The ecological genetics of growth in<i>Drosophila</i>V. Gene-environment interaction and inbreeding

Prabhu, S. S.; Robertson, Forbes W.

doi:10.1017/s0016672300000902

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was stronger at higher yeast levels and at lower temperatures. Similar results were reported by Sork (1989) from a study on an annual plant and by Prabhu & Robertson (1961) from a study on Drosophila. In the former study, seed number and weight showed less inbreeding depression when the level of fertilizer was lowered.…”

Section: (I) Reference Populationsupporting

confidence: 89%

Phenotypic plasticity for life-history traits inDrosophila melanogaster. III. Effect of the environment on genetic parameters

Gebhardt¹,

Stearns²

1992

Genet. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryWe estimated genetic and environmental variance components for developmental time and dry weight at eclosion in Drosophila melanogaster raised in ten different environments (all combinations of 22, 25 and 28 °C and 05, 1 and 4% yeast concentration, and 0-25% yeast at 25 °C). We used six homozygous lines derived from a natural population for complete diallel crosses in each environment. Additive genetic variances were consistently low for both traits (h 2 around 10%). The additive genetic variance of developmental time was larger at lower yeast concentrations, but the heritability did not increase because other components were also larger. The additive genetic effects of the six parental lines changed ranks across environments, suggesting a mechanism for the maintenance of genetic variation in heterogenous environments.The variance due to non-directional dominance was small in most environments. However, there was directional dominance in the form of inbreeding depression for both traits. It was pronounced at high yeast levels and temperatures but disappeared when yeast or temperature were decreased. This meant that the heterozygous flies were more sensitive to environmental differences than homozygous flies. Because dominance effects are not heritable, this suggests that the evolution of plasticity can be constrained when dominance effects are important as a mechanism for plasticity.

show abstract

Section: (I) Reference Populationsupporting

confidence: 89%

Phenotypic plasticity for life-history traits inDrosophila melanogaster. III. Effect of the environment on genetic parameters

Gebhardt¹,

Stearns²

1992

Genet. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rate of development and fecundity also showed genotype x environment interaction, which is very common for most quantitative traits related to fitness in Drosophila (P RABHU & R OBERTSON , 1961 ;T ANTAWY et al, 1973). Heterosis for viability was significant (p < 0.05) under high density and not under optimum density conditions (table 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environment-dependent heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster

Domínguez¹,

Albornoz²

1987

Genet Sel Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well established from earner work (Robertson & Reeve, 1954;Robertson, 1959Robertson, ,1960Robertson, ,1961) that the stability of performance and the restriction of the harmful effects of segregation in genetically variable populations involves extensive epistatic interaction. Inbreeding leads, especially for characters associated with fitness, to increased effects of segregation either by gene-gene or gene-environment interaction.…”

Section: The Effects Of Tnereedestg In Two Species Of Drosophjxa (I) mentioning

confidence: 99%

The lack of evidence for co-adaptation in crosses between geographical races ofDrosophila subobscuraColl.

McFarquhar¹,

Robertson²

1963

Genet. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The paper described an attempt to see whether differences in co-adaptation between populations of Drosophila subobscura are related to the distance between them. The mean and the variance of body-size, development time and survival were recorded on parent populations and the F1 and F2 of various crosses to test for heterosis in the F1 and decline in performance or greater variance in the F2, which might indicate the break-up of co-adapted gene arrays. Comparisons were carried out at different temperatures and on a variety of larval diets, especially sub-optimal ones in which the larvae were grown on synthetic media. A large number of wild flies were caught at sites separated by about 10 miles along a transect of southern Scotland; these comprised one series of comparisons. For more distant crosses flies were caught at sites in southern England, Denmark, Switzerland and Israel.2. There were well-defined differences in body-size, and, to a lesser degree, development time between populations from more widely separated localities and these showed evidence of a cline, northern populations having larger body-size. The difference in size between the Scottish and Isreal populations is about 20%.3. There was no evidence of differences in co-adaptation between populations even in crosses between populations from sites as far apart as Scotland and Israel. The F1's were always close to the mid-parent values and there was no evidence of breakdown in the F2 nor of increased variability.4. There was hardly any evidence of gene-environment interaction either with respect to different diets or to different temperatures.5. Records of body-size on flies caught in the wild showed that they are extremely variable, indicating great variation in larval nutrition. Under natural condition stability of growth in body-size is conspicuously lacking in this species.6. An additional test of co-adaptation was based on the between-family variance of abdominal bristle number of intra- and inter-population matings in the two most widely separated populations. There was no evidence of greater variance in the inter-population series.7. To test for possible differences in breeding structure, the response to inbreeding was determined for two widely separated populations of D. subobscura and a long-established cage population of D. melanogaster, on an unrestricted larval diet and also on several different kinds of sub-optimal diets. There was little or no sign of consistent differences between the species in their response to inbreeding.8. This test revealed differences between the two species in their minimum requirements for particular nutrients. subobscura is less able than melanogaster to withstand lower levels of protein and survival is particularly reduced. On the other hand, melanogaster has a considerably higher requirement for choline. Where there are apparent differences between the species in the average effect of inbreeding, the inbreeding effect is greater on the relatively more sub-optimal diet.9. Comparison of the performance of the immediate descendants of wild flies with those derived from the same site, but kept in the laboratory for some twenty generations, failed to show any differences on several different diets and so there was no evidence that adaptation to laboratory conditions was important.10. The lack of evidence for co-adaptation apparently conflicts with what has been claimed for other species. Such differences are discussed.

show abstract

The ecological genetics of growth inDrosophilaV. Gene-environment interaction and inbreeding

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Phenotypic plasticity for life-history traits inDrosophila melanogaster. III. Effect of the environment on genetic parameters

Phenotypic plasticity for life-history traits inDrosophila melanogaster. III. Effect of the environment on genetic parameters

Environment-dependent heterosis in Drosophila melanogaster

The lack of evidence for co-adaptation in crosses between geographical races ofDrosophila subobscuraColl.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About