Selfish genetic elements and male fertility

Verspoor, Rudi L.; Price, Tom A. R.; Wedell, Nina

doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0067

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 89 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that genetic selection within a line is related to consistency in the guaranteed values of sperm kinematics; however, this must be further studied. Several researchers have studied the influences of genes on the production of spermatozoa (Verspoor et al., 2020), and studies have demonstrated that morphometric variables affect kinematic patterns (Gillies et al., 2009). The sperm head size is linked to genes, and purebreds have been reported to have smaller spermatozoa than crossbreds (Wysokińska & Kondracki, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian analysis of boar spermatozoa kinematics and head morphometrics and their relationship with litter size fertility variables

Barquero

Soler

Sevilla

et al. 2021

Reprod Domestic Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The semen movement and sperm head size patterns of boar ejaculates were analysed using computer-assisted semen analysis (CASA)-Mot and -Morph systems. The aim of the present study was to compare morphometric and kinematics variables from boars and to determine the relationship with sow fertility variables related to litter size. The females were from maternal crossing schemes such as the continuous 3-generation cross between York (Y), Landrace (L), and Pietrain (P) hybrid sows and Pietrain boars. Semen samples were collected from 11 sexually mature boars from two sire lines. Samples were analysed using the ISAS ® v1 system to evaluate eight kinematic variables of sperm velocity, progressiveness and undulations. Four morphometric parameters of sperm head size (length, width, area and perimeter) were analysed. Bayesian analysis revealed relevant differences in four kinematic variables (VSL, LIN, STR and WOB) between sire lines, with a probability of relevance (P R ) of 0.79-0.91, and Pietrain boars were associated with higher progressive motility compared with Duroc x Pietrain boars. Moreover, there were relevant differences in all morphometric variables (P R = 0.82-0.85) between sire lines. The dam line Y-L-50 (½ Y × ½ L) had higher total born per litter and piglets born alive, and YLP-75 ( 1 / 8 Y × 1 / 8 L × 3 / 4 P) was associated with higher values of litter weight at birth (highest posterior density region at 95% = 9.92, 16.41 kg). There are relevant differences in kinematic variables between the assessed sire lines and the differences in morphometric and litter size variables were also relevant. The York-Landrace hybrid sows had higher total born per litter and piglets born alive, and there were relevant differences when compared with YLP-50 (¼ York × ¼ Landrace × ½ Pietrain). Differences in kinematic and morphometric variables between sire and dam lines related to fertility need to be further studied.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Bayesian analysis of boar spermatozoa kinematics and head morphometrics and their relationship with litter size fertility variables

Barquero

Soler

Sevilla

et al. 2021

Reprod Domestic Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[31]), and that cytoplasmic bridges between spermatids would essentially homogenize any potential remaining differences [32]. The very fact that sperm are so small may be related to avoiding selfish genetic (cytoplasmic) elements acting in sperm [33], and the evolution of other aspects of spermatogenesis may have been fuelled by intragenomic conflict with selfish genetic elements [34]. Nevertheless, there is now ample evidence for post-meiotic transcription [7,32,35,36] and many transcripts are not equally shared via cytoplasmic bridges [37][38][39][40].…”

Section: Within-ejaculate Competition Driving Sperm Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, if the haploid mutant allele has a deleterious effect in diploids, the conflict can extend to the rest of the genome, and selection on the diploid genome should favour suppression of the selfish mutant allele [52]. Thus, if within-ejaculate competition is costly for the diploid male, lineages that can silence this competition are expected to outcompete lineages that do not [34,52,53]. However, the efficiency of haploid selection allows alleles with deleterious effects in the diploid organism to remain in a population [54].…”

Section: Potential Costs and Benefits Of Within-ejaculate Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only way to maintain a genetic polymorphism is if such haploid-beneficial mutations have a negative, partly recessive effect inducing fitness cost to the diploid phase, which results in balancing selection [54]. Such situations are well-described in meiotic drivers, where selfish benefits in the (typically male) haploid phase are counterbalanced by costs in the diploid phase ( [56]; see also [34]).…”

Section: Evidence For and Against Within-ejaculate Sperm Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Within-ejaculate sperm competition

Sutter

Immler

2020

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sperm competition was defined by Geoff Parker 50 years ago as the competition between sperm from two or more males over the fertilization of a set of eggs. Since the publication of his seminal paper, sperm competition has developed into a large field of research, and many aspects are still being discovered. One of the relatively poorly understood aspects is the importance of selection and competition among sperm within the ejaculate of a male. The sheer number of sperm present in a male's ejaculate suggests that the competition among sibling sperm produced by the same male may be intense. In this review, we summarize Parker's theoretical models generating predictions about the evolution of sperm traits under the control of the haploid gamete as opposed to the diploid male. We review the existing evidence of within-ejaculate competition from a wide range of fields and taxa. We also discuss the conceptual and practical hurdles we have been facing to study within-ejaculate sperm competition, and how novel technologies may help in addressing some of the currently open questions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Fifty years of sperm competition’.

show abstract

“…Selfish genetic elements (SGEs) can also profoundly affect male fertility, because they can promote their own transmission via negative impacts on sperm that do not carry them. In their contribution to this issue, Verspoor et al [88] examine the history of research into the mechanisms by which SGEs affect sperm, and how selection can shape the evolution of male and female traits that mitigate against the costs imposed by these selfish passengers. Although predicted to be widespread, we know of only few examples of SGEs and Verspoor et al [88] point to a number of exciting avenues for future research.…”

Section: Future Prospectsmentioning

confidence: 99%