ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2014
Evidence for increased levels of positive and negative selection on the X chromosome versus autosomes in humans.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic insights into natural selection in recent human history.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Inferring the Relative Contributions of Evolutionary Processes Shaping X Chromosome Dynamics in the Common Marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) in the Presence of Twinning and Hematopoietic Chimerism.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Accessible, Realistic Genome Simulation with Selection Using stdpopsim.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Genetic and epigenetic landscape of male infertility.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2025Review
- Accessible, realistic genome simulation with selection using stdpopsim.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Breeding Sex Ratio Interacts With Demographic History to Shape Comparative Patterns of Variation on the X Chromosome and the Autosomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Reduced Efficacy of Selection on a Young Z Chromosome Region of Schistosoma japonicum.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Comparative Patterns of Variation on the X Chromosome and Autosomes: The Role of the Breeding Sex Ratio.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Reconciling theories of dominance with the relative rates of adaptive substitution on sex chromosomes and autosomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Population variability in X-chromosome inactivation across 10 mammalian species.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Constraining models of dominance for nonsynonymous mutations in the human genome.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- Revisiting Dominance in Population Genetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2024Review
- Leveraging sex-genetic interactions to understand brain disorders: recent advances and current gaps.Brain communications · 2024Review
- Population variability in X-chromosome inactivation across 9 mammalian species.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Why does the X chromosome lag behind autosomes in GWAS findings?PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Purging of deleterious burden in the endangered Iberian lynx.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.Genetics · 2021Article
- Detectable chromosome X mosaicism in males is rarely tolerated in peripheral leukocytes.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Partially recessive variants under positive selection are expected to go to fixation more quickly on the X chromosome as a result of hemizygosity, an effect known as faster-X. Conversely, purifying selection is expected to reduce substitution rates more effectively on the X chromosome. Previous work in humans contrasted divergence on the autosomes and X chromosome, with results tending to support the faster-X effect. However, no study has yet incorporated both divergence and polymorphism to quantify the effects of both purifying and positive selection, which are opposing forces with respect to divergence. In this study, we develop a framework that integrates previously developed theory addressing differential rates of X and autosomal evolution with methods that jointly estimate the level of purifying and positive selection via modeling of the distribution of fitness effects (DFE). We then utilize this framework to estimate the proportion of nonsynonymous substitutions fixed by positive selection (α) using exome sequence data from a West African population. We find that varying the female to male breeding ratio (β) has minimal impact on the DFE for the X chromosome, especially when compared with the effect of varying the dominance coefficient of deleterious alleles (h). Estimates of α range from 46% to 51% and from 4% to 24% for the X chromosome and autosomes, respectively. While dependent on h, the magnitude of the difference between α values estimated for these two systems is highly statistically significant over a range of biologically realistic parameter values, suggesting faster-X has been operating in humans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.