Of the various forms of cooperative and altruistic behavior, reciprocity remains the most contentious. Humans certainly exhibit reciprocity – under certain circumstances – and various non-human animals behave in ways suggesting that they do as well. Thus, evolutionary biologists have sought to explain why non-relatives might engage in altruistic transactions when a substantial delay occurs between helping and compensation; i.e. an individual may be a donor today and a beneficiary tomorrow, or vice-versa. This quest, aided by game theory and computer modeling late in the past century, identified some strategies for reciprocal behavior that could work – in theory. But when biologists looked for confirmation of these strategies in animals they found little evidence that stood up to rigorous testing. In a recent paper André and Nolfi [1] offer a compelling reason for this observed rarity of reciprocity: Reciprocal behavior that animals might exhibit is a bit more complex than any of the game theoretic strategies, and even the simplest forms of realistic behavior would entail several nearly simultaneous mutations, an unlikely occurrence. André and Nolfi [1] relied on neural networks to test actors, robots that could evolve helping and reciprocal behavior from a basal level of selfishness. In an extensive series of simulations, they found that reciprocal behavior did not take hold in a population, largely because the various intermediates to full reciprocity were eliminated before the subsequent mutations occurred. The findings are satisfying given our current knowledge of animal behavior, but questions remain. Notably, how does one account for those rare cases in which reciprocity does meet all the criteria? The authors suggest some possibilities, but an analysis will await their next study.

Reference

[1] André J-B, Nolfi S. 2016. Evolutionary robotics simulations help explain why reciprocity is rare in nature. Scientific Reports 6:32785. doi: 10.1038/srep32785

Two back-to-back papers published earlier this year in Nature Genetics provide compelling evidence for the control of a male reproductive polymorphism in a wading bird by a "supergene", a cluster of tightly linked genes [1-2]. The bird in question, the ruff (Philomachus pugnax), has a rather unusual reproductive system that consists of three distinct types of males ("reproductive morphs"): aggressive "independents" who represent the majority of males; a smaller fraction of non-territorial "satellites" who are submissive towards "independents"; and "faeders" who mimic females and are rare. Previous work has shown that the male morphs differ in major aspects of mating and aggression behavior, plumage coloration and body size, and that – intriguingly – this complex multi-trait polymorphism is apparently controlled by a single autosomal Mendelian locus with three alleles [3]. To uncover the genetic control of this polymorphism two independent teams, led by Terry Burke [1] and Leif Andersson [2], have set out to analyze the genomes of male ruffs. Using a combination of genomics and genetics, both groups managed to pin down the supergene locus and map it to a non-recombining, 4.5 Mb large inversion which arose 3.8 million years ago. While "independents" are homozygous for the ancestral uninverted sequence, "satellites" and "faeders" carry evolutionarily divergent, dominant alternative haplotypes of the inversion. Thus, as in several other notable cases, for example the supergene control of disassortative mating, aggressiveness and plumage color in white-throated sparrows [4], of mimicry in Heliconius and Papilio butterflies [5-6], or of social structure in ants [7], an inversion – behaving as a single "locus" – underpins the mechanistic basis of the supergene. More generally, and beyond inversions, a growing number of studies now shows that selection can favor the evolution of suppressed recombination, thereby leading to the emergence of clusters of tightly linked loci which can then control – presumably due to polygenic gene action – a suite of complex phenotypes [8-10]. A largely unresolved question in this field concerns the identity of the causative alleles and loci within a given supergene. Recent progress on this question has been made for example in Papilio polytes butterflies where a mimicry supergene has been found to involve – surprisingly – only a single but large gene: multiple mimicry alleles in the doublesex gene are maintained in strong linkage disequilibrium via an inversion. It will clearly be of great interest to see future examples of such a fine-scale genetic dissection of supergenes. In conclusion, we were impressed by the data and analyses of Küpper et al. [1] and Lamichhaney et al. [2]: both papers beautifully illustrate how genomics and evolutionary ecology can be combined to make new, exciting discoveries. Both papers will appeal to readers with an interest in supergenes, inversions, the interplay of selection and recombination, or the genetic control of complex phenotypes.

References

[1] Küpper C, Stocks M, Risse JE, dos Remedios N, Farrell LL, McRae SB, Morgan TC, Karlionova N, Pinchuk P, Verkuil YI, et al. 2016. A supergene determines highly divergent male reproductive morphs in the ruff. Nature Genetics 48:79-83. doi: 10.1038/ng.3443

[2] Lamichhaney S, Fan G, Widemo F, Gunnarsson U, Thalmann DS, Hoeppner MP, Kerje S, Gustafson U, Shi C, Zhang H, et al. 2016. Structural genomic changes underlie alternative reproductive strategies in the ruff (Philomachus pugnax). Nature Genetics 48:84-88. doi: 10.1038/ng.3430

[3] Lank DB, Smith CM, Hanotte O, Burke T, Cooke F. 1995. Genetic polymorphism for alternative mating behaviour in lekking male ruff Philomachus pugnax. Nature 378:59-62. doi: 10.1038/378059a0

[4] Tuttle Elaina M, Bergland Alan O, Korody Marisa L, Brewer Michael S, Newhouse Daniel J, Minx P, Stager M, Betuel A, Cheviron Zachary A, Warren Wesley C, et al. 2016. Divergence and Functional Degradation of a Sex Chromosome-like Supergene. Current Biology 26:344-350. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.069

[5] Joron M, Frezal L, Jones RT, Chamberlain NL, Lee SF, Haag CR, Whibley A, Becuwe M, Baxter SW, Ferguson L, et al. 2011. Chromosomal rearrangements maintain a polymorphic supergene controlling butterfly mimicry. Nature 477:203-206. doi: 10.1038/nature10341

[6] Kunte K, Zhang W, Tenger-Trolander A, Palmer DH, Martin A, Reed RD, Mullen SP, Kronforst MR. 2014. doublesex is a mimicry supergene. Nature 507:229-232. doi: 10.1038/nature13112

[7] Wang J, Wurm Y, Nipitwattanaphon M, Riba-Grognuz O, Huang Y-C, Shoemaker D, Keller L. 2013. A Y-like social chromosome causes alternative colony organization in fire ants. Nature 493:664-668. doi: 10.1038/nature11832

[8] Thompson MJ, Jiggins CD. 2014. Supergenes and their role in evolution. Heredity 113:1-8. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2014.20

[9] Schwander T, Libbrecht R, Keller L. 2014. Supergenes and Complex Phenotypes. Current Biology 24:R288-R294. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.056

[10] Charlesworth D. 2015. The status of supergenes in the 21st century: recombination suppression in Batesian mimicry and sex chromosomes and other complex adaptations. Evolutionary Applications 9:74-90. doi: 10.1111/eva.12291

The ability of a population to adapt to a new niche is an important phenomenon in evolutionary biology. The colonisation of a new volcanic island by plant species; the colonisation of a host treated by antibiotics by a-resistant strain; the Ebola virus transmitting from bats to humans and spreading epidemically in Western Africa, are all examples of a population invading a new niche, adapting and eventually establishing in this new environment.

Adaptation to a new niche can be studied using source-sink models. In the original environment —the “source”—, the population enjoys a positive growth-rate and is self-sustaining, while in the new environment —the “sink”— the population has a negative growth rate and is able to sustain only by the continuous influx of migrants from the source. Understanding the dynamics of adaptation to the sink environment is challenging from a theoretical standpoint, because it requires modelling the demography of the sink as well as the transient dynamics of adaptation. Moreover, local selection in the sink and immigration from the source create distributions of genotypes that complicate the use of many common mathematical approaches.

In their paper, Lavigne et al. [1], develop a new deterministic model of adaptation to a harsh sink environment in an asexual species. The fitness of an individual is maximal when a number of phenotypes are tuned to an optimal value, and declines monotonously as phenotypes are further away from this optimum. This model —called Fisher’s Geometric Model— generates a GxE interaction for fitness because the phenotypic optimum in the sink environment is distinct from that in the source environment [2]. The authors circumvent mathematical difficulties by developing an original approach based on tracking the deterministic dynamics of the cumulant generating function of the fitness distribution in the sink. They derive a number of important results on the dynamics of adaptation to the sink:

• From the point where immigration from the source to the sink starts, four phases of adaptation are observed. After a short transient phase (phase 1), a migration-selection balance is reached in the sink (phase 2). After a while, thanks to the immigration of rare adapted migrants and mutation in the sink, a small fraction of the sink population exhibits a close-to-optimal phenotype. This small adapted fraction grows in frequency and mean fitness rapidly increases in the sink (phase 3). Finally, the population settles around the sink optimum (phase 4) and, hurray, the sink is now a source!

• Interestingly, in this model the evolutionary dynamics do not depend on the immigration rate. In other words, adaptation will proceed at the same rate regardless of how many immigrants invade the sink. This is because the impact of immigration on adaptation depends on the rate of immigration relative to the sink density. This ratio is actually independent of immigration in a model where the sink is initially empty, migration from the sink back to the source is negligible and without density-dependence in the sink.

• In this model, mutation is a double-edged sword. Adapted phenotypes emerge from new mutations, and under this effect alone a higher mutation rate would translate into a shorter time to establishment in the sink. However, mutations may also have deleterious effects by displacing the phenotype away from the optimum. This mutation load will be greater when individuals need to simultaneously tune a large number of phenotypes. As a consequence of these two effects of mutations, time to establishment is minimal for an intermediate mutation rate. This result emerges from Fisher’s Geometric Model, but may hold more generally for biologically plausible fitness landscapes where mutations generates both beneficial (allowing adaptation to the sink) and deleterious genotypes.

• Lastly, in Fisher’s Geometric Model, the time to establishment increases superlinearly with harshness of the sink when the sink is too harsh, and establishment may occur only after a very long time. In these harsh sinks, the adapted genotypes are very few and increase very slowly in frequency, making the second phase of adaptation much longer. Thus, and as a direct consequence of Fisher’s Geometric Model, adding a “stepping stone” intermediate environment would allow faster adaptation to the extreme environment.

In conclusion, this theoretical work presents a method based on Fisher’s Geometric Model and the use of cumulant generating functions to resolve some aspects of adaptation to a sink environment. It generates a number of theoretical predictions for the adaptive colonisation of a sink by an asexual species with some standing genetic variation. It will be a fascinating task to examine whether these predictions hold in experimental evolution systems: will we observe the four phases of the dynamics of mean fitness in the sink environment? Will the rate of adaptation indeed be independent of the immigration rate? Is there an optimal rate of mutation for adaptation to the sink? Such critical tests of the theory will greatly improve our understanding of adaptation to novel environments.

References

[1] Lavigne, F., Martin, G., Anciaux, Y., Papaïx, J., and Roques, L. (2019). When sinks become sources: adaptive colonization in asexuals. bioRxiv, 433235, ver. 5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/433235
[2] Martin, G., and Lenormand, T. (2006). A general multivariate extension of Fisher's geometrical model and the distribution of mutation fitness effects across species. Evolution, 60, 893-907. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01169.x

It is my pleasure to recommend the paper by Raynal et al. [1] about using random forest for parameter inference. There are two reviews about the paper, one review written by Dennis Prangle and another review written by myself. Both reviews were positive and included comments that have been addressed in the current version of the preprint.

The paper nicely shows that modern machine learning approaches are useful for Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) and more generally for simulation-driven parameter inference in ecology and evolution.

The authors propose to consider the random forest approach, proposed by Meinshausen [2] to perform quantile regression. The numerical implementation of ABC with random forest, available in the abcrf package, is based on the RANGER R package that provides a fast implementation of random forest for high-dimensional data.

According to my reading of the manuscript, there are 3 main advantages when using random forest (RF) for parameter inference with ABC. The first advantage is that RF can handle many summary statistics and that dimension reduction is not needed when using RF.

The second advantage is very nicely displayed in Figure 5, which shows the main result of the paper. If correct, 95% posterior credibility intervals (C.I.) should contain 95% of the parameter values used in simulations. Figure 5 shows that posterior C.I. obtained with rejection are too large compared to other methods. By contrast, C.I. obtained with regression methods have been shrunken. However, the shrinkage can be excessive for the smallest tolerance rates, with coverage values that can be equal to 85% instead of the expected 95% value. The attractive property of RF is that C.I. have been shrunken but the coverage is of 100% resulting in a conservative decision about parameter values.

The last advantage is that no hyperparameter should be chosen. It is a parameter free approach, which is desirable because of the potential difficulty of choosing an appropriate acceptance rate.

The main drawback of the proposed approach concerns joint parameter inference. There are many settings where the joint parameter distribution is of interest and the proposed RF approach cannot handle that. In population genetics for example, estimation of the severity and of the duration of the bottleneck should be estimated jointly because of identifiability issues. The challenge of performing joint parameter inference with RF might constitute a useful research perspective.
 

References
 

[1] Raynal L, Marin J-M, Pudlo P, Ribatet M, Robert CP, Estoup A. 2017. ABC random forests for Bayesian parameter inference. arXiv 1605.05537v4, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.05537
[2] Meinshausen N. 2006. Quantile regression forests. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7: 983-999. http://www.jmlr.org/papers/v7/meinshausen06a.html

Inbreeding, or mating between relatives, generally lowers fitness [1]. Mating between genetically similar individuals can result in higher levels of homozygosity and consequently a higher frequency with which recessive disease alleles may be expressed within a population. Reduced fitness as a consequence of inbreeding, or inbreeding depression, can vary between individuals, sexes, populations and species [2], but remains a pervasive challenge for many organisms with small local population sizes, including humans [3]. But all is not lost for individuals within small populations, because an array of mechanisms can be employed to evade the negative effects of inbreeding [4], including sib-mating avoidance and dispersal [5, 6].

Despite thorough investigation of inbreeding and sib-mating avoidance in the laboratory, only very few studies have ventured into the field besides studies on vertebrates and eusocial insects. The study of Collet et al. [7] is a surprising exception, where the effect of male density and frequency of relatives on inbreeding avoidance was tested in the laboratory, after which robust field collections and microsatellite genotyping were used to infer relatedness and dispersal in natural populations. The parasitic wasp Venturia canescens is an excellent model system to study inbreeding, because mating success was previously found to decrease with increasing relatedness between mates in the laboratory [8] and this species thus suffers from inbreeding depression [9–11]. The authors used an elegant design combining population genetics and model simulations to estimate relatedness of mating partners in the field and compared that with a theoretical distribution of potential mate encounters when random mating is assumed. One of the most important findings of this study is that mating between siblings is not avoided in this species in the wild, despite negative fitness effects when inbreeding does occur. Similar findings were obtained for another insect species, the field cricket Gryllus campestris [12], which leaves us to wonder whether inbreeding tolerance could be more common in nature than currently appreciated.

The authors further looked into sex-specific dispersal patterns between two patches located a few hundred meters apart. Females were indeed shown to be more related within a patch, but no genetic differences were observed between males, suggesting that V. canescens males more readily disperse. Moreover, microsatellite data at 18 different loci did not reveal genetic differentiation between populations approximately 300 kilometers apart. Gene flow is thus occurring over considerable distances, which could play an important role in the ability of this species to avoid negative fitness consequences of inbreeding in nature.

Another interesting aspect of this work is that discrepancies were found between laboratory- and field-based data. What is the relevance of laboratory-based experiments if they cannot predict what is happening in the wild? Many, if not most, biologists (including us) bring our model system into the laboratory to control, at least to some extent, the plethora of environmental factors that could potentially affect our system (in ways that we do not want). Most behavioral studies on mating patterns and sexual selection are conducted in standardized laboratory conditions, but sexual selection is in essence social selection, because an individual’s fitness is partly determined by the phenotype of its social partners (i.e. the social environment) [13]. The social environment may actually dictate the expression of female mate choice and it is unclear how potential laboratory-induced social biases affect mating outcome. In V. canescens, findings using field-caught individuals paint a completely opposite picture of what was previously shown in the laboratory, i.e. sib-avoidance is not taking place in the field. It is likely that density, level of relatedness, sex ratio in the field, and/or the size of experimental arenas in the lab are all factors affecting mate selectivity, as we have previously shown in a butterfly [14–16]. If females, for example, typically only encounter a few males in sequence in the wild, it may be problematic for them to express choosiness when confronted simultaneously with two or more males in the laboratory. A recent study showed that, in the wild, female moths take advantage of staying in groups to blur male choosiness [17]. It is becoming more and more clear that what we observe in the laboratory may not actually reflect what is happening in nature [18]. Instead of ignoring the species-specific life history and ecological features of our favorite species when conducting lab experiments, we suggest that it is time to accept that we now have the theoretical foundations to tease apart what in this “environmental noise” actually shapes sexual selection in nature. Explicitly including ecology in studies on sexual selection will allow us to make more meaningful conclusions, i.e. rather than “this is what may happen in the wild”, we would be able to state “this is what often happens in nature”.

References

[1] Charlesworth D & Willis JH. 2009. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10: 783–796. doi: 10.1038/nrg2664
[2] Hedrick PW & Garcia-dorado A. 2016. Understanding inbreeding depression, purging, and genetic rescue. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31: 940–952. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.09.005
[3] Bittles AH & Black ML. 2010. Consanguinity, human evolution, and complex diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. United States Am. 107: 1779–1786. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906079106
[4] Pusey A & Wolf M. 1996. Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 201–206. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(96)10028-8
[5] Greenwood PJ & Harvey PH. 1978. Inbreeding and dispersal in the great tit. Nature 271: 52–54. doi: 10.1038/271052a0
[6] Szulkin M & Sheldon BC. 2008. Dispersal as a means of inbreeding avoidance in a wild bird population. Proc. R. Soc. B 275: 703–711. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0989
[7] Collet M, Amat I, Sauzet S, Auguste A, Fauvergue X, Mouton L, Desouhant E. 2018. Insects and incest: sib-mating tolerance in natural populations of a parasitoid wasp. bioRxiv 169268, ver. 4 peer-reviewed by Peer Community In Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1101/169268
[8] Metzger M, Bernstein C, Hoffmeister TS & Desouhant E. 2010. Does kin recognition and sib-mating avoidance limit the risk of genetic incompatibility in a parasitic wasp ? PLoS One 5: e13505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013505
[9] Beukeboom LW. 2001. Single-locus complementary sex determination in the Ichneumonid Venturia canescens. Netherlands J. Zool. 51: 1–15. doi: 10.1163/156854201X00017
[10] Vayssade C, de Fazio C, Quaglietti B, Auguste A, Ris N, Fauvergue X. 2014. Inbreeding depression in a parasitoid wasp with single- locus complementary sex determination. PLoS One 9: 1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097733
[11] Chuine A, Sauzet S, Debias F & Desouhant E. 2015. Consequences of genetic incompatibility on fitness and mate choice: the male point of view. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 114: 279–286. doi: 10.1111/bij.12421
[12] Bretman A, Rodri R & Tregenza T. 2011. Fine-scale population structure , inbreeding risk and avoidance in a wild insect population. Mol. Ecol. 20: 3045–3055. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05140.x
[13] West-Eberhard MJ. 2014. Darwin’s forgotten idea: The social essence of sexual selection. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 46: 501–508. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.015
[14] Holveck M-J, Gauthier A-L & Nieberding CM 2015. Dense, small and male-biased cages exacerbate male-male competition and reduce female choosiness in Bicyclus anynana. Anim. Behav. 104: 229–245. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.03.025
[15] Nieberding, CM & Holveck M-J 2017. Laboratory social environment biases mating outcome: a first quantitative synthesis in a butterfly. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 71: 117. doi: 10.1007/s00265-017-2346-9
[16] Nieberding CM & Holveck M-J. (In prep). Comentary on Kehl et al. 2018: "Young male mating success is associated with sperm number but not with male sex pheromone titres". Front. Ecol. Evol.
[17] Wijk M Van, Heath J, Lievers R, Schal C & Groot AT. 2017. Proximity of signallers can maintain sexual signal variation under stabilizing selection. Sci. Rep. 7: 18101. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17327-9
[18] Miller CW & Svensson EI. 2014. Sexual selection in complex environments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59: 427–445. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162044