Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19333766›Full record

ArticleGenetica2010

Natural selection and genital variation: a role for the environment, parasites and sperm ageing?

Klaus Reinhardt

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Copulatory wounding and traumatic insemination.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2015
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Klaus ReinhardtDepartment of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. k.reinhardt@sheffield.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Male genitalia are more variable between species (and populations) than other organs, and are more morphologically complex in polygamous compared to monogamous species. Therefore, sexual selection has been put forward as the major explanation of genital variation and complexity, in particular cryptic female choice for male copulatory courtship. As cryptic female choice is based on differences between males it is somewhat paradoxical that there is such low within-species variation in male genitalia that they are a prime morphological identification character for animal species. Processes other than sexual selection may also lead to genitalia variation but they have recently become neglected. Here I focus on pleiotropy and natural selection and provide examples how they link genitalia morphology with genital environments. Pleiotropy appears to be important because most studies that specifically tested for pleiotropic effects on genital morphology found them. Natural selection likely favours certain genital morphology over others in various environments, as well as by reducing re-infection with sexually transmitted diseases or reducing the likelihood of fertilisation with aged sperm. Both pleiotropy and natural selection differ locally and between species so may contribute to local variation in genitalia and sometimes variation between monogamous and polygamous species. Furthermore, the multitude of genital environments will lead to a multitude of genital functions via natural selection and pleiotropy, and may also contribute to explaining the complexity of genitalia.

Indexed as

Cellular SenescenceSelection, GeneticAnimalsBiological EvolutionFertilizationGenitalia, MaleHumansMaleSpermatozoa

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.