Who’s Zooming Who? Seminal Fluids and Cryptic Female Choice in Diptera

Sirot, Laura K.; Wolfner, Mariana F.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17894-3_13

Cited by 20 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 223 publications

(294 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is currently limited data available on the costs of Sfp production (Perry, Sirot & Wigby ; Friesen et al . ; Sirot & Wolfner ). Furthermore, traits involved in post‐copulatory interactions are often subject to strong stabilizing selection (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The prediction of heightened condition dependence in sexually selected traits assumes that high-condition males have lower marginal costs of trait production than low-condition males, and traits should also be subject to directional selection, for example for increased quantity (Grafen 1990;Lachmann, Szamado & Bergstrom 2001). However, there is currently limited data available on the costs of Sfp production (Perry, Sirot & Wigby 2013;Friesen et al 2015;Sirot & Wolfner 2015). Furthermore, traits involved in post-copulatory interactions are often subject to strong stabilizing selection (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in Drosophila melanogaster

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Males of many species fine‐tune their ejaculates in response to sperm competition risk. Resource availability and the number of competitors during development can also strongly influence sperm production. However, despite the key role of seminal proteins in mediating reproductive processes, it is unclear whether seminal protein investment is dependent on the developmental environment.We manipulated the developmental environment of Drosophila melanogaster by rearing flies at low and high density. As expected, this resulted in large and small (i.e. high and low condition) adult phenotypes, respectively.As predicted, large males produced more of two key seminal proteins, sex peptide (SP) and ovulin, and were more successful at obtaining matings with both virgin and previously mated females. However, there was only a weak and non‐significant trend for large males to transfer more absolute quantities of SP at mating, and thus, small males ejaculated proportionally more of their stored accessory gland SP resources.Males transferred more receptivity‐inhibiting SP to large females. Despite this, large females remated more quickly than small females and thus responded to their developmental environment over and above the quantity of SP they received.The results are consistent with two non‐mutually exclusive hypotheses. First, flies might respond to condition‐dependent reproductive opportunities, with (i) small males investing heavily in ejaculates when mating opportunities arise and large males strategically partitioning SP resources and (ii) small females remating at reduced rates because they have higher mating costs or need to replenish sperm less often.Second, flies may be primed by their larval environment to deal with similar adult population densities, with (i) males perceiving high density as signalling increased competition, leading small males to invest proportionally more SP resources at mating and (ii) females perceiving high density as signalling abundant potential mates, leading to a higher sexual receptivity threshold.Thus, by influencing the mating frequencies of both sexes, as well as the quantity of seminal proteins produced by males and received by females, the developmental environment is likely to have far‐reaching and sex‐specific consequences for sexual selection and sexual conflict.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in Drosophila melanogaster

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This results in the mixing of sperm from rival males and the potential for PCSS [12,13]. Drosophila melanogaster therefore represents an ideal system for dissecting the role of seminal fluid molecules in PCSS [7,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

TheDrosophilaseminal proteome and its role in postcopulatory sexual selection

Wigby

Brown

Allen

et al. 2020

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

103

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postcopulatory sexual selection (PCSS), comprised of sperm competition and cryptic female choice, has emerged as a widespread evolutionary force among polyandrous animals. There is abundant evidence that PCSS can shape the evolution of sperm. However, sperm are not the whole story: they are accompanied by seminal fluid substances that play many roles, including influencing PCSS. Foremost among seminal fluid models is Drosophila melanogaster , which displays ubiquitous polyandry, and exhibits intraspecific variation in a number of seminal fluid proteins (Sfps) that appear to modulate paternity share. Here, we first consolidate current information on the identities of D. melanogaster Sfps. Comparing between D. melanogaster and human seminal proteomes, we find evidence of similarities between many protein classes and individual proteins, including some D. melanogaster Sfp genes linked to PCSS, suggesting evolutionary conservation of broad-scale functions. We then review experimental evidence for the functions of D. melanogaster Sfps in PCSS and sexual conflict. We identify gaps in our current knowledge and areas for future research, including an enhanced identification of PCSS-related Sfps, their interactions with rival sperm and with females, the role of qualitative changes in Sfps and mechanisms of ejaculate tailoring. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Fifty years of sperm competition’.

show abstract

“…It is important to note that these findings are extremely conservative, as with only six respective first-male and female genotypes and three second-male genotypes, we worked with limited genetic variation. Also, numerous sex-specific traits that are expected to contribute to the examined reproductive events were not examined, including genitalic traits, FRT secretions, and male accessory gland proteins (Acps) and their female receptors (18, 21, 59, 60). Hence, although this study represents important progress in understanding the targets and selective dynamics of PSS, there is much more work to be done.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, sex-specific mediators of competitive fertilization success tend to be multifarious, potentially including a multitude of genitalic, seminal fluid, sperm and FRT morphological, physiological, neurological and/or biochemical traits, any of which may influence sperm transfer, storage, maturation, motility, longevity, or fertilization (15–19). Second, because sperm competition takes place within the FRT, the competitiveness of ejaculates is likely to depend in large measure on their “compatibility”with the female (17, 20, 21). Any variation in the FRT environment may change the conditions under which sperm compete, and therefore, shift the relative competitive advantage between males (22–25).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Female × male and male × male interactions have limited influence on competitive fertilization inDrosophila melanogaster

Lüpold

Reil

Manier

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

31How males and females contribute to joint reproductive success has been a long-standing question 32 in sexual selection. Under postcopulatory sexual selection (PSS), paternity success is predicted to 33 derive from complex interactions among females engaging in cryptic female choice and males 34 engaging in sperm competition. Such interactions have been identified as potential sources of 35 genetic variation in sexually selected traits but are also expected to inhibit trait diversification. To 36 date, studies of interactions between females and competing males have focused almost 37 exclusively on genotypes and not phenotypic variation in sexually selected traits. Here, we 38 characterize within-and between-sex interactions in Drosophila melanogaster using isogenic 39 lines with heritable variation in both male and female traits known to influence competitive 40 fertilization. We found surprisingly few genotypic interaction effects on various stages of PSS 41 such as female remating interval, copulation duration, sperm transfer, or sperm storage. Only the 42 timing of female sperm ejection depended on female × male genotypic interactions. By contrast, 43 several reproductive events, including sperm transfer, female sperm ejection and sperm storage, 44 were explained by two-and three-way interactions among sex-specific phenotypes. We also 45 documented complex interactions between the lengths of competing males' sperm and the female 46 seminal receptacle, which are known to have experienced rapid female-male co-diversification. 47Our results highlight the non-independence of sperm competition and cryptic female choice and 48 demonstrate that complex interactions between the sexes do not limit the ability of multivariate 49 systems to respond to directional sexual selection. 50 51 Lüpold et al.: Interactions in reproductive processes 4 Significance statement 52 For species with internal fertilization and female promiscuity, postcopulatory sexual selection 53 (PSS) is believed to depend, in part, on complex interactions between rival males and between the 54 sexes. Although little investigated, clarifying such interactions is critical as they may limit the 55 efficacy of PSS in the diversification of reproductive traits (e.g., ejaculate biochemistry and 56 sperm, genitalia and female reproductive tract morphology). Here, we resolve how sex-specific 57 traits and their interactions contribute to key reproductive events and outcomes related to 58 competitive fertilization success, including traits known to have experienced rapid diversification. 59 Our results provide novel insights into the operation and complexity of PSS and demonstrate that 60 the processes of sperm competition and cryptic female choice are not independent selective 61 forces. 62 63 Lüpold et al.: Interactions in reproductive processes 5 \body 64 Because females of most species mate with multiple males within reproductive cycles (1, 2), 65 sexual selection, encompassing both male-male competition and female choice, can continue after 66 mating i...

show abstract

Who’s Zooming Who? Seminal Fluids and Cryptic Female Choice in Diptera

Cited by 20 publications

References 223 publications

Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in Drosophila melanogaster

Developmental environment mediates male seminal protein investment in Drosophila melanogaster

TheDrosophilaseminal proteome and its role in postcopulatory sexual selection

Female × male and male × male interactions have limited influence on competitive fertilization inDrosophila melanogaster

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About