Most Desirable Mates May Not Sire Prolific Offspring

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sometimes hunting down the best mate can backfire. The theory of sexual selection posits that choosy females seek out mates with elaborate antlers or splashy plumage, for example, because these traits might signify good genes that will lead to hearty offspring. But researchers report that top-breeding fruit flies of both sexes produced worse-breeding descendents, primarily because the mating prowess of each parent did not translate to offspring of the opposite sex. The result supports the idea that some genes can be good for one gender but bad for the other, which may limit the power of sexual selection.

In theory, sexual selection should weed out the less useful genes over time, but animals are nonetheless extremely variable in their genes, notes evolutionary geneticist Adam Chippindale of Queens University in Kingston, Ontario. One reason could be that the same genes are beneficial to one sex but harmful to the other, resulting in a genetic tug-of-war. If true, males or females that have high "fitness" (generate lots of offspring) compared with their counterparts would produce relatively unfit offspring of the other sex. "There could be kind of a dark side to 'good' genes," Chippindale says. Despite some experimental signs of such fitness reversals, researchers had not tested the effect thoroughly in the lab.

To identify a reversal, Chippindale and his colleague Alison Pischedda raised multiple lines of male and female Drosophila melanogaster, some of high fitness and others of low fitness. The researchers then mated the flies in all possible combinations and measured their progeny¿s reproductive success. As predicted, flies that found fit mates got a bum deal: Sons of fit mothers were 11 percent less fit than those of unfit moms, and daughters of fit dads were 7 percent less fit than their counterparts. Fit moms at least made up for some of the deficit with their daughters, which were 7 percent more fit than the rest. Not so for fit dads; the fitness of fathers had no effect on that of sons, presumably because the genes that made the dads fit were on their X chromosomes, which were not passed down to sons, the researchers report in the November issue of PLoS Biology.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"It's an extremely counterintuitive result," says evolutionary biologist Scott Pitnick of Syracuse University. "I actually think this has huge potential for a lot of evolutionary questions, like the maintaining of homosexuality, which really plague evolutionary biology. It's a mechanism for maintaining a tremendous amount of variation." Given that Drosophila is raised in the lab, it's unclear how pervasive the effect might be across species, Chippindale says. "These genes are out there and could be taking the edge off selection," he notes. "It's just a matter of how important they will be in the wild."

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe