ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2014
Contrasting X-linked and autosomal diversity across 14 human populations.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural diversity and evolutionary constraints of oxidative phosphorylation.Cell genomics · 2025Article
- Genomic evidence for males of exceptional reproductive output (ERO) in apes and humans.National science review · 2025Article
- Review
- Identifying X-chromosome variants associated with age-related macular degeneration.Human molecular genetics · 2024Article
- Patterns of Genomic Heterogeneity in a Classic Field Cricket Mosaic Hybrid Zone.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Forward and backward modeling of cultural evolutionary processes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Enrichment of hard sweeps on the X chromosome compared to autosomes in six Drosophila species.Genetics · 2024Article
- Modeling the effects of consanguinity on autosomal and X-chromosomal runs of homozygosity and identity-by-descent sharing.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- Enrichment of hard sweeps on the X chromosome compared to autosomes in six Drosophila species.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Why does the X chromosome lag behind autosomes in GWAS findings?PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Genomic and demographic processes differentially influence genetic variation across the human X chromosome.PloS one · 2023Article
- Sex-biased admixture and assortative mating shape genetic variation and influence demographic inference in admixed Cabo Verdeans.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Insights into Mus musculus Population Structure across Eurasia Revealed by Whole-Genome Analysis.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Genetic diversity estimates for themicroPublication biology · 2022Article
- Bottleneck-associated changes in the genomic landscape of genetic diversity in wild lynx populations.Evolutionary applications · 2021Article
- The effect of consanguinity on coalescence times on the X chromosome.Theoretical population biology · 2021Article
- Chromosome X-wide Analysis of Positive Selection in Human Populations: Common and Private Signals of Selection and its Impact on Inactivated Genes and Enhancers.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Changes in life history and population size can explain the relative neutral diversity levels on X and autosomes in extant human populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Estimating the Genome-wide Mutation Rate with Three-Way Identity by Descent.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- The inference of sex-biased human demography from whole-genome data.PLoS genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Contrasting the genetic diversity of the human X chromosome (X) and autosomes has facilitated understanding historical differences between males and females and the influence of natural selection. Previous studies based on smaller data sets have left questions regarding how empirical patterns extend to additional populations and which forces can explain them. Here, we address these questions by analyzing the ratio of X-to-autosomal (X/A) nucleotide diversity with the complete genomes of 569 females from 14 populations. Results show that X/A diversity is similar within each continental group but notably lower in European (EUR) and East Asian (ASN) populations than in African (AFR) populations. X/A diversity increases in all populations with increasing distance from genes, highlighting the stronger impact of diversity-reducing selection on X than on the autosomes. However, relative X/A diversity (between two populations) is invariant with distance from genes, suggesting that selection does not drive the relative reduction in X/A diversity in non-Africans (0.842 ± 0.012 for EUR-to-AFR and 0.820 ± 0.032 for ASN-to-AFR comparisons). Finally, an array of models with varying population bottlenecks, expansions, and migration from the latest studies of human demographic history account for about half of the observed reduction in relative X/A diversity from the expected value of 1. They predict values between 0.91 and 0.94 for EUR-to-AFR comparisons and between 0.91 and 0.92 for ASN-to-AFR comparisons. Further reductions can be predicted by more extreme demographic events in excess of those captured by the latest studies but, in the absence of these, also by historical sex-biased demographic events or other processes.
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.