Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 3, pp 459–469 | Cite as

Effects of heterozygosity and MHC diversity on patterns of extra-pair paternity in the socially monogamous scarlet rosefinch

  • J. C. Winternitz
  • M. Promerova
  • R. Polakova
  • M. Vinker
  • J. Schnitzer
  • P. Munclinger
  • W. Babik
  • J. Radwan
  • J. Bryja
  • T. Albrecht
Original Paper

Abstract

Extra-pair copulation without apparent direct benefits is an evolutionary puzzle that requires indirect fitness benefits to females to explain its ubiquity in socially monogamous mating systems. Using wild scarlet rosefinches (Carpodacus erythrinus), we tested if genetic benefits in the form of global (microsatellite) heterozygote advantage, adaptive genes (major histocompatibility complex), or complementary genes (using both markers) were responsible for female extra-pair mate choice, while considering that the benefits of mate choice may be conditional on female genotype. We found no evidence for assortative or relatedness-based mating (complementary genes), but higher MHC diversity, microsatellite heterozygosity, and condition were significantly related to male extra-pair paternity (EPP) success. In contrast, female probability of having extra-pair offspring decreased with increasing heterozygosity. Interestingly, extra-pair and within-pair males had higher heterozygosity than their female mates and extra-pair males had higher MHC supertype diversity. The only genetic difference between extra-pair and within-pair offspring was lower variance in MHC allelic diversity within extra-pair offspring, providing limited support for indirect genetic fitness benefits for the markers tested. Offspring had both higher neutral heterozygosity and number of MHC supertypes than adults, as well as significant identity disequilibrium, potentially suggesting that mates are chosen to increase offspring diversity in the period of the present study. Overall, our results point to an EPP heterozygote advantage for males, especially when involving less heterozygous females, and suggest that heterozygosity effects on reproduction may differ between the sexes.

Keywords

Extra-pair copulation Mate choice Sexual selection Major histocompatibility complex Indirect benefits Erythrina erythrina 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank J. Abbate, A. Courtiol, J. Rushmore, S. Baird, the Bryja and Albrecht lab groups, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful discussion and comments on previous manuscript versions. We thank the Institute of Vertebrate Biology and the “bird genetics” project funded by the Czech Science Foundation, Reg. No. P505/10/1871 for field and lab support. JCW was supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the state budget of Czech Republic through the Operational Program Education for Competitiveness (OPEC), Reg. No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0048.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Authorship

The project was designed by TA, JB, and PM; data was collected by TA, PM, MV, JS, and RP; pyrosequencing was designed by WB and JR, and genetic analyses were performed by MP and RP; JW, MP, and TA analyzed data for this paper, and JW, MP, JR, MV, JB, and TA wrote the manuscript.

Ethical standards

All protocols were noninvasive and adhered to the laws and guidelines of the Czech Republic (Czech Research Permit numbers 6628/2008-10001). All protocols were approved by the Animal Care and Use Committees at the Czech Academy of Sciences (041/2011) and Charles University (4789/2008-30).

Supplementary material

265_2014_1858_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (236 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 235 kb)

References

  1. Aeschlimann P, Häberli M, Reusch T, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119–126Google Scholar
  2. Agudo R, Carrete M, Alcaide M, Rico C, Hiraldo F, Donázar JA (2012) Genetic diversity at neutral and adaptive loci determines individual fitness in a long-lived territorial bird. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:3241–3249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akçay E, Roughgarden J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in birds: review of the genetic benefits. Evol Ecol Res 9:855Google Scholar
  4. Albrecht T (2004) Edge effect in wetland-arable land boundary determines nesting success of scarlet rosefinches (Carpodacus erythrinus) in the Czech Republic. Auk 121:361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Albrecht T, Schnitzer J, Kreisinger J, Exnerová A, Bryja J, Munclinger P (2007) Extrapair paternity and the opportunity for sexual selection in long-distant migratory passerines. Behav Ecol 18:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Albrecht T, Vinkler M, Schnitzer J, PolÁKovÁ R, Munclinger P, Bryja J (2009) Extra-pair fertilizations contribute to selection on secondary male ornamentation in a socially monogamous passerine. J Evol Biol 22:2020–2030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amos W, Wilmer JW, Fullard K, Burg T, Croxall J, Bloch D, Coulson T (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2021–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnqvist G, Kirkpatrick M (2005) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: the strength of direct and indirect selection on extrapair copulation behavior in females. Am Nat 165:S26–S37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1–7, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
  10. Bollmer JL, Dunn PO, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA (2012) Social and extra-pair mating in relation to major histocompatibility complex variation in common yellowthroats. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:4778–4785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Ecol 8:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown JL, Eklund A (1994) Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: an integrative review. Am Nat 143:435–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calcagno V, de Mazancourt C (2010) glmulti: an R package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J Stat Softw 34:1–29Google Scholar
  14. Coltman D, Slate J (2003) Microsatellite measures of inbreeding: a meta‐analysis. Evolution 57:971–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53:1259–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Consuegra S, Garcia de Leaniz C (2008) MHC-mediated mate choice increases parasite resistance in salmon. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:1397–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Croft DP, Madden JR, Franks DW, James R (2011) Hypothesis testing in animal social networks. Trends Ecol Evol 26:502–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. David P, Pujol B, Viard F, Castella V, Goudet J (2007) Reliable selfing rate estimates from imperfect population genetic data. Mol Ecol 16:2474–2487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis AK, Maney DL, Maerz JC (2008) The use of leukocyte profiles to measure stress in vertebrates: a review for ecologists. Funct Ecol 22:760–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunn PO, Bollmer JL, Freeeman‐Gallant CR, Whittingham LA (2012) MHC variation is related to a sexually selected ornament, survival, and parasite resistance in common yellowthroats. Evolution 67:679–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eliassen S, Kokko H (2008) Current analyses do not resolve whether extra-pair paternity is male or female driven. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:1795–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fitzpatrick JL, Evans JP (2009) Reduced heterozygosity impairs sperm quality in endangered mammals. Biol Lett 5:320–323PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forstmeier W (2007) Do individual females differ intrinsically in their propensity to engage in extra-pair copulations? PLoS ONE 2:e952PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fromhage L, Kokko H, Reid JM (2009) Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterozygosity. Evolution 63:684–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gage M, Surridge A, Tomkins J, Green E, Wiskin L, Bell D, Hewitt G (2006) Reduced heterozygosity depresses sperm quality in wild rabbits, Oryctolagus cuniculus. Curr Biol 16:612–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. García-Navas V, Ortego J, Sanz JJ (2009) Heterozygosity-based assortative mating in blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus): implications for the evolution of mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2931–2940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, version 2.9.3, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices. Lausanne University, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffith SC (2007) The evolution of infidelity in socially monogamous passerines: neglected components of direct and indirect selection. Am Nat 169:274–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griggio M, Biard C, Penn D, Hoi H (2011) Female house sparrows “count on” male genes: experimental evidence for MHC-dependent mate preference in birds. BMC Evol Biol 11:44PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herdegen M, Dudka K, Radwan J (2014) Heterozygosity and orange coloration are associated in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). J Evol Biol 27:220–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hothorn T, Hornik K, van de Wiel MAV, Zeileis A (2008) Implementing a class of permutation tests: the Coin package. J Stat Softw 28:1–23Google Scholar
  34. Hui W, Gel YR, Gastwirth JL (2008) lawstat: an R package for law, public policy and biostatistics. J Stat Softw 28:1–26Google Scholar
  35. Ilmonen P, Stundner G, Thoss M, Penn DJ (2009) Females prefer the scent of outbred males: good-genes-as-heterozygosity? BMC Evol Biol 9:104PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kempenaers B (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Adv Study Behav 37:189–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klein J (1986) Natural history of the major histocompatibility complex. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Konovalov DA, Manning C, Henshaw MT (2004) KINGROUP: a program for pedigree relationship reconstruction and kin group assignments using genetic markers. Mol Ecol Notes 4:779–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Milinski M (2006) The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nowak MA, Tarczy-Hornoch K, Austyn JM (1992) The optimal number of major histocompatibility complex molecules in an individual. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:10896–10899PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavlova A, Zink RM, Rohwer S (2005) Evolutionary history, population genetics, and gene flow in the common rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus). Mol Phylogenet Evol 36:669–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poláková R, Vyskočilová M, Marton J-F, Mays HL, Hill GE, Bryja J, Albrecht T (2007) A multiplex set of microsatellite markers for the scarlet rosefinch (Carpodacus erythrinus). Mol Ecol Notes 7:1375–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Promerová M, Vinkler M, Bryja J, Poláková R, Schnitzer J, Munclinger P, Albrecht T (2011) Occurrence of extra‐pair paternity is connected to social male’s MHC‐variability in the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. J Avian Biol 42:5–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Promerova M, Babik W, Bryja J, Albrecht T, Stuglik M, Radwan J (2012) Evaluation of two approaches to genotyping major histocompatibility complex class I in a passerine—CE‐SSCP and 454 pyrosequencing. Mol Ecol Resour 12:285–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Queller DC, Goodnight KF (1989) Estimating relatedness using genetic markers. Evolution:258–275Google Scholar
  47. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/
  48. Reid JM, Arcese P, Cassidy ALE, Marr AB, Smith JNM, Keller LF (2005) Hamilton and Zuk meet heterozygosity? Song repertoire size indicates inbreeding and immunity in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Proc R Soc Lond B 272:481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid JM, Arcese P, Keller LF (2006) Intrinsic parent‐offspring correlation in inbreeding level in a song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) population open to immigration. Am Nat 168:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T, von Schantz T (2005) MHC-based patterns of social and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B 272:759–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubenstein DR (2007) Female extrapair mate choice in a cooperative breeder: trading sex for help and increasing offspring heterozygosity. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1895–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sandberg M, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, Sjöström M, Wold S (1998) New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides. A multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. J Med Chem 41:2481–2491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sepil I, Lachish S, Hinks AE, Sheldon BC (2013) Mhc supertypes confer both qualitative and quantitative resistance to avian malaria infections in a wild bird population. Proc R Soc Lond B 280:20130134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stjernberg T (1979) Breeding biology and population dynamics of the Scarlet Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. Acta Zool Fenn 157:1–88Google Scholar
  56. Strandh M, Westerdahl H, Pontarp M, Canbäck B, Dubois M-P, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Bonadonna F (2012) Major histocompatibility complex class II compatibility, but not class I, predicts mate choice in a bird with highly developed olfaction. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:4457–4463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stuglik MT, Radwan J, Babik W (2011) jMHC: software assistant for multilocus genotyping of gene families using next-generation amplicon sequencing. Mol Ecol Resour 11:739–742PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szulkin M, Bierne N, David P (2010) Heterozygosity-fitness correlations: a time for reappraisal. Evolution 64:1202–1217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Tomkins JL, Radwan J, Kotiaho JS, Tregenza T (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol Evol 19:323–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Oosterhout C, Trigg R, Carvalho G, Magurran A, Hauser L, Shaw P (2003) Inbreeding depression and genetic load of sexually selected traits: how the guppy lost its spots. J Evol Biol 16:273–281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vinkler M, Schnitzer J, Munclinger P, Votýpka J, Albrecht T (2010) Haematological health assessment in a passerine with extremely high proportion of basophils in peripheral blood. J Ornithol 151:841–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Westerdahl H, Asghar M, Hasselquist D, Bensch S (2012) Quantitative disease resistance: to better understand parasite-mediated selection on major histocompatibility complex. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Westneat DF, Stewart IRK (2003) Extra-pair paternity in birds: causes, correlates, and conflict. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:365–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wetton JH, Carter RE, Parkin DT, Walters D (1987) Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327:147–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitlock MC (2005) Combining probability from independent tests: the weighted Z-method is superior to Fisher’s approach. J Evol Biol 18:1368–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zajitschek SRK, Lindholm AK, Evans JP, Brooks RC (2009) Experimental evidence that high levels of inbreeding depress sperm competitiveness. J Evol Biol 22:1338–1345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zelano B, Edwards SV (2002) An MHC component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: predictions, progress, and prospects. Am Nat 160:S225–S237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Winternitz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
  • M. Promerova
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. Polakova
    • 4
  • M. Vinker
    • 4
  • J. Schnitzer
    • 4
  • P. Munclinger
    • 4
  • W. Babik
    • 5
  • J. Radwan
    • 6
  • J. Bryja
    • 1
  • T. Albrecht
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of BotanyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicBrnoCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Biology CenterUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Zoology, Faculty of ScienceCharles University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic
  5. 5.Institute of Environmental SciencesJagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland
  6. 6.Evolutionary Biology Group, Faculty of BiologyAdam Mickiewicz UniversityPoznanPoland
  7. 7.Research Facility Studenec, Institute of Vertebrate BiologyAcademy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicKonesinCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations