vice versa) between isolines. Thus, both the changes to rmf, and the patterns of the sex-by-line interaction are consistent with changes in the load and sex specificity of deleterious recessives segregating in our flies. Deleterious (on average) recessives that have opposing effects on male and female fitness likely segregated for longer, as the average selection coefficient against them should be lower. This would increase the fitness variance between males and females due to the predominance of alleles with sexually discordant fitness effects.

The change in sign of rmf associated with different levels of inbreeding could also be expected if some alleles become deleterious to both sexes due to the changes in the environment (Long et al. 2012). In our case, subtle changes in the rearing environment on establishment of isofemale lines could have such effects. As mentioned above (see Methods) prior to establishing isolines, the stock population cage was housed in a variable temperature regime (ca. 23–25°C) (and photoperiod) of the laboratory (i.e., not in an incubator), but for the duration of the experiment, isolines were housed in an incubator at 25°C (along with controlled humidity, 50% and photoperiod, 12:12 h light:dark). The slight temperature increase from the laboratory environment to a constant 25°C may have created an environment to which the isolines adapted, possibly revealing new genetic variation (Hoffman and Parsons 1991; Pigliucci et al. 1995; Kawecki et al. 1997; Hoffmann and Merilä 1999). In order to discriminate between the effect of inbreeding and temporal changes in rmf due to, for example, subtle adaptations to laboratory conditions, rmf should ideally be measured in outbred populations at each time point when isolines were measured. Unfortunately, our approach relying in estimating rmf using isolines lines precluded that. However, we believe that due to prior adaptation of our stock population to laboratory conditions, these temporal effects would be relatively minor compared to the effect of inbreeding.

Overall, our results support recent findings suggesting that sexually antagonistic variation segregating in populations is dynamic in nature (Connallon and Clark 2012; Long et al. 2012) and can thus result in a change of rmf depending on whether populations reached equilibrium with respect to mutation–selection or selection–migration balance. Processes such as environmental change or inbreeding, which move populations away from equilibrium, are thus likely to change the sign of rmf. The dynamic nature of this sexually antagonistic variation could potentially explain the range of findings reported across studies and species. Our results also caution against generalizations drawn from experiments using isofemale lines at various stages of inbreeding to interrogate the nature of sex-specific fitness components. Deleterious recessives, which may have limited impact on phenotypic variation in natural populations, may in fact act as a source of genetic variation in inbred populations, and as our result suggests, this may strongly affect the magnitude and sign of genetic correlation between sexes. However, such limitation does not concern hemiclonal lines (Chippindale et al. 2001; Pennell and Morrow 2013) or populations employing half-sib mating designs using populations with long histories of adaptation to defined experimental conditions (Delcourt et al. 2009).

Acknowledgments

The present study was performed within the “Environmental Stress, Population Viability and Adaptation” project (MPD/2009-3/5) funded by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) and with the support of NERC (UK). We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Supporting Information

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article:

Table S1. Effect sizes for sex, isoline and their interaction measured using partial Eta squared (ηp2) and Eta squared (η2) for three levels of inbreeding (short, medium and long periods post establishment of isolines) where sex is a fixed effect and isoline is random (SS = sum of squares).

ece30004-3330-sd1.docx (17.6KB, docx)

References

  1. Alonzo SH. Sinervo B. The effect of sexually antagonistic selection on adaptive sex ratio allocation. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2007;9:1097–1117. [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson M. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution. 1986;40:804–816. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb00540.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Andersson M. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press; 1994. p. 599. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnqvist G. Rowe L. Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press; 2005. p. 330. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ashburner M, Golic KG. Hawley RS. Drosophila: a laboratory handbook. 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 2005. p. 1409. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates D, Maechler M. Bolker B. 2011. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-39. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
  7. Berg EC. Maklakov AA. Sexes suffer from suboptimal lifespan because of genetic conflict in a seed beetle. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2012;279:4296–4302. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, et al. Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009;24:127–135. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonduriansky R. Chenoweth SF. Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009;24:280–288. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonduriansky R, Maklakov A, Zajitschek F. Brooks R. Sexual selection, sexual conflict and the evolution of ageing and life span. Funct. Ecol. 2008;22:443–453. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brommer JE, Kirkpatrick M, Qvarnström A. Gustafsson L. The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implications for sexual selection. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brooks R, Hunt J, Blows MW, Smith MJ, Bussiére LF. Jennions MD. Experimental evidence for multivariate stabilizing sexual selection. Evolution. 2005;59:871–880. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bull JJ. The evolution of sex determining mechanisms. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co; 1983. p. 316. [Google Scholar]
  14. Champion de Crespigny FE. Wedell N. The impact of anaesthetic technique on survival and fertility in Drosophila. Physiol. Entomol. 2008;33:310–315. [Google Scholar]
  15. Charlesworth B. The evolution of sex chromosomes. Science. 1991;251:1030–1033. doi: 10.1126/science.1998119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Charlesworth D. Willis JH. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2009;10:783–796. doi: 10.1038/nrg2664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Chippindale AK, Gibson JR. Rice WR. Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2001;98:1671–1675. doi: 10.1073/pnas.041378098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Connallon T. Clark AG. A general population genetic framework for antagonistic selection that accounts for demography and recurrent mutation. Genetics. 2012;190:1477–1489. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.137117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cox RM. Calsbeek R. Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. Am. Nat. 2009;173:176–187. doi: 10.1086/595841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crawley MJ. The R Book. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2012. p. 1051. [Google Scholar]
  21. Delcourt M, Blows MW. Rundle HD. Sexually antagonistic genetic variance for fitness in an ancestral and a novel environment. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2009;276:2009–2014. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellegren H. Parsch J. The evolution of sex-biased genes and sex-biased gene expression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007;8:689–698. doi: 10.1038/nrg2167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Falconer DS. MacKay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Essex: Longman; 1996. p. 464. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fernández A, Angel Toro M. López-Fanjul C. The effect of inbreeding on the redistribution of genetic variance of fecundity and viability in Tribolium castaneum. Heredity. 1995;75:376–381. [Google Scholar]
  25. Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH. Kruuk LEB. Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature. 2007;447:1107–1110. doi: 10.1038/nature05912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fox CW, Scheibly KL. Reed DH. Experimental evolution of the genetic load and its implications for the genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Evolution. 2008;62:2236–2249. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00441.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Harano T, Okada K, Nakayama S, Miyatake T. Hosken DJ. Intralocus sexual conflict unresolved by sex-limited trait expression. Curr. Biol. 2010;20:2036–2039. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoffman AA. Parsons PA. Evolutionary genetics and environmental stress. Oxford, U.K: Oxford Univ. Press; 1991. p. 284. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffmann AA. Merilä J. Heritable variation and evolution under favourable and unfavourable conditions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999;14:96–101. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01595-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann AA, Turelli M. Simmons GM. Unidirectional incompatibility between populations of Drosophila simulans. Evolution. 1986;40:692–701. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb00531.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hosken DJ. Gene duplication may not resolve intralocus sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011;26:556–557. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Tregenza T, Wedell N. Ward PI. Superior sperm competitors sire higher–quality young. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2003;270:1933–1938. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hosken DJ, Stockley P, Tregenza T. Wedell N. Monogamy and the battle of the sexes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2009;54:361–378. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. IBM Corp. Released. IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM corp; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Iwasa Y. Pomiankowski A. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution. 1994;48:853–867. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01367.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jarzebowska M. Radwan J. Sexual selection counteracts extinction of small populations of the bulb mites. Evolution. 2010;64:1283–1289. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00905.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Katsuki M, Harano T, Miyatake T, Okada K. Hosken DJ. Intralocus sexual conflict and offspring sex ratio. Ecol. Lett. 2012;15:193–197. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01725.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kawecki TJ, Barton NH. Fry JD. Mutational collapse of fitness in marginal habitats and the evolution of ecological specialisation. J. Evolution Biol. 1997;10:407–429. [Google Scholar]
  39. Kraak SBM. Pen I. Sex-determining mechanisms in vertebrates. In: Hardy I, editor; Sex ratios: concepts and research methods. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2002. pp. 158–177. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuijper B, Pen I. Weissing FJ. A guide to sexual selection theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2012;43:287–311. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lande R. Kirkpatrick M. Ecological speciation by sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 1988;133:85–98. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(88)80026-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lewis Z, Wedell N. Hunt J. Evidence for strong intralocus sexual conflict in the Indian meal moth, Plodia Interpunctela. Evolution. 2011;65:2085–2097. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01267.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Long TA. Rice WR. Adult locomotory activity mediates intralocus sexual conflict in a laboratory-adapted population of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2007;274:3105–3112. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Long TAF, Agrawal AF. Rowe L. The effect of sexual selection on offspring fitness depends on the nature of genetic variation. Curr. Biol. 2012;22:204–208. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mack PD, Lester VK. Promislow DEL. Age-specific effects of novel mutations in Drosophila melanogaster II. fecundity and male mating ability. Genetica. 2000;110:31–41. doi: 10.1023/a:1017538505627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mallet MA, Bouchard JM, Kimber CM. Chippindale AK. Experimental mutation -accumulation on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster reveals stronger selection on males than females. BMC Evol. Biol. 2011;11:156. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Mank JE, Wedell N. Hosken DJ. Polyandry and sex-specific gene expression. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2013;368:e20120047. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Mills SC, Koskela E. Mappes T. Intralocus sexual conflict for fitness: sexually antagonistic alleles for testosterone. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2011;279:1889–1895. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.2340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Parker GA. Partridge L. Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 1998;353:261–274. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Pennell TM. Morrow EH. Two sexes, one genome: the evolutionary dynamics of intralocus sexual conflict. Ecol. Evol. 2013;3:1819–1834. doi: 10.1002/ece3.540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pigliucci M, Schlichting CD. Whitton J. Reaction norms of Arabidopsis. II. response to stress and unordered environmental variation. Funct. Ecol. 1995;9:537–547. [Google Scholar]
  52. Pischedda A. Chippindale AK. Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e356. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Poissant J, Wilson AJ. Coltman DW. Sex-specific genetic variance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism: a systematic review of cross-sex genetic correlations. Evolution. 2010;64:97–107. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00793.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Punzalan D, Delcourt M. Rundle HD. Comparing the intersex genetic correlation for fitness across novel environments in the fruit fly, Drosophila serrata. Heredity. 2014;112:143–148. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2013.85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing; 2013. Available at: http://www.R-project.org. [Google Scholar]
  56. Radwan J. Maintenance of genetic variation in sexual ornaments: a review of the mechanisms. Genetica. 2008;134:113–127. doi: 10.1007/s10709-007-9203-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Ramsey FL. Schafer RW. The statistical sleuth, a course in methods of data analysis. 3rd ed. California: Brooks/Cole; 2012. p. 784. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rice WR. On the instability of polygenic sex determination: the effect of sex-specific selection. Evolution. 1986;40:633–639. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb00514.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Rice WR. Genetic hitchhiking and the evolution of reduced genetic activity of the Y sex chromosome. Genetics. 1987;116:161–167. doi: 10.1093/genetics/116.1.161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rice WR. Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature. 1996;381:232–234. doi: 10.1038/381232a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rice WR. Chippindale AK. Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. J. Evolution Biol. 2001;14:685–693. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rice WR. Chippindale AK. The evolution of hybrid infertility: perpetual coevolution between gender-specific and sexually antagonistic genes. In: Etges WJ, Noor MAF, editors; Genetics of mate choice: from sexual selection to sexual isolation, contemporary issues in genetics and evolution. Netherlands: Springer; 2002. pp. 179–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Rowe L. Houle D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. B. 1996;263:1415–1421. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF. Blows MW. The roles of natural and sexual selection during adaptation to a novel environment. Evolution. 2006;60:2218–2225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Sharma MD, Tregenza T. Hosken DJ. Female mate preferences in Drosophila simulans: evolution and costs. J. Evolution Biol. 2010;23:1672–1679. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02033.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Sharp NP. Agrawal AF. Mating density and the strength of sexual selection against deleterious alleles in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 2008;62:857–867. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00333.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Sharp NP. Agrawal AF. Male-biased fitness effects of spontaneous mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 2013;67:1189–1195. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01834.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Stewart AD, Pischedda A. Rice WR. Resolving intralocus sexual conflict: genetic mechanisms and time frame. J. Hered. 2010;101:S94–S99. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esq011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Taylor ML, Wigmore C, Hodgeson DJ, Wedell N. Hosken DJ. Multiple mating increases female fitness in Drosophila simulans. Anim. Behav. 2008;76:963–970. [Google Scholar]
  70. Van Doorn GS. Intralocus sexual conflict. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci. 2009;1168:52–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04573.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Doorn GS. Kirkpatrick M. Turnover of sex chromosomes induced by sexual conflict. Nature. 2007;449:909–912. doi: 10.1038/nature06178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Vieira C, Pasyukova EG, Zeng ZB, Hackett JB, Lyman RF. Mackay TFC. Genotype-environment interaction for quantitative trait loci affecting life span in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2000;154:213–227. doi: 10.1093/genetics/154.1.213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Wade MJ, Shuster SM. Stevens L. Inbreeding: its effect on response to selection for pupal weight and the heritable variance in fitness in the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 1996;50:723–733. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03882.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang JL, Hill WG, Charlesworth D. Charlesworth B. Dynamics of inbreeding depression due to deleterious mutations in small populations: mutation parameters and inbreeding rate. Genet. Res. 1999;74:165–178. doi: 10.1017/s0016672399003900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Whitlock MC. Agrawal AF. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution. 2009;63:569–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00558.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Whitlock MC. Fowler K. The changes in genetic and environmental variance with inbreeding in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1999;152:345–353. doi: 10.1093/genetics/152.1.345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Willis JH. The role of genes of large effect on inbreeding depression in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution. 1999;53:1678–1691. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1999.tb04553.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Zahavi A. Mate selection, a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 1975;53:205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Zajitschek F, Hunt J, Zajistschek SRK, Jennions MD. Brooks R. No intra-locus sexual conflict over reproductive fitness or ageing in field crickets. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. 5th ed. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1999. 960 p Upper Saddle River. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1. Effect sizes for sex, isoline and their interaction measured using partial Eta squared (ηp2) and Eta squared (η2) for three levels of inbreeding (short, medium and long periods post establishment of isolines) where sex is a fixed effect and isoline is random (SS = sum of squares).

ece30004-3330-sd1.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Articles from Ecology and Evolution are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES