Andersson, M. Sexual Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, 1994).
Whitlock, M. C. & Agrawal, A. F. Purging the genome with sexual selection: reducing mutation load through selection on males. Evolution 63, 569–582 (2009).
Janicke, T., Ritchie, M. G., Morrow, E. H. & Marie-Orleach, L. Sexual selection predicts species richness across the animal kingdom. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180173 (2018).
Arnqvist, G., Edvardsson, M., Friberg, U. & Nilsson, T. Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 10460–10464 (2000).
Martins, M. J. F., Puckett, T. M., Lockwood, R., Swaddle, J. P. & Hunt, G. High male sexual investment as a driver of extinction in fossil ostracods. Nature 556, 366–369 (2018).
Agrawal, A. F. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature 411, 692–695 (2001).
Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 75, 21–64 (2007).
Bonduriansky, R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 76, 305–339 (2001).
Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60, 145–164 (2000).
Tomkins, J. L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tregenza, T. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 323–328 (2004).
Rowe, L. & Houle, D. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition-dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1415–1421 (1996).
Hunt, J., Bussière, L. F., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. What is genetic quality? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 329–333 (2004).
Pomiankowski, A. & Møller, A. P. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 21–29 (1995).
Kotiaho, J. S., LeBas, N. R., Puurtinen, M. & Tomkins, J. L. On the resolution of the lek paradox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 1–3 (2008).
Turelli, M. Heritable genetic variation via mutation-selection balance: Lerch’s zeta meets the abdominal bristle. Theor. Popul. Biol. 25, 138–193 (1984).
Walsh, B. & Blows, M. W. Abundant genetic variation + strong selection = multivariate genetic constraints: a geometric view of adaptation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40, 41–59 (2009).
Andersson, M. & Simmons, L. W. Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 296–302 (2006).
Ellegren, H. Characteristics, causes and evolutionary consequences of male-biased mutation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 274, 1–10 (2007).
Sayres, M. A. W. & Makova, K. D. Genome analyses substantiate male mutation bias in many species. BioEssays 33, 938–945 (2011).
Haldane, J. B. S. The rate of spontaneous mutation of a human gene. J. Genet. 31, 317 (1935).
Ségurel, L., Wyman, M. J. & Przeworski, M. Determinants of mutation rate variation in the human germline. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 15, 47–70 (2014).
Grégoire, M.-C. et al. Male-driven de novo mutations in haploid germ cells. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 19, 495–499 (2013).
Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Parker, G. A. Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q. Rev. Biol. 67, 437–456 (1992).
Schärer, L., Rowe, L. & Arnqvist, G. Anisogamy, chance and the evolution of sex roles. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 260–264 (2012).
Blumenstiel, J. P. Sperm competition can drive a male-biased mutation rate. J. Theor. Biol. 249, 624–632 (2007).
Møller, A. & Cuervo, J. Sexual selection, germline mutation rate and sperm competition. BMC Evol. Biol. 3, 6 (2003).
Petrie, M. & Roberts, G. Sexual selection and the evolution of evolvability. Heredity 98, 198–205 (2007).
Cotton, S. Condition‐dependent mutation rates and sexual selection. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 899–906 (2009).
Maklakov, A. A. & Immler, S. The expensive germline and the evolution of ageing. Curr. Biol. 26, R577–R586 (2016).
Aitken, R. J. & De Iuliis, G. N. On the possible origins of DNA damage in human spermatozoa. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 16, 3–13 (2010).
Dowling, D. K. & Simmons, L. W. Reactive oxygen species as universal constraints in life-history evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 1737–1745 (2009).
Friedberg, E. C., Walker, G. C., Siede, W. & Wood, R. D. DNA Repair and Mutagenesis (American Society for Microbiology Press, 2005).
Sniegowski, P. D., Gerrish, P. J., Johnson, T. & Shaver, A. The evolution of mutation rates: separating causes from consequences. BioEssays 22, 1057–1066 (2000).
Immler, S. & Otto, S. P. The evolutionary consequences of selection at the haploid gametic stage. Am. Nat. 192, 241–249 (2018).
Ball, B. A. Oxidative stress, osmotic stress and apoptosis: impacts on sperm function and preservation in the horse. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 107, 257–267 (2008).
Agrawal, A. F. & Wang, A. D. Increased transmission of mutations by low-condition females: evidence for condition-dependent DNA repair. PLoS Biol. 6, e30 (2008).
Sharp, N. P. & Agrawal, A. F. Evidence for elevated mutation rates in low-quality genotypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 6142–6146 (2012).
Berger, D., Stångberg, J., Grieshop, K., Martinossi-Allibert, I. & Arnqvist, G. Temperature effects on life-history trade-offs, germline maintenance and mutation rate under simulated climate warming. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20171721 (2017).
Zahavi, A. Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).
Prokop, Z. M., Michalczyk, Ł., Drobniak, S. M., Herdegen, M. & Radwan, J. Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than “good genes”: meta-analysis of female choice benefits. Evolution 66, 2665–2673 (2012).
Weatherhead, P. J. & Robertson, R. J. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: ‘The Sexy Son Hypothesis’. Am. Nat. 113, 201–208 (1979).
Agrawal, A. F. & Whitlock, M. C. Mutation load: the fitness of individuals in populations where deleterious alleles are abundant. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 115–135 (2012).
Agrawal, A. F. Genetic loads under fitness-dependent mutation rates: load with fitness-dependent mutation rates. J. Evol. Biol. 15, 1004–1010 (2002).
Lynch, M. Mutation and human exceptionalism: our future genetic load. Genetics 202, 869–875 (2016).
Lynch, M. et al. Perspective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53, 645–663 (1999).
Ramm, S. A., Schärer, L., Ehmcke, J. & Wistuba, J. Sperm competition and the evolution of spermatogenesis. Mol. Hum. Reprod. 20, 1169–1179 (2014).
González-Marín, C., Gosálvez, J. & Roy, R. Types, causes, detection and repair of DNA fragmentation in animal and human sperm cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 14026–14052 (2012).
Martinossi‐Allibert, I., Thilliez, E., Arnqvist, G. & Berger, D. Sexual selection, environmental robustness and evolutionary demography of maladapted populations: a test using experimental evolution in seed beetles. Evol. Appl. 12, 1487–1502 (2019).
Baur, J., Nsanzimana, Jd’Amour & Berger, D. Sexual selection and the evolution of male and female cognition: a test using experimental evolution in seed beetles*. Evolution 73, 2390–2400 (2019).
Eady, P. E. Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus beetles inseminate so many sperm? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 36, 25–32 (1995).
Yamane, T., Goenaga, J., Rönn, J. L. & Arnqvist, G. Male seminal fluid substances affect sperm competition success and female reproductive behavior in a seed beetle. PLoS ONE 10, e0123770 (2015).
Berger, D. et al. Intralocus sexual conflict and the tragedy of the commons in seed beetles. Am. Nat. 188, E98–E112 (2016).
von Schantz, T., Bensch, S., Grahn, M., Hasselquist, D. & Wittzell, H. Good genes, oxidative stress and condition-dependent sexual signals. Proc. R. Soc. B 266, 1–12 (1999).
Shabalina, S. A., Yampolsky, L. Y. & Kondrashov, A. S. Rapid decline of fitness in panmictic populations of Drosophila melanogaster maintained under relaxed natural selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13034–13039 (1997).
Simmons, L. W. Resource allocation trade-off between sperm quality and immunity in the field cricket, Teleogryllus oceanicus. Behav. Ecol. 23, 168–173 (2012).
Evans, J. P. & Simmons, L. W. The genetic basis of traits regulating sperm competition and polyandry: can selection favour the evolution of good- and sexy-sperm? Genetica 134, 5–19 (2007).
Hosken, D. J., Garner, Tw. J., Tregenza, T., Wedell, N. & Ward, P. I. Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 1933–1938 (2003).
Berger, D. et al. Sexually antagonistic selection on genetic variation underlying both male and female same-sex sexual behavior. BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 88 (2016).
Immonen, E., Rönn, J., Watson, C., Berger, D. & Arnqvist, G. Complex mitonuclear interactions and metabolic costs of mating in male seed beetles. J. Evol. Biol. 29, 360–370 (2016).
Sharp, N. P. & Agrawal, A. F. Low genetic quality alters key dimensions of the mutational spectrum. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002419 (2016).
Silva, W. T. A. F. et al. The effects of male social environment on sperm phenotype and genome integrity. J. Evol. Biol. 32, 535–544 (2019).
delBarco-Trillo, Javier et al. A cost for high levels of sperm competition in rodents: increased sperm DNA fragmentation. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152708 (2016).
Johnson, T. & Barton, N. Theoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 1411–1425 (2005).
Kimura, M. The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983).
Kondrashov, A. S. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet. Res. 40, 325 (1982).
Medawar, P. B. An Unsolved Problem of Biology (H. K. Lewis, 1952).
Baer, C. F. Does mutation rate depend on itself. PLoS Biol. 6, e52 (2008).
Beck, C. W. & Promislow, D. E. L. Evolution of female preference for younger males. PLoS ONE 2, e939 (2007).
Ruan, Y., Wang, H., Chen, B., Wen, H. & Wu, C.-I. Mutations beget more mutations—rapid evolution of mutation rate in response to the risk of runaway accumulation. Mol. Biol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz283 (2019).
Parker, G. A. & Pizzari, T. Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol. Rev. 85, 897–934 (2010).
Haldane, J. B. S. The effect of variation of fitness. Am. Nat. 71, 337–349 (1937).
Kimura, M. On the evolutionary adjustment of spontaneous mutation rates*. Genet. Res. 9, 23–34 (1967).
Kokko, H. Fisherian and “good genes” benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4, 322–326 (2001).
Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57, 2450–2458 (2003).
Shaw, F. H. & Baer, C. F. Fitness-dependent mutation rates in finite populations. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 1677–1684 (2011).
Lynch, M. et al. Genetic drift, selection and the evolution of the mutation rate. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 704–714 (2016).
Arnheim, N. & Calabrese, P. Germline stem cell competition, mutation hot spots, genetic disorders, and older fathers. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 17, 219–243 (2016).
Fox, C. W. Multiple mating, lifetime fecundity and female mortality of the bruchid beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Funct. Ecol. 7, 203–208 (1993).
Crudgington, H. S. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407, 855–856 (2000).
Hotzy, C. & Arnqvist, G. Sperm competition favors harmful males in seed beetles. Curr. Biol. 19, 404–407 (2009).
Gay, L., Hosken, D. J., Vasudev, R., Tregenza, T. & Eady, P. E. Sperm competition and maternal effects differentially influence testis and sperm size in Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1143–1150 (2009).
Berger, D. et al. Intralocus sexual conflict and environmental stress. Evolution 68, 2184–2196 (2014).
Grieshop, K. & Arnqvist, G. Sex-specific dominance reversal of genetic variation for fitness. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006810 (2018).
Baur, J., d’Amour, J. & Berger, D. Sexual selection and the evolution of male and female cognition: a test using experimental evolution in seed beetles. Evolution 73, 2390–2400 (2019).
Daly, M. J. Death by protein damage in irradiated cells. DNA Repair 11, 12–21 (2012).
Supek, F. & Lehner, B. Differential DNA mismatch repair underlies mutation rate variation across the human genome. Nature 521, 81–84 (2015).
Maklakov, A. A., Immler, S., Lovlie, H., Flis, I. & Friberg, U. The effect of sexual harassment on lethal mutation rate in female Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20121874 (2012).
Svetec, N., Cridland, J. M., Zhao, L. & Begun, D. J. The adaptive significance of natural genetic variation in the DNA damage response of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 12, e1005869 (2016).
Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).
Therneau, T. M. coxme: Mixed Effects Cox Models. R package version 2.2-14 (2019); https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=coxme
Source: Ecology - nature.com
