View in EDS

The suppression of a selfish genetic element increases a male's mating success in a fly.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The suppression of a selfish genetic element increases a male's mating success in a fly.
Authors: Lyth, Sophie1 (AUTHOR) sophie.lyth@liverpool.ac.uk, Betancourt, Andrea J.1 (AUTHOR), Price, Tom A. R.1 (AUTHOR), Verspoor, Rudi L.1,2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Ecology & Evolution (20457758). Nov2023, Vol. 13 Issue 11, p1-13. 13p.
Subject Terms: Suppressor mutation, Meiotic drive, Females, X chromosome, Heredity, Flies, Fruit flies
Abstract: X chromosome meiotic drive (XCMD) kills Y‐bearing sperm during spermatogenesis, leading to the biased transmission of the selfish X chromosome. Despite this strong transmission, some natural XCMD systems remain at low and stable frequencies, rather than rapidly spreading through populations. The reason may be that male carriers can have reduced fitness, as they lose half of their sperm, only produce daughters, and may carry deleterious alleles associated with XCMD. Thus, females may benefit from avoiding mating with male carriers, yielding a further reduction in fitness. Genetic suppressors of XCMD, which block the killing of Y sperm and restore fair Mendelian inheritance, are also common and could prevent the spread of XCMD. However, whether suppressed males are as fit as a wild‐type male remains an open question, as the effect that genetic suppressors may have on a male's mating success is rarely considered. Here, we investigate the mating ability of XCMD males and suppressed XCMD males in comparison to wild‐type males in the fruit fly Drosophila subobscura, where drive remains at a stable frequency of 20% in wild populations where it occurs. We use both competitive and non‐competitive mating trials to evaluate male mating success in this system. We found no evidence that unsuppressed XCMD males were discriminated against. Remarkably, however, their suppressed XCMD counterparts had a higher male mating success compared to wild‐type controls. Unsuppressed XCMD males suffered 12% lower offspring production in comparison to wild‐type males. This cost appears too weak to counter the transmission advantage of XCMD, and thus the factors preventing the spread of XCMD remain unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Ecology & Evolution (20457758) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: GreenFILE
Description
Abstract:X chromosome meiotic drive (XCMD) kills Y‐bearing sperm during spermatogenesis, leading to the biased transmission of the selfish X chromosome. Despite this strong transmission, some natural XCMD systems remain at low and stable frequencies, rather than rapidly spreading through populations. The reason may be that male carriers can have reduced fitness, as they lose half of their sperm, only produce daughters, and may carry deleterious alleles associated with XCMD. Thus, females may benefit from avoiding mating with male carriers, yielding a further reduction in fitness. Genetic suppressors of XCMD, which block the killing of Y sperm and restore fair Mendelian inheritance, are also common and could prevent the spread of XCMD. However, whether suppressed males are as fit as a wild‐type male remains an open question, as the effect that genetic suppressors may have on a male's mating success is rarely considered. Here, we investigate the mating ability of XCMD males and suppressed XCMD males in comparison to wild‐type males in the fruit fly Drosophila subobscura, where drive remains at a stable frequency of 20% in wild populations where it occurs. We use both competitive and non‐competitive mating trials to evaluate male mating success in this system. We found no evidence that unsuppressed XCMD males were discriminated against. Remarkably, however, their suppressed XCMD counterparts had a higher male mating success compared to wild‐type controls. Unsuppressed XCMD males suffered 12% lower offspring production in comparison to wild‐type males. This cost appears too weak to counter the transmission advantage of XCMD, and thus the factors preventing the spread of XCMD remain unclear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:20457758
DOI:10.1002/ece3.10719