The Genetic Basis of Female Mate Preference and Species Isolation in<i>Drosophila</i>

Laturney, Meghan; Moehring, Amanda J.

doi:10.1155/2012/328392

Cited by 26 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 145 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same telomeric and centromeric regions on the 3rd chromosome that affect genital shape morphology here have also been found to affect mating behavior in D. simulans - D. mauritiana [25, 33] and D. simulans - D. melanogaster [34]. We can examine whether the different lobe morphology induced by the introgressions has an impact on mating behavior by testing the behavior of the introgression lines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Individual Genetic Contributions to Genital Shape Variation betweenDrosophila simulansandD. mauritiana

LeVasseur-Viens

Moehring

2014

International Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

External genitalia are one of the most rapidly evolving morphological features in insects. In the Drosophila melanogaster species subgroup, males possess a nonfertilizing external genital structure, called the posterior lobe, which is highly divergent among even closely related species. A previous study on this subgroup mapped two genomic regions that affect lobe size and four that affect lobe shape differences between D. mauritiana and D. sechellia; none of the regions affected both size and shape. Here, we investigate whether three of these significant regions also affect lobe size and shape differences between the overlapping species pair D. mauritiana and D. simulans. We found that the same three regions of D. mauritiana, previously shown to affect lobe morphology in a D. sechellia genetic background, also affect lobe morphology in a D. simulans genetic background, with one of the regions affecting both size and shape. Two of the regions also affected morphology when introgressed in the reciprocal direction. The overlap of regions affecting genital morphology within related species pairs indicates either that there is a common underlying genetic basis for variation in genital morphology within this species group or that there are multiple adjacent loci with the potential to influence genital morphology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Individual Genetic Contributions to Genital Shape Variation betweenDrosophila simulansandD. mauritiana

LeVasseur-Viens

Moehring

2014

International Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite pioneering efforts (Coyne et al, 1994; Hollocher et al, 1997; Laturney and Moehring, 2012; Manning, 1959; Mayr and Dobzhansky, 1945; Moehring et al, 2006; Nanda and Singh, 2012; Ritchie et al, 1999; Shirangi et al, 2009; Smadja and Butlin, 2009; Spieth, 1949; Sturtevant, 1920), little is known about the neural pathways that inhibit interspecies mating. Gr32a appears to function in foreleg neurons to inhibit interspecies courtship, consistent with the observation that D. melanogaster males tap potential mates early during courtship.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic and Neural Mechanisms that Inhibit Drosophila from Mating with Other Species

Fan

Manoli

Ahmed

et al. 2013

Cell

144

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Genetically hard-wired neural mechanisms must enforce behavioral reproductive isolation because interspecies courtship is rare even in sexually naïve animals of most species. We find that the chemoreceptor Gr32a inhibits male D. melanogaster from courting diverse fruit fly species. Gr32a recognizes non-volatile aversive cues present on these reproductively dead-end targets, and activity of Gr32a neurons is necessary and sufficient to inhibit interspecies courtship. Male-specific Fruitless (FruM), a master regulator of courtship, also inhibits interspecies courtship. Gr32a and FruM are not co-expressed, but FruM neurons contact Gr32a neurons, suggesting that these genes influence a shared neural circuit that inhibits inter-species courtship. Gr32a and FruM also suppress within-species intermale courtship, but we show that distinct mechanisms preclude sexual displays toward conspecific males and other species. Although this chemosensory pathway does not inhibit interspecies mating in D. melanogaster females, similar mechanisms appear to inhibit this behavior in many other male drosophilids.

show abstract

“…2009). Mate preferences have been shown to have a genetic basis in many animals (reviewed by Bakker and Pomiankowski 1995; within species: Jennions and Petrie 1997; among species: Laturney and Moehring 2012), and there is a growing evidence for the importance of sexual imprinting during early development. Experiments demonstrated that young birds, mammals, and fish cross-fostered to a related (sub)species develop sexual preferences for the foster mother's (sub)species (e.g., Clayton 1990; Kendrick et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetric dominance and asymmetric mate choice oppose premating isolation after allopatric divergence

Sefc

Hermann

Steinwender

et al. 2015

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assortative mating promotes reproductive isolation and allows allopatric speciation processes to continue in secondary contact. As mating patterns are determined by mate preferences and intrasexual competition, we investigated male–male competition and behavioral isolation in simulated secondary contact among allopatric populations. Three allopatric color morphs of the cichlid fish Tropheus were tested against each other. Dyadic male–male contests revealed dominance of red males over bluish and yellow-blotch males. Reproductive isolation in the presence of male–male competition was assessed from genetic parentage in experimental ponds and was highly asymmetric among pairs of color morphs. Red females mated only with red males, whereas the other females performed variable degrees of heteromorphic mating. Discrepancies between mating patterns in ponds and female preferences in a competition-free, two-way choice paradigm suggested that the dominance of red males interfered with positive assortative mating of females of the subordinate morphs and provoked asymmetric hybridization. Between the nonred morphs, a significant excess of negative assortative mating by yellow-blotch females with bluish males did not coincide with asymmetric dominance among males. Hence, both negative assortative mating preferences and interference of male–male competition with positive assortative preferences forestall premating isolation, the latter especially in environments unsupportive of competition-driven spatial segregation.

show abstract

The Genetic Basis of Female Mate Preference and Species Isolation inDrosophila

Cited by 26 publications

References 145 publications

Individual Genetic Contributions to Genital Shape Variation betweenDrosophila simulansandD. mauritiana

Individual Genetic Contributions to Genital Shape Variation betweenDrosophila simulansandD. mauritiana

Genetic and Neural Mechanisms that Inhibit Drosophila from Mating with Other Species

Asymmetric dominance and asymmetric mate choice oppose premating isolation after allopatric divergence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About