全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...
PLOS ONE  2007 

Ant Species Differences Determined by Epistasis between Brood and Worker Genomes

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000994

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Epistasis arising from physiological interactions between gene products often contributes to species differences, particularly those involved in reproductive isolation. In social organisms, phenotypes are influenced by the genotypes of multiple interacting individuals. In theory, social interactions can give rise to an additional type of epistasis between the genomes of social partners that can contribute to species differences. Using a full-factorial cross-fostering design with three species of closely related Temnothorax ants, I found that adult worker size was determined by an interaction between the genotypes of developing brood and care-giving workers, i.e. intergenomic epistasis. Such intergenomic social epistasis provides a strong signature of coevolution between social partners. These results demonstrate that just as physiologically interacting genes coevolve, diverge, and contribute to species differences, so do socially interacting genes. Coevolution and conflict between social partners, especially relatives such as parents and offspring, has long been recognized as having widespread evolutionary effects. This coevolutionary process may often result in coevolved socially-interacting gene complexes that contribute to species differences.

References

[1]  West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58: 155–183.
[2]  Moore AJ, Brodie ED III, Wolf JB (1997) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process .1. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution 51: 1352–1362.
[3]  Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Moore AJ (1999) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. Am Nat 153: 254–266.
[4]  Cheverud JM, Moore AJ (1994) Quantitative genetics and the role of the environment provided by relatives in behavioral evolution. In: Boake CRB, editor. Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioral Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 67–100.
[5]  Willham RL (1963) The covariance between relatives for characters composed of components contributed by related individuals. Biometrics 19: 18–27.
[6]  Hunt J, Simmons LW (2002) The genetics of maternal care: Direct and indirect genetic effects on phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 6828–6832.
[7]  Wolf JB (2003) Genetic architecture and evolutionary constraint when the environment contains genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 4655–4660.
[8]  Wright S (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16: 97–159.
[9]  Dobzhansky T (1936) Studies on hybrid sterility. II. Localization of sterility factors in Drosophila pseudoobscura hybrids. Genetics 21: 113–135.
[10]  Muller HJ (1942) Isolating mechanisms, evolution and temperature. Biological Symposia 6: 71–125.
[11]  Whitlock MC, Phillips PC, Moore FBG, Tonsor SJ (1995) Multiple fitness peaks and epistasis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26: 601–629.
[12]  Orr HA (2001) The genetics of species differences. Trends Ecol Evol 16: 343–350.
[13]  Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ, editors. (2000) Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
[14]  Wade MJ (1998) The evolutionary genetics of maternal effects. In: Mousseau TA, Fox CW, editors. Maternal Effects as Adaptations. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 5–21.
[15]  Wolf JB (2000) Gene interactions from maternal effects. Evolution 54: 1882–1898.
[16]  Wolf JB (2000) Indirect genetic effects and gene interactions. In: Wolf JB, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ, editors. Epistasis and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 158–176.
[17]  Agrawal AF, Brodie ED III, Wade MJ (2001) On indirect genetic effects in structured populations. Am Nat 158: 308–323.
[18]  Burke JM, Arnold ML (2001) Genetics and the fitness of hybrids. Annu Rev Genet 35: 31–52.
[19]  Wolf JB, Brodie ED III (1998) The coadaptation of parental and offspring characters. Evolution 52: 299–308.
[20]  Lynch M (1987) Evolution of intrafamilial interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84: 8507–8511.
[21]  Rice WR, Holland B (1997) The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41: 1–10.
[22]  Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 1671–1675.
[23]  Moore AJ, Haynes KF, Preziosi RF, Moore PJ (2002) The evolution of interacting phenotypes: Genetics and evolution of social dominance. Am Nat 160: S186–S197.
[24]  Blows MW, Higgie M (2003) Genetic constraints on the evolution of mate recognition under natural selection. Am Nat 161: 240–253.
[25]  Moore AJ, Pizzari T (2005) Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. Am Nat 165: S88–S97.
[26]  K?lliker M, Brodie ED, Moore AJ (2005) The coadaptation of parental supply and offspring demand. Am Nat 166: 506–516.
[27]  H?lldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The Ants. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[28]  Linksvayer TA, Wade MJ (2005) The evolutionary origin and elaboration of sociality in the aculeate Hymenoptera: maternal effects, sib-social effects, and heterochrony. Q Rev Biol 80: 317–336.
[29]  Linksvayer TA (2006) Direct, maternal, and sibsocial genetic effects on individual and colony traits in an ant. Evolution 60: 2552–2561.
[30]  Alloway TM, Buschinger A, Talbot M, Stuart RJ, Thomas C (1982) Polygyny and polydomy in three North American species of the ant genus Leptothorax Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Psyche 89: 249–274.
[31]  Mackay WP (2000) A review of the New World ants of the subgenus Myrafant, (Genus Leptothorax) (Hymenoptera : Formicidae). Sociobiology 36: 265–434.
[32]  Foitzik S, Heinze J (1999) Non-random size differences between sympatric species of the ant genus Leptothorax (Hymenoptera : Formicidae). Entomol Gen 24: 65–74.
[33]  Herbers JM (1983) Social organization in Leptothorax ants: within and between-species patterns. Psyche 90: 361–386.
[34]  Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
[35]  White JM, Legates JE, Eisen EJ (1968) Maternal effects among lines of mice selected for body weight. Genetics 60: 395–408.
[36]  Wolf JB, Vaughn TT, Pletscher LS, Cheverud JM (2002) Contribution of maternal effect QTL to genetic architecture of early growth in mice. Heredity 89: 300–310.
[37]  Leconte Y, Sreng L, Poitout SH (1995) Brood pheromone can modulate the feeding behavior of Apis mellifera workers (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Econ Entomol 88: 798–804.
[38]  Kaptein N, Billen J, Gobin B (2005) Larval begging for food enhances reproductive options in the ponerine ant Gnamptogenys striatula. Anim Behav 69: 293–299.
[39]  Nonacs P, Tobin JE (1992) Selfish larvae: development and the evolution of parasitic behavior in the Hymenoptera. Evolution 46: 1605–1620.
[40]  Bourke AFG, Ratnieks FLW (1999) Kin conflict over caste determination in social Hymenoptera. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46: 287–297.
[41]  Plateaux L (1985) Adoptions experimentales de larves entre des fourmis de genres différents (V): Larves de Leptothorax nylanderi et eleveused Myrmica rubra (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Actes Colloq Insectes Soc 2: 203–219.
[42]  da Silva DLN (1977) Estudos bionomicos em col?nias mistas de Meliponinae. Bolm Zool Univ S?o Paulo 2: 7–106.
[43]  Queller DC (1985) Kinship, reciprocity and synergism in the evolution of social behavior. Nature 318: 366–367.
[44]  Gardner A, West SA, Barton NH (2007) The relation between multilocus population genetics and social evolution theory. Am Nat 169: 207–226.
[45]  Wenseleers T (2006) Modelling social evolution: the relative merits and limitations of a Hamilton's rule-based approach. J Evol Biol 19: 1419–1422.
[46]  Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I. J Theor Biol 7: 1–16.
[47]  Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour, II. J Theor Biol 7: 17–52.
[48]  Hamilton WD (1970) Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model. Nature 228: 1218–1220.
[49]  Alexander RD (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5: 325–383.
[50]  Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, editor. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971. Chicago: Aldine Press. pp. 136–179.
[51]  Trivers RL, Hare H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of social insects. Science 191: 249–263.
[52]  Wade MJ (1979) Evolution of social interactions by family selection. Am Nat 113: 399–417.
[53]  Wade MJ (1980) Kin selection: its components. Science 210: 665–667.
[54]  Goodnight CJ (2005) Multilevel selection: the evolution of cooperation in non-kin groups. Popul Ecol 47: 3–12.
[55]  Bijma P, Muir WA, Van Arendonk JAM (2007) Multilevel selection 1: Quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175: 277–288.
[56]  Lumsden CJ (1982) The social regulation of physical caste: the super-organism revived. J Theor Biol 95: 749–781.
[57]  Wilson EO (1985) The principles of caste evolution. Forts Zool 31: 307–324.
[58]  Griffing B (1977) Selection for populations of interacting phenotypes. In: Pollak E, Kempthorne O, Bailey TB, editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Genetics. Ames: Iowa State University Press. pp. 413–434.
[59]  McCauley DE, Wade MJ (1980) Group selection: the genetic and demographic basis for the phenotypic differentiation of small populations of Tribolium castaneum. Evolution 34: 813–821.
[60]  Goodnight CJ, Stevens L (1997) Experimental studies of group selection: What do they tell us about group selection in nature? Am Nat 150: S59–S79.
[61]  Linksvayer TA (2007) Queen-worker-brood coadaptation rather than conflict may drive colony resource allocation in the ant Temnothorax curvispinosus. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. In press.
[62]  Moritz RFA, Southwick EE (1987) Phenotype interactions in group behavior of honey bee workers (Apis mellifera L). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21: 53–57.
[63]  Calderone NW, Page RE (1992) Effects of interactions among genotypically diverse nestmates on task specialization by foraging honey bees (Apis mellifera). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30: 219–226.
[64]  Keller L, Ross KG (1995) Gene by environment interaction: effects of a single gene and social environment on reproductive phenotypes of fire ant queens. Funct Ecol 9: 667–676.
[65]  Oldroyd BP, Wossler TC, Ratnieks FLW (2001) Regulation of ovary activation in worker honey-bees (Apis mellifera): larval signal production and adult response thresholds differ between anarchistic and wild-type bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50: 366–370.
[66]  Rüppell O, Heinze J, H?lldobler B (2001) Complex determination of queen body size in the queen size dimorphic ant Leptothorax rugatulus (Formicidae : Hymenoptera). Heredity 87: 33–40.
[67]  Brillet C, Robinson GE, Bues R, Le Conte Y (2002) Racial differences in division of labor in colonies of the honey bee (Apis mellifera). Ethology 108: 115–126.
[68]  Calis JNM, Boot WJ, Allsopp MH, Beekman M (2002) Getting more than a fair share: nutrition of worker larvae related to social parasitism in the Cape honey bee Apis mellifera capensis. Apidologie 33: 193–202.
[69]  Pankiw T, Tarpy DR, Page RE (2002) Genotype and rearing environment affect honeybee perception and foraging behaviour. Anim Behav 64: 663–672.
[70]  Ross KG, Keller L (2002) Experimental conversion of colony social organization by manipulation of worker genotype composition in fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51: 287–295.
[71]  Buschinger A (1973) The role of daily temperature rhythms in brood development of ants of the tribe Leptothoracini (Hymenoptera; Formicidae). In: Weiser W, editor. Effects of Temperature on Ectothermic Organisms. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 229–232.
[72]  Kang MS, Balzarini MG, Guerra JLL (2004) Genotype-by-environment interaction. In: Saxton AM, editor. Genetic Analysis of Complex Traits Using SAS. Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133