Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24496091›Full record

ArticleHeredity2014

Genomic imprinting and the units of adaptation.

A Gardner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2014. 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. Brinkmanship in intragenomic conflict.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Sexual selection modulates genetic conflicts and patterns of genomic imprinting.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2017
    Article
  6. Intrafamily and intragenomic conflicts in human warfare.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2017
    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.

A GardnerSchool of Biology, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two guiding principles identify which biological entities are able to evolve adaptations. Williams' principle holds that, in order for an entity to evolve adaptations, there must be selection between such entities. Maynard Smith's principle holds that, in order for an entity to evolve adaptations, selection within such entities must be absent or negligible. However, although the kinship theory of genomic imprinting suggests that parent-of-origin-specific gene expression evolves as a consequence of natural selection acting between--rather than within--individuals, it evades adaptive interpretation at the individual level and is instead viewed as an outcome of an intragenomic conflict of interest between an individual's genes. Here, I formalize the idea that natural selection drives intragenomic conflicts of interest between genes originating from different parents. Specifically, I establish mathematical links between the dynamics of natural selection and the idea of the gene as an intentional, inclusive-fitness-maximizing agent, and I clarify the role that information about parent of origin plays in mediating conflicts of interest between genes residing in the same genome. These results highlight that the suppression of divisive information may be as important as the suppression of lower levels of selection in maintaining the integrity of units of adaptation.

Indexed as

Adaptation, BiologicalGenomic ImprintingAlgorithmsBiological EvolutionFemaleGenetic FitnessGenomeGenomicsHumansMaleModels, GeneticSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID24496091
PMCPMC4105447

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.