We report here genome sequences and comparative analyses of three closely related parasitoid wasps: Nasonia vitripennis, N. giraulti, and N. longicornis. Parasitoids are important regulators of arthropod populations, including major agricultural pests and disease vectors, and Nasonia is an emerging genetic model, particularly for evolutionary and developmental genetics. Key findings include the identification of a functional DNA methylation tool kit; hymenopteran-specific genes including diverse venoms; lateral gene transfers among Pox viruses, Wolbachia, and Nasonia; and the rapid evolution of genes involved in nuclear-mitochondrial interactions that are implicated in speciation. Newly developed genome resources advance Nasonia for genetic research, accelerate mapping and cloning of quantitative trait loci, and will ultimately provide tools and knowledge for further increasing the utility of parasitoids as pest insect-control agents.

Summary 1.Ecoimmunologists aim to understand the costs, benefits, and net fitness consequences of different strategies for immune defense. 2. Measuring the fitness consequences of immune responses is difficult, partly because of complex relationships between host fitness and the within-host density of parasites and immunological cells or molecules. In particular, neither the strongest immune responses nor the lowest parasite densities necessarily maximize host fitness. 3. Here, we propose that ecoimmunologists should routinely endeavour to measure three intertwined parameters: host fitness, parasite density, and relevant immune responses. We further propose that analyses of relationships among these traits would benefit from the statistical machinery used for analyses of phenotypic plasticity and ⁄ or methods that are robust to the bi-directional causation inherent in host-parasite relationships. For example, analyses of how host fitness depends upon parasite density, which is an evolutionary ecological definition of tolerance, would benefit from these more robust methods. 4. Together, these steps promote rigorous quantification of the fitness consequences of immune responses. Such quantification is essential if ecoimmunologists are to decipher causes of immune polymorphism in nature and predict trajectories of natural selection on immune defense.

Coevolutionary interactions, such as those between host and parasite, predator and prey, or plant and pollinator, evolve subject to the genes of both interactors. It is clear, for example, that the evolution of pollination strategies can only be understood with knowledge of both the pollinator and the pollinated. Studies of the evolution of virulence, the reduction in host fitness due to infection, have nonetheless tended to focus on parasite evolution. Host-centric approaches have also been proposed—for example, under the rubric of “tolerance”, the ability of hosts to minimize virulence without necessarily minimizing parasite density. Within the tolerance framework, however, there is room for more comprehensive measures of host fitness traits, and for fuller consideration of the consequences of coevolution. For example, the evolution of tolerance can result in changed selection on parasite populations, which should provoke parasite evolution despite the fact that tolerance is not directly antagonistic to parasite fitness. As a result, consideration of the potential for parasite counter-adaptation to host tolerance—whether evolved or medially manipulated—is essential to the emergence of a cohesive theory of biotic partnerships and robust disease control strategies.

No abstract

Niche construction refers to the activities of organisms that bring about changes in their environments, many of which are evolutionarily and ecologically consequential. Advocates of niche construction theory (NCT) believe that standard evolutionary theory fails to recognize the full importance of niche construction, and consequently propose a novel view of evolution, in which niche construction and its legacy over time (ecological inheritance) are described as evolutionary processes, equivalent in importance to natural selection. Here, we subject NCT to critical evaluation, in the form of a collaboration between one prominent advocate of NCT, and a team of skeptics. We discuss whether niche construction is an evolutionary process, whether NCT obscures or clarifies how natural selection leads to organismal adaptation, and whether niche construction and natural selection are of equivalent explanatory importance. We also consider whether the literature that promotes NCT overstates the significance of niche construction, whether it is internally coherent, and whether it accurately portrays standard evolutionary theory. Our disagreements reflect a wider dispute within evolutionary theory over whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis is in need of reformulation, as well as different usages of some key terms (e.g., evolutionary process).