Back

Differences in sperm swimming speed and morphology between the three genetic morphs in the ruff sandpiper

Bulla, M.; Küpper, C.; Lank, D. B.; Albrechtova, J.; Loveland, J. L.; Martin, K.; Teltscher, K.; Cragnolini, M.; Lierz, M.; Albrecht, T.; Forstmeier, W.; Kempenaers, B.

2023-12-20 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.07.27.550846 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe ruff sandpiper Calidris pugnax is a Palearctic lekking shorebird with three genetic morphs determined by an autosomal inversion. Male morphs differ strikingly in body size, ornaments, endocrinology and mating behavior. Aggressive Independents represent the ancestral haplotype, while female-mimicking Faeders and semi-cooperative Satellites are the inverted haplotypes. Because one inversion breakpoint is homozygous lethal, the inverted haplotypes cannot recombine and are expected to accumulate deleterious mutations. The inversion regions also harbor genes involved in spermatogenesis. However, it remains unknown whether the genetic differences between the morphs also translate into differences in sperm traits. Here, we use a captive-bred population of ruffs to compare sperm swimming speed and morphology among the morphs. ResultsRuff sperm morphologically resembled those of passerines, but moved differently, vibrating from side to side while slowly moving forward, rather than rotating while moving forward. Faeder sperm moved the slowest, which is consistent with the prediction of genetic deterioration over time. However, against expectation, sperm of Independents did not seem to be of the highest quality, i.e., their sperm were not the fastest nor the least variable, and they had sperm with the shortest tail and midpiece. Although the midpiece contains the energy-producing mitochondria, sperm midpiece length was not associated with sperm swimming speed. Instead, two of three velocity metrics weakly positively correlated with head length (absolute and relative). ConclusionsThe three genetically determined ruff morphs showed subtle differences in swimming speed and in the length of some sperm components. However, the between-morph differences in sperm swimming speed were not linked to the differences in morphology. We conclude that there is at best limited evidence for lower-quality sperm in the morphs that carry the inversion, and suggest that the potential for the evolution of morph-specific sperm adaptations may be limited in this system. Lay SummaryThe ruff sandpiper is a shorebird that exhibits three genetically distinct types of males, which differ markedly in body size, ornaments, hormones, and mating behavior. Aggressive Independents represent the type that evolved first. Semi-cooperative Satellites and female-mimicking Faeders evolved later through a specific type of genetic rearrangement called an inversion, in which a segment of a chromosome reversed in orientation. Due to the nature of this inversion, Satellite and Faeder chromosomes are expected to deteriorate over time. However, it remains unclear whether the genetic differences between these morphs, which affect physiological and behavioral traits, also translate into differences in sperm traits. We used a captive population of ruffs to compare sperm swimming speed and length measurements between the three types of males. Faeder sperm was the slowest, which is consistent with expectations based on genetic deterioration over time. However, against our expectations, the sperm of Independents does not appear to have better performance characteristics. Although the midpiece of a sperm is responsible for energy production, the length of the midpiece did not relate to sperm swimming speed.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
3
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
4
Journal of Fish Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
7
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
8
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
9
Biology Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
10
Behavioral Ecology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
11
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
12
Journal of Experimental Biology
249 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
13
Evolutionary Applications
91 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
15
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.9%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
18
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
19
Journal of Heredity
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
20
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
21
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
22
Animal Behaviour
65 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
23
Integrative Organismal Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
24
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
25
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
26
Evolutionary Ecology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
27
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
28
Conservation Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
29
Journal of Animal Ecology
63 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
30
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%