, Volume 139, Issue 4, pp 505–510 | Cite as

Condition dependence and the nature of genetic variation for male sex comb bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster



Genetic architecture of variation underlying male sex comb bristle number, a rapidly evolving secondary sexual character of Drosophila, was examined. First, in order to test for condition dependence, diet was manipulated in a set of ten Drosophila melanogaster full-sib families. We confirmed heightened condition dependent expression of sex comb bristle number and its female homologue (distal transverse row bristles) as compared to non-sex sternopleural bristles. Significant genotype by environment effects were detected for the sex traits indicating a genetic basis for condition dependence. Next we measured sex comb bristle number and sternopleural bristle number, as well as residual mass, a commonly used condition index, in a set of thirty half-sib families. Sire effect was not significant for sex comb and sternopleural bristle number, and we detected a strong dominance and/or maternal effect or X chromosome effect for both traits. A strong sire effect was detected for condition and its heritability was the highest as compared to sex comb and sternopleural bristles. We discuss our results in light of the rapid response to divergent artificial selection for sex comb bristle number reported previously. The nature of genetic variation for male sex traits continues to be an important unresolved issue in evolutionary biology.


Condition dependence Drosophila melanogaster Sex comb Condition Genetic variation 



We thank Wilfried Haerty for help in planning this study and statistical analysis, and Safiah Mai for help with formulating and preparation of experimental diets. This research was funded by an OGS scholarship to AA and an NSERC (Canada) grant to RSS.

Supplementary material

10709_2011_9572_MOESM1_ESM.doc (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 33 kb)
10709_2011_9572_MOESM2_ESM.doc (42 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 42 kb)


  1. Ahuja A, Singh RS (2008) Variation and evolution of male sex combs in Drosophila: nature of selection response and theories of genetic variation for sexual traits. Genetics 179:503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson MB (1982) Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17:375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson MB (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkhead TR, Pellatt EJ, Matthews IM, Roddis NJ, Hunter FM, McPhie F, Castillo-Juarez H (2006) Genic capture and the genetic basis of sexually selected traits in the zebra finch. Evolution 60:2389–2398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Measurement error. BMJ 312:1654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonduriansky R, Rowe L (2005) Sexual selection, genetic architecture, and the condition dependence of body shape in the sexually dimorphic fly, Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution 59:138–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Boughman JW (2007) Condition dependent expression of red color differs between stickleback species. J Evol Bio 20:1577–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connallon T (2010) Genic capture, sex linkage, and the heritability of fitness. Am Nat 175:564–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc R Soc Lond B 271:771–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowley DE, Atchley WR (1988) Quantitative genetics of Drosophila melanogaster II. Heritabilities and genetic correlations between sexes for head and thorax traits. Genetics 119:421–433PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne JA (1985) Genetic studies of three sibling species of Drosophila with relationship to theories of speciation. Genet Res 46:169–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falconer D, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Press, EssexGoogle Scholar
  13. Green AJ (2001) Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology 82:1473–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Burke T (1999) Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature 400:358–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Held LI, Grimson MJ, Du Z (2004) Proving an old prediction: the sex comb rotates at 16 to 24 hours after pupariation. Dros Inf Serv 87:76–78Google Scholar
  16. Hine E, Chenoweth SF, Blows MW (2004) Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance in male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution 58:2754–2762PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Houle D (1992) Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130:195–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Imasheva AG, Bosenko DV, Bubli OA (1999) Variation in morphological traits of Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) under nutritional stress. Heredity 87:187–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A (1994) The evolution of mate preference for multiple handicaps. Evolution 48:853–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Judge KA, Ting JJ, Gwynne DT (2008) Condition dependence of male life span and calling effort in a field cricket. Evolution 62:868–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kopp A, True JR (2002) Evolution of male sexual characters in the Oriental Drosophila melanogaster species group. Evol Dev 4:278–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kotiaho JS (1999) Estimating fitness: comparison of body condition indices revisited. Oikos 87:399–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Long TAF, Rice WR (2007) Adult locomotory activity mediates intralocus sexual conflict in a laboratory-adapted population of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:3105–3122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Mackay TFC (1985) Transposable element induced response to artificial selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 111:351–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Markow TA, Bustoz D, Pitnick S (1996) Sexual selection and a secondary sexual character in two Drosophila species. Anim Behav 52:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82:591–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ng CS, Kopp A (2008) Sex combs are important for male mating success in Drosophila melanogaster. Behav Genet 38:195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polak M, Starmer WT, Wolf LL (2004) Sexual selection for size and symmetry in a diversifying secondary sexual character in Drosophila bipectinata. Evolution 58:597–607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Punzalan D, Cooray M, Rodd FH, Rowe L (2008) Condition dependence of sexually dimorphic colouration and longevity in the ambush bug Phymata americana. J Evol Bio 21:1297–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rowe L, Houle D (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition-dependent traits. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1415–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulte-Hostedde AI, Zinner B, Millar JS, Hickling GJ (2005) Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 86:155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spieth HT (1952) Mating behavior within the genus Drosophila (Diptera). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 99:395–474Google Scholar
  36. Tokunaga C (1962) Cell lineage and differentiation on the male foreleg of Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Biol 4:489–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van-Homrigh A, Higgie M, McGuigan K, Blows MW (2007) The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Curr Biol 17:528–532PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.MontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations