Graham J. Holloway

Bio: Graham J. Holloway is an academic researcher from University of Reading. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Anthrenus. The author has an hindex of 26, co-authored 101 publications receiving 2587 citations. Previous affiliations of Graham J. Holloway include Leiden University.

Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture

Abstract: The concept of phenotypic plasticity has been popular in evolutionary biology over the last two decades or so. It really provides something for the theoreticians to get their teeth into, lying, as it does, at the interface of physiology, morphology, behaviour and genetics, probably contributing significantly to the level of phenotypic variation noted in wild populations and influencing rates of evolution. As is so often the case in evolutionary biology, this is a field in which empiricists have struggled to keep up with the pace of theoretical development. Phenotypic plasticity research has produced controversy; how do the genes affecting the plastic response operate, indeed do genes for plasticity really exist, how should plasticity be described and quantified, and so on? This has provided the stuff for some fascinating conflicts in the scientific press and the development of a number of phenotypic plasticity ‘camps’. The appearance of Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture by Massimo Pigliucci is timely. The study of phenotypic plasticity is probably due for new input and it is possible that this publication could provide the necessary stimulus. A comparison of this book with an earlier text by CD Schlichting and M Pigliucci (Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective, Sinauer, 1998) is inevitable. As expected, there is a fair amount of overlap in the material covered by the two books. However, Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture gets my vote. I found it considerably easier to read and to digest the information provided. In fact, I would expect Phenotypic Plasticity to appeal to students at all levels of development and sophistication. The text is nicely laid out (although the reproduction of many of the figures is quite poor) and well written. After three chapters introducing phenotypic plasticity, Pigliucci presents separate chapters on genetics, molecular biology, developmental biology, ecology, behaviour, evolution and theoretical biology. One of the great strengths of the book is that Pigliucci is making real efforts to ensure that the subject moves forward by discussing lines of research that still need to be addressed. It is difficult to see how any student of phenotypic plasticity will be able to get by without a copy of this book on their shelf. In fact, I highly recommend Phenotypic Plasticity to anybody interested in evolution. It is a fascinating read and will not fail to stimulate new insight into this most important topic.

The effect of new environment on adapted genetic architecture

Abstract: Central to the study of life cycle evolution is the concept of genetic trade-offs. Genetic trade-offs between life cycle characters develop as a result of the accumulation of genes with antagonistic pleiotropic effects. In the present study a comparison was made between the genetic architecture that had evolved in the ancestral environment and the way that this genetic architecture was disrupted following transfer to a new environment. It was predicted that, in the ancestral environment, genetic trade-offs should have evolved between each life cycle character and, as a result of these genetic trade-offs, significant levels of additive genetic variation should remain despite many generations of selection. Following transfer to a new environment different genes might be expressed. Therefore, it was predicted that in the new environment the levels of additive genetic variation should increase and that the genetic trade-offs should break down. The predictions were well supported by the data.

Chemical defence in ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). I. Distribution of coccinelline and individual variation in defence in 7-spot ladybirds (Coccinella septempunctata)

Abstract: 7-spot ladybirds secrete alkaloid (coccinelline)-rich fluid (reflex blood) from leg joints as a defence mechanism against predators. A technique is described that enables the collection and accurate quantification of reflex blood produced, and the amount of coccinelline therein. Coccinelline was found distributed throughout the body, although concentrated in the reflex blood. Reflex blood was collected from a large set of beetles at several time points. Significant variation was found among beetles in the amount of reflex blood produced (for males and for females corrected for body weight) and the coccinelline concentration of the reflex blood. The results are discussed in relation to automimicry and the maintenance of variation through energy trade-offs. The relationships between tendency to aggregate, ability to reflex bleed and the possession of aposematic coloration are also considered.

Chemical defence in ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae). II. Amount of reflex fluid, the alkaloid adaline and individual variation in defence in 2-spot ladybirds ( Adalia bipunctata )

Abstract: 2-spot ladybirds secrete alkaloid (adaline)-rich defence fluid (reflex blood) in response to predator attack. Reflex fluid was collected from individual ladybirds and weighed and the alkaloid content measured by GC. The amount of fluid produced built up rapidly following winter hibernation in animals feeding on aphids. The concentration of adaline in the fluid was highest in the first bleeding after winter hibernation. A large sample of beetles was reflex bled several times. Significant among beetle variation was found in the amount of fluid produced and the concentration of the reflex blood. The results are discussed in relation to the possibility that 2-spot ladybirds are Batesian mimics of 7-spot ladybirds and to the possible functions of adaline.

Human biochemical genetics

Abstract: So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to

Adaptive versus non‐adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments

Abstract: Summary 1The role of phenotypic plasticity in evolution has historically been a contentious issue because of debate over whether plasticity shields genotypes from selection or generates novel opportunities for selection to act. Because plasticity encompasses diverse adaptive and non-adaptive responses to environmental variation, no single conceptual framework adequately predicts the diverse roles of plasticity in evolutionary change. 2Different types of phenotypic plasticity can uniquely contribute to adaptive evolution when populations are faced with new or altered environments. Adaptive plasticity should promote establishment and persistence in a new environment, but depending on how close the plastic response is to the new favoured phenotypic optimum dictates whether directional selection will cause adaptive divergence between populations. Further, non-adaptive plasticity in response to stressful environments can result in a mean phenotypic response being further away from the favoured optimum or alternatively increase the variance around the mean due to the expression of cryptic genetic variation. The expression of cryptic genetic variation can facilitate adaptive evolution if by chance it results in a fitter phenotype. 3We conclude that adaptive plasticity that places populations close enough to a new phenotypic optimum for directional selection to act is the only plasticity that predictably enhances fitness and is most likely to facilitate adaptive evolution on ecological time-scales in new environments. However, this type of plasticity is likely to be the product of past selection on variation that may have been initially non-adaptive. 4We end with suggestions on how future empirical studies can be designed to better test the importance of different kinds of plasticity to adaptive evolution.

Evolution and the Theory of Games

Abstract: In the Hamadryas baboon, males are substantially larger than females. A troop of baboons is subdivided into a number of ‘one-male groups’, consisting of one adult male and one or more females with their young. The male prevents any of ‘his’ females from moving too far from him. Kummer (1971) performed the following experiment. Two males, A and B, previously unknown to each other, were placed in a large enclosure. Male A was free to move about the enclosure, but male B was shut in a small cage, from which he could observe A but not interfere. A female, unknown to both males, was then placed in the enclosure. Within 20 minutes male A had persuaded the female to accept his ownership. Male B was then released into the open enclosure. Instead of challenging male A , B avoided any contact, accepting A’s ownership.

Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists.

Abstract: Repeatability (more precisely the common measure of repeatability, the intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC) is an important index for quantifying the accuracy of measurements and the constancy of phenotypes. It is the proportion of phenotypic variation that can be attributed to between-subject (or between-group) variation. As a consequence, the non-repeatable fraction of phenotypic variation is the sum of measurement error and phenotypic flexibility. There are several ways to estimate repeatability for Gaussian data, but there are no formal agreements on how repeatability should be calculated for non-Gaussian data (e.g. binary, proportion and count data). In addition to point estimates, appropriate uncertainty estimates (standard errors and confidence intervals) and statistical significance for repeatability estimates are required regardless of the types of data. We review the methods for calculating repeatability and the associated statistics for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data. For Gaussian data, we present three common approaches for estimating repeatability: correlation-based, analysis of variance (ANOVA)-based and linear mixed-effects model (LMM)-based methods, while for non-Gaussian data, we focus on generalised linear mixed-effects models (GLMM) that allow the estimation of repeatability on the original and on the underlying latent scale. We also address a number of methods for calculating standard errors, confidence intervals and statistical significance; the most accurate and recommended methods are parametric bootstrapping, randomisation tests and Bayesian approaches. We advocate the use of LMM- and GLMM-based approaches mainly because of the ease with which confounding variables can be controlled for. Furthermore, we compare two types of repeatability (ordinary repeatability and extrapolated repeatability) in relation to narrow-sense heritability. This review serves as a collection of guidelines and recommendations for biologists to calculate repeatability and heritability from both Gaussian and non-Gaussian data.