Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:04:51.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetics of a difference in cuticular hydrocarbons between Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Mohamed A. F. Noor  and
Jerry A. Coyne
Mohamed A. F. Noor
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1101 E. 57th Street, IL 60637, USA
Jerry A. Coyne
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1101 E. 57th Street, IL 60637, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We identify a fixed species difference in the relative concentrations of the cuticular hydrocarbons 2-methyl hexacosane and 5,9-pentacosadiene in Drosophilapseudoobscura and D. persimilis, and determine its genetic basis. In backcross males, this difference is due to genes on both the X and second chromosomes, while the other two major chromosomes have no effect. In backcross females, only the second chromosome has a significant effect on hydrocarbon phenotype, but dominant genes on the X chromosome could also be involved. These results differ in two respects from previous studies of Drosophila cuticular hydrocarbons: strong epistasis is observed between the chromosomes that producethe hydrocarbon difference in males, and the difference is apparently unrelated to the strong sexual isolation observed between these species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 117 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

References

Anderson, W. W., (1993). Linkage map of Drosophila pseudoobscura. In Genetic Maps: Locus Maps of Complex Genomes (ed. O'Brien, S. J.), pp. 3.252–3.253. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. W., & Norman, R. A., (1977). D. pseudoobscura linkage data. Drosophila Information Service 52, 11–12.Google Scholar
Ayala, F. J., & Dobzhansky, T., (1974). A new subspecies of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 50, 211–219.Google Scholar
Blomquist, G. J., Toolson, E. C., & Nelson, D. R., (1985). Epicuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila pseudoobscura (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Insect Biochemistry 15, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. G. B., (1964). Courtship behaviour in the Drosophila obscura group. I. D. pseudoobscura. Behaviour 23, 61–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D. A., Mayer, M. S., Silhacek, D. L., James, J. D., Beroza, M., & Bierl, B. A., (1971). Sex attractant pheromone of the housefly: Isolation and synthesis. Science 174: 76–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B., Coyne, J. A., & Barton, N. H., (1987). The relative rates of evolution of sex chromosomes and autosomes. American Naturalist 130, 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, M., & Ferveur, J.-F. (1996). Evolution and genetic control of mate recognition and stimulation in Drosophila. Behavioural Processes 35, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, J. A., & Oyama, R., (1995). Localization of pheromonal sexual dimorphism in Drosophila melanogaster and its effect on sexual isolation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 92, 9505–9509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, J. A., Crittenden, A. P., & Mah, K., (1994). Genetics of a pheromonal difference contributing to reproductive isolation in Drosophila. Science 265, 1461–1464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobzhansky, T., (1951). Genetics and the Origin of Species. 3rd edn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T., & Epling, C., (1944). Contributions to the Genetics, Taxonomy, and Ecology of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Its Relatives. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institute of Washington.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T., & Powell, J. R., (1975) Drosophila pseudoobscura and its American relatives, Drosophila persimilis and Drosophila miranda. In Invertebrates of Genetic Interest (ed. King, R. C.), pp. 537–587. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, A. W., (1969). The genetic basis of sound production in Drosophila.pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. Animal Behaviour 17, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferveur, J.-F. (1991). Genetic control of pheromones in Drosophila.simulans. I. Ngbo, a locus on the second chromosome. Genetics 128, 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grula, J. W., & Taylor, Jr., O. R. T. (1979). The inheritance of pheromone production in the sulphur butterflies Colias eurytheme and C. philodice. Heredity 42, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jallon, J.-M. (1984). A few chemical words exchanged by Drosophila during courtship and mating. Behavior Genetics 14, 441–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noor, M. A., (1995a). Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila. Nature (London) 375, 674–675.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noor, M. A. (1995 b). Incipient sexual isolation in Drosophila.pseudoobscura bogotana Ayala & Dobzhansky (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 71, 125–129.Google Scholar
Noor, M. A. (1995 c). Long-term changes in obscura group Drosophila species composition at Mather, California. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 71, 71–74.Google Scholar
Noor, M. A. F., (1996). Absence of species discrimination in Drosophila.pseudoobscura and D. persimilis males. Animal Behaviour, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, H. A., (1987). Genetics of male and female sterility in hybrids of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. Genetics 116, 555–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orr, H. A., (1995). A new linkage map of the D. pseudoobscura X chromosome. Drosophila Information Service 76, 127–128.Google Scholar
Orr, H. A., & Coyne, J. A., (1992). The genetics of adaptation: a reassessment. American Naturalist 140, 725–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, W., Eckenrode, T. G. C., Lofstedt, X.-H. T. C, Hansson, I. S. B. S. & Bengtsson, P. R. B. O. (1987). Sex pheromone production and perception in European corn borer moths is determined by both autosomal and sexlinked genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 84, 7585–7589.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaeffer, S. W., & Miller, E. L., (1991). Nucleotide sequence analysis of Adh genes estimates the time of geographic isolation of the Bogota population of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 88, 6097–6101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J., (1995). Biometry, 3rd edn. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Tan, C. C., (1946). Genetics of sexual isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Genetics 31, 558–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomaru, M., Matsubayashi, H., & Oguma, Y., (1995). Heterospecific inter-pulse intervals of courtship songs elicit female rejection in Drosophila.biauraria. Animal Behaviour 50, 905–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toolson, E. C., (1982). Effects of rearing temperature on cuticle permeability and epicuticular lipid composition in Drosophila.pseudoobscura. Journal of Experimental Zoology 222, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toolson, E. C., & Kuper-Simbrón, R., (1989). Laboratory evolution of epicuticular hydrocarbon composition and cuticular permeability in Drosophila.pseudoobscura: effects on sexual dimorphism and thermal-acclimation ability. Evolution 43, 468–473.Google ScholarPubMed
Waldron, I., (1964). Courtship sound production in two sympatric sibling Drosophila species. Science 144, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed