I study sexual selection and genomic conflict using experimental evolution, primarily with the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Many of my experiments involve testing predictions of evolutionary theory using long-term populations that have adapted to different mating systems. I use both phenotypic and genomic approaches to address three interconnected questions:
- How does sexual selection influence the process of adaptation?
The "good genes" hypothesis for the evolution of preference suggests that male sexual traits will honestly signal genetic quality, allowing choosy females to gain indirect benefits through higher-quality offspring. Theoretical work built on this idea predicts that populations with relatively strong sexual selection should show increased rates of adaptation to novel environments, faster fixation of beneficial alleles, and reduced mutation load. I have tested these ideas by manipulating the strength of sexual and nonsexual selection in populations either carrying a known deleterious allele [Hollis et al. 2009] or elevated levels of genetic variation for fitness [Hollis and Houle 2011]. Although sexual selection does accelerate adaptation, it appears that populations are forced to simultaneously carry a sexual conflict load due to the divergent interests of males and females. I am currently studying the adaptive value of sexual selection further by measuring its effects on different components of fitness, including those specific to a certain stage of life, a certain sex, or a certain selective pressure like disease.
- What is the extent and evolutionary impact of conflict between the sexes?
Sexual conflict comes in two varieties. First, there may be direct antagonism (e.g. male harassment of females), resulting in an 'arms race' between the sexes that ultimately depresses population productivity. Another, different kind of sexual conflict occurs when the two sexes have different optima for a trait but are constrained from reaching these optima because they must share the genome.
We recently showed that many genes exhibiting sex-biased expression are not at sex-specific optima, and relaxing sexual selection on males causes rapid evolution towards the optima of females [Hollis et al. 2014]. We are now investigating whether sexually antagonistic fitness effects extend to the juvenile, nonsexual portion of the life cycle. I am also using new experimental populations to look at what happens when both sexual and nonsexual selection are relaxed on one sex via an artificial sex chromosome.
- What is the role of sexual selection in the evolution of cognition?
Sexual selection is responsible for the evolution of male ornaments and armaments, but its role in the evolution of cognition is less clear. We found that males evolved under monogamy became less proficient than polygamous males at relatively complex cognitive tasks [Hollis and Kawecki 2014], including locating, courting, and mating with a single receptive female amongst many unreceptive females.
This learning deficit is also apparent in a nonsexual context (e.g. an aversive olfactory learning test). We are now trying to get a better understanding of monogamous male learning differences at the mechanismal level. We're also interested in the female side of things, and to that end are looking at whether female choosiness has evolved under monogamy.
Postdoc, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
Ph.D., Florida State University
"The consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster"
M.S., Biology, New York University
B.A., Psychology, University of Texas at San Antonio
Hollis, B., Houle, D., Yan, Z., Kawecki, T.J., and Keller, L. 2014. Evolution under monogamy feminizes gene expression. Nature Communications 5 (3482): 1-5.
Hollis, B. and Kawecki, T.J. 2014. Male cognitive performance declines in the absence of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281: 20132873.
Deen, D., Hollis, B., and Zarpentine, C. 2013. Darwin and the levels of selection in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Kawecki, T.J., Lenski, R.E., Ebert, D., Hollis, B., Olivieri, I., and Whitlock, M.C. 2012. The value of complementary approaches in evolutionary research: reply to Magalhaes and Matos. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 650-661.
Kawecki, T.J., Lenski, R.E., Ebert, D., Hollis, B., Olivieri, I., and Whitlock, M.C. 2012. Experimental evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 547-560.
Hollis, B. 2012. Rapid antagonistic coevolution between strains of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279: 3565-3571.
Hollis, B. and Houle, D. 2011. Populations with elevated mutation load do not benefit from the operation of sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 24: 1918-1926.
Hollis, B., Fierst, J.L., and Houle, D. 2009. Sexual selection accelerates the elimination of a deleterious mutant in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 63: 324-333.
Houle, D. and Hollis, B. 2009. Drosophila in Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kondrashov, T.A., Hollis, B., Houle, D., and Kondrashov, A.S. 2006. Loss-of-function alleles of gene garnet appear to be lethal. Drosophila Information Service 89: 12-13.
Accepted or in press
Hollis, B., Kawecki, T.J., and Keller, L. Familiarity, not relatedness, reduces male harm to females. Ecology and Evolution.
Koto, A., Mersch, D., Hollis, B., and Keller, L. Social isolation causes mortality via the disruption of energy homeostasis in ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.
Advanced search is available through Serval
Publications can be managed by accessing Serval via MyUnil