Genetic, developmental, and neural changes underlying the evolution of butterfly mate preference
Fig 4
Variable co-expression of UV1 and UV2 within single photoreceptors cannot explain mate choice variability.
(A) Spectral sensitivity (mean ± SEM) of UV photoreceptors measured for H. c. alithea males (left) and all females (right). Dotted lines indicate the expected sensitivity for UV photoreceptors expressing either the UV1 or UV2 opsin. (B) λMax was estimated for each cell with a rhodopsin tuning template and separated into groups based on species, sex, and wing color (n = 43 cells/12 individuals, 40/14, 18/9, 19/9, 8/4, 30/16, 22/10). Asterisks above indicate significant differences between groups assessed using pairwise GLME models (t-statistic, p < 0.05) with negligible random effects due to grouping by individual animal, and asterisks below indicate a significant difference from the expected tuning of both UV1 and UV2 (t test, p < 0.05 with Bonferroni correction). (C) Representative anti-UV1 and anti-UV2 antibody stains in three representative white H. c. alithea males showing consistent expression of UV2 and variable expression of UV1 across individuals. Additional stains can be found in reference [59], which comprehensively characterizes this variation. (D) Overlay of predicted opsin absorption from template tuning curve and wing reflectance (left) and normalized convolution between the two (right) shows that differences in spectral tuning cannot explain differences in courtship preference. The data underlying this figure can be found in Dryad repository dryad.z8w9ghxjz.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002989.g004