BACKGROUND Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex tackled the two main controversies arising from the Origin of Species: the evolution of humans from animal ancestors and the evolution of sexual ornaments. Most of the book focuses on the latter, Darwin’s theory of sexual selection. Research since supports his conjecture that songs, perfumes, and intricate dances evolve because they help secure mating partners. Evidence is overwhelming for a primary role of both male and female mate choice in sexual selection—not only through premating courtship but also through intimate interactions during and long after mating. But what makes one prospective mate more enticing than another? Darwin, shaped by misogyny and sexual prudery, invoked a “taste for the beautiful” without speculating on the origin of the “taste.” How to explain when the “final marriage ceremony” is between two rams? What of oral sex in bats, cloacal rubbing in bonobos, or the sexual spectrum in humans, all observable in Darwin’s time? By explaining desire through the lens of those male traits that caught his eyes and those of his gender and culture, Darwin elided these data in his theory of sexual evolution. Work since Darwin has focused on how traits and preferences coevolve. Preferences can evolve even if attractive signals only predict offspring attractiveness, but most attention has gone to the intuitive but tenuous premise that mating with gorgeous partners yields vigorous offspring. By focusing on those aspects of mating preferences that coevolve with male traits, many of Darwin’s influential followers have followed the same narrow path. The sexual selection debate in the 1980s was framed as “good genes versus runaway”: Do preferences coevolve with traits because traits predict genetic benefits, or simply because they are beautiful? To the broader world this is still the conversation. ADVANCES Even as they evolve toward ever-more-beautiful signals and healthier offspring, mate-choice mechanisms and courter traits are locked in an arms race of coercion and resistance, persuasion and skepticism. Traits favored by sexual selection often do so at the expense of chooser fitness, creating sexual conflict. Choosers then evolve preferences in response to the costs imposed by courters. Often, though, the current traits of courters tell us little about how preferences arise. Sensory systems are often tuned to nonsexual cues like food, favoring mating signals resembling those cues. And preferences can emerge simply from selection on choosing conspecifics. Sexual selection can therefore arise from chooser biases that have nothing to do with ornaments. Choice may occur before mating, as Darwin emphasized, but individuals mate multiple times and bias fertilization and offspring care toward favored partners. Mate choice can thus occur in myriad ways after mating, through behavioral, morphological, and physiological mechanisms. Like other biological traits, mating preferences vary among individuals and species along multiple dimensions. Some of this is likely adaptive, as different individuals will have different optimal mates. Indeed, mate choice may be more about choosing compatible partners than picking the “best” mate in the absolute sense. Compatibility-based choice can drive or reinforce genetic divergence and lead to speciation. The mechanisms underlying the “taste for the beautiful” determine whether mate choice accelerates or inhibits reproductive isolation. If preferences are learned from parents, or covary with ecological differences like the sensory environment, then choice can promote genetic divergence. If everyone shares preferences for attractive ornaments, then choice promotes gene flow between lineages. OUTLOOK Two major trends continue to shift the emphasis away from male “beauty” and toward how and why individuals make sexual choices. The first integrates neuroscience, genomics, and physiology. We need not limit ourselves to the feathers and dances that dazzled Darwin, which gives us a vastly richer picture of mate choice. The second is that despite persistent structural inequities in academia, a broader range of people study a broader range of questions. This new focus confirms Darwin’s insight that mate choice makes a primary contribution to sexual selection, but suggests that sexual selection is often tangential to mate choice. This conclusion challenges a persistent belief with sinister roots, whereby mate choice is all about male ornaments. Under this view, females evolve to prefer handsome males who provide healthy offspring, or alternatively, to express flighty whims for arbitrary traits. But mate-choice mechanisms also evolve for a host of other reasons Understanding mate choice mechanisms is key to understanding how sexual decisions underlie speciation and adaptation to environmental change. New theory and technology allow us to explicitly connect decision-making mechanisms with their evolutionary consequences. A century and a half after Darwin, we can shift our focus to females and males as choosers, rather than the gaudy by-products of mate choice. Mate choice mechanisms across domains of life. Sensory periphery for stimulus detection (yellow), brain for perceptual integration and evaluation (orange), and reproductive structures for postmating choice among pollen or sperm (teal). ILLUSTRATION: KELLIE HOLOSKI/ SCIENCE
more »
« less
Family quarrels in seeds and rapid adaptive evolution in Arabidopsis
Evolutionary conflict can drive rapid adaptive evolution, sometimes called an arms race, because each party needs to respond continually to the adaptations of the other. Evidence for such arms races can sometimes be seen in morphology, in behavior, or in the genes underlying sexual interactions of host−pathogen interactions, but is rarely predicted a priori. Kin selection theory predicts that conflicts of interest should usually be reduced but not eliminated among genetic relatives, but there is little evidence as to whether conflict within families can drive rapid adaptation. Here we test multiple predictions about how conflict over the amount of resources an offspring receives from its parent would drive rapid molecular evolution in seed tissues of the flowering plant Arabidopsis . As predicted, there is more adaptive evolution in genes expressed in Arabidopsis seeds than in other specialized organs, more in endosperms and maternal tissues than in embryos, and more in the specific subtissues involved in nutrient transfer. In the absence of credible alternative hypotheses, these results suggest that kin selection and conflict are important in plants, that the conflict includes not just the mother and offspring but also the triploid endosperm, and that, despite the conflict-reducing role of kinship, family members can engage in slow but steady tortoise-like arms races.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10098297
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- ISSN:
- 0027-8424
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 201817733
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Abstract Kin selection may act differently on genes inherited from parents (matrigenes and patrigenes), resulting in intragenomic conflict. This conflict can be observed as differential expression of matrigenes and patrigenes, or parent‐specific gene expression (PSGE). In honey bees (
Apis mellifera ), intragenomic conflict is hypothesized to occur in multiple social contexts. Previously, we found that patrigene‐biased expression in reproductive tissues was associated with increased reproductive potential in worker honey bees, consistent with the prediction that patrigenes are selected to promote selfish behaviour in this context. Here, we examined brain gene expression patterns to determine if PSGE is also found in other tissues. As before, the number of transcripts showing patrigene expression bias was significantly greater in the brains of reproductive vs. sterile workers, while the number of matrigene‐biased transcripts was not significantly different. Twelve transcripts out of the 374 showing PSGE in either tissue showed PSGE in both brain and reproductive tissues; this overlap was significantly greater than expected by chance. However, the majority of transcripts show PSGE only in one tissue, suggesting the epigenetic mechanisms mediating PSGE exhibit plasticity between tissues. There was no significant overlap between transcripts that showed PSGE and transcripts that were significantly differentially expressed. Weighted gene correlation network analysis identified modules which were significantly enriched in both types of transcripts, suggesting that these genes may influence each other through gene networks. Our results provide further support for the kin selection theory of intragenomic conflict, and provide valuable insights into the mechanisms which may mediate this process. -
more » « less
Abstract Evolutionary conflict and arms races are important drivers of evolution in nature. During arms races, new abilities in one party select for counterabilities in the second party. This process can repeat and lead to successive fixations of novel mutations, without a long‐term increase in fitness. Models of co‐evolution rarely address successive fixations, and one of the main models that use successive fixations—Fisher's geometric model—does not address co‐evolution. We address this gap by expanding Fisher's geometric model to the evolution of joint phenotypes that are affected by two parties, such as probability of infection of a host by a pathogen. The model confirms important intuitions and offers some new insights. Conflict can lead to long‐term Sisyphean arms races, where parties continue to climb toward their fitness peaks, but are dragged back down by their opponents. This results in far more adaptive evolution compared to the standard geometric model. It also results in fixation of mutations of larger effect, with the important implication that the common modeling assumption of small mutations will apply less often under conflict. Even in comparison with random abiotic change of the same magnitude, evolution under conflict results in greater distances from the optimum, lower fitness, and more fixations, but surprisingly, not larger fixed mutations. We also show how asymmetries in selection strength, mutation size, and mutation input allow one party to win over another. However, winning abilities come with diminishing returns, helping to keep weaker parties in the game.
-
more » « less
Abstract Single‐trait eco‐evolutionary models of arms races between consumers and their resource species often show inhibition rather than promotion of community diversification. In contrast, modelling arms races involving multiple traits, we found that arms races can promote diversification when trade‐off costs among traits make simultaneous investment in multiple traits either more beneficial or more costly. Coevolution between resource and consumer species generates an adaptive landscape for each, with the configuration giving predictable suites of consumer and resource species. Nonetheless, the adaptive landscape contains multiple alternative stable states, and which stable community is reached depends on small stochastic differences occurring along evolutionary pathways. Our results may solve a puzzling conflict between eco‐evolutionary theory that predicts community diversification via consumer–resource interactions will be rare, and empirical research that has uncovered real cases. Furthermore, our results suggest that these real cases might be just a subset of alternative stable communities.
-
more » « less
Abstract Early lineage diversification is central to understand what mutational events drive species divergence. Particularly, gene misregulation in interspecific hybrids can inform about what genes and pathways underlie hybrid dysfunction. In
Drosophila hybrids, how regulatory evolution impacts different reproductive tissues remains understudied. Here, we generate a new genome assembly and annotation inDrosophila willistoni and analyse the patterns of transcriptome divergence between two allopatrically evolvedD. willistoni subspecies, their male sterile and female fertile hybrid progeny across testis, male accessory gland, and ovary. Patterns of transcriptome divergence and modes of regulatory evolution were tissue‐specific. Despite no indication for cell‐type differences in hybrid testis, this tissue exhibited the largest magnitude of expression differentiation between subspecies and between parentals and hybrids. No evidence for anomalous dosage compensation in hybrid male tissues was detected nor was a differential role for the neo‐ and the ancestral arms of theD. willistoni X chromosome. Compared to the autosomes, theX chromosome appeared enriched for transgressively expressed genes in testis despite being the least differentiated in expression between subspecies. Evidence for fine genome clustering of transgressively expressed genes suggests a role of chromatin structure on hybrid gene misregulation. Lastly, transgressively expressed genes in the testis of the sterile male progeny were enriched for GO terms not typically associated with sperm function, instead hinting at anomalous development of the reproductive tissue. Our thorough tissue‐level portrait of transcriptome differentiation between recently divergedD. willistoni subspecies and their hybrids provides a more nuanced view of early regulatory changes during speciation.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817733116
