For many animal species, vocal communication is a critical social behavior and often a necessary component of reproductive success. Additionally, vocalizations are often demanding motor acts. Wanting to know whether a specific molecular toolkit might be required for vocalization, we used RNA‐sequencing to investigate neural gene expression underlying the performance of an extreme vocal behavior, the courtship hum of the plainfin midshipman fish (
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10348352
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- eLife
- Volume:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 2050-084X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract Porichthys notatus ). Single hums can last up to 2 h and may be repeated throughout an evening of courtship activity. We asked whether vocal behavioral states are associated with specific gene expression signatures in key brain regions that regulate vocalization by comparing transcript expression levels in humming versus non‐humming males. We find that the circadian‐related genesperiod3 andClock are significantly upregulated in the vocal motor nucleus and preoptic area‐anterior hypothalamus, respectively, in humming compared with non‐humming males, indicating that internal circadian clocks may differ between these divergent behavioral states. In addition, we identify suites of differentially expressed genes related to synaptic transmission, ion channels and transport, neuropeptide and hormone signaling, and metabolism and antioxidant activity that together may support the neural and energetic demands of humming behavior. Comparisons of transcript expression across regions stress regional differences in brain gene expression, while also showing coordinated gene regulation in the vocal motor circuit in preparation for courtship behavior. These results underscore the role of differential gene expression in shifts between behavioral states, in this case neuroendocrine, motor and circadian control of courtship vocalization. -
ABSTRACT Androgens mediate the expression of many reproductive behaviors, including the elaborate displays used to navigate courtship and territorial interactions. In some vertebrates, males can produce androgen-dependent sexual behavior even when levels of testosterone are low in the bloodstream. One idea is that select tissues make their own androgens from scratch to support behavioral performance. We first studied this phenomenon in the skeletal muscles that actuate elaborate sociosexual displays in downy woodpeckers and two songbirds. We show that the woodpecker display muscle maintains elevated testosterone when the testes are regressed in the non-breeding season. Both the display muscles of woodpeckers, as well as the display muscles in the avian vocal organ (syrinx) of songbirds, express all transporters and enzymes necessary to convert cholesterol into bioactive androgens locally. In a final analysis, we broadened our study by looking for these same transporters and enzymes in mammalian muscles that operate at different speeds. Using RNA-seq data, we found that the capacity for de novo synthesis is only present in ‘superfast’ extraocular muscle. Together, our results suggest that skeletal muscle specialized to generate extraordinary twitch times and/or extremely rapid contractile speeds may depend on androgenic hormones produced locally within the muscle itself. Our study therefore uncovers an important dimension of androgenic regulation of behavior.more » « less
-
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/ SCIENCEmore » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Sexual signals are often transmitted through multiple modalities (e.g., visual and chemical) and under selection from both intended and unintended receivers. Each component of a multimodal signal may be more or less conspicuous to receivers, and signals may evolve to take advantage of available private channels. We recently documented percussive substrate-borne vibrations in the Pacific field cricket (Teleogryllus oceanicus), a species that uses airborne acoustic and chemical signals to attract and secure mates. The airborne signals of Hawaiian T. oceanicus are currently undergoing rapid evolution; at least five novel male morphs have arisen in the past 20 years. Nothing is yet known about the newly discovered percussive substrate-borne vibrations, so we ask “how” they are produced, “who” produces them (e.g., population, morph), “when” they produce them (e.g., whether they are plastic), and “why” (e.g., do they play a role in mating). We show that the vibrations are produced exclusively by males during courtship via foreleg drumming. One novel morph, purring, produces quieter airborne songs and is more likely to drum than the ancestral morph. However, drumming behavior is also contextually plastic for some males; when we removed the ability of males to produce airborne song, ancestral males became more likely to drum, whereas two novel morphs were equally likely to drum regardless of their ability to produce song. Opposite our prediction, females were less likely to mate with males who drummed. We discuss why that might be and describe what we can learn about complex signal evolution from this newly discovered behavior.
-
more » « less
Abstract Animals often mimic the behaviours or signals of conspecifics of the opposite sex while courting. We explored the potential functions of a novel female-like signal type in the courtship displays of male Enchenopa treehoppers. In these plant-feeding insects, males produce plant-borne vibrational advertisement signals, to which females respond with their own duetting signals. Males also produce a signal type that resembles the female duetting responses. We experimentally tested whether this signal modifies the behaviour of receivers. First, we tested whether the female-like signal would increase the likelihood of a female response. However, females were as likely to respond to playbacks with or without them. Second, we tested whether the female-like signal would inhibit competing males, but males were as likely to produce displays after playbacks with or without them. Hence, we found no evidence that this signal has an adaptive function, despite its presence in the courtship display, where sexual selection affects signal features. Given these findings, we also explored whether the behavioural and morphological factors of the males were associated with the production of the female-like signal. Males that produced this signal had higher signalling effort (longer and more frequent signals) than males that did not produce it, despite being in worse body condition. Lastly, most males were consistent over time in producing the female-like signal or not. These findings suggest that condition-dependent or motivational factors explain the presence of the female-like signal. Alternatively, this signal might not bear an adaptive function, and it could be a way for males to warm up or practice signalling, or even be a by-product of how signals are transmitted through the plant. We suggest further work that might explain our puzzling finding that a signal in the reproductive context might not have an adaptive function.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.74860
