Genetic and Maternal Effects on Offspring Mortality in Mice
Trade-offs occur when two traits have opposing fitness effects such that positive selection on one trait is constrained by the negative fitness consequences of the other trait. To understand why trade-off may arise we need to study the genetic and non-genetic factors that influence associated traits because these may respond differently to selective pressure. Research into trade-offs has largely focused on the genetic basis of associated traits, yet both maternal effects and epigenetic effects have recently been shown to affect life history traits that play a role in trade-offs. In this study, we analyze genetic, epigenetic and life-history predictors of one of the most important trade-offs, that between offspring number and offspring mortality. Using a large-scale 3-generational intercross between two divergent mouse lines C57BL/6J and DBA/2J, we show that litter size differences between these lines, although significant, are surprisingly not the most important predictors of mortality. Offspring genotype, maternal effects and their interactions are the most influential factors determining mortality. We found significant paternal effects suggesting an important influence of paternal care or potentially the role of imprinted genes. Perhaps contrary to expectations our results further show that the trade-off between offspring number and mortality is not just a simple function of the two factors yielding, on average, an ‘optimal’ litter size at weaning. Indeed if one focused on litter size and mortality alone, the slope of relationship is the same for the two lines, yet they differ in the number of young at weaning. Our study reveals that a perceived trade-off between two traits is governed by a more complex set of interactions between genetic and non-genetic effects.
KeywordsOffspring mortality Litter size Trade-off Parent of origin Maternal effects
This research was supported by NIH grants P01 AG14731 and T32 AG00276. Joseph Gyekis is supported by a Kligman Graduate Fellowship; Reinmar Hager is supported by a NERC Research Fellowship.
- Carola, V., Frazzetto, G., & Gross, C. (2006). Identifying interactions between genes and early environment in the mouse. Genes, Brain, and Behaviour 5(2), 189–199.Google Scholar
- Cheverud, J. M., & Leamy, L. J. (1985). Quantitative genetics and the evolution of ontogeny. III. Ontogenetic changes in correlation structure among live-body traits in random-bred mice. Genetics Research, 46(3), 325–335.Google Scholar
- Cheverud, J. M., & Wolf, J. B. (2009). The genetics and evolutionary consequences of maternal effects. In D. Maestripieri (Ed.), Maternal effects in mammals (pp. 11–36). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Falconer, D. S. (1965). Maternal effects and selection response. In: Genetics today: Proceedings of XIth international congress genetics, Vol 3 (pp. 763–774). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
- Lack, D. (1947). The significance of clutch size. Pts. I and II. Ibis, 87, 302–352.Google Scholar
- Maestripieri, D., & Mateo, J. M. (2009). Maternal effects in mammals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Pritchett, K. R., & Taft, R. A. (2007). Reproductive biology of the laboratory mouse. In J. G. Fox, et al. (Eds.), The mouse in biomedical research: Normative biology, husbandry, and models (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 91–122). Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Wilkins, J. F., & Haig, D. (2003). What good is genomic imprinting: The function of parent-specific gene expression. Nature Genetics Review, 4, 1–19.Google Scholar
- Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar