ArticlePeerJ2015
Evidence for a sexual dimorphism in gene expression noise in metazoan species.
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transgenerational Self-Reconstruction of Disrupted Chromatin Organization After Exposure To An Environmental Stressor in Mice.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Ancestral perinatal obesogen exposure results in a transgenerational thrifty phenotype in mice.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Article
- Transcriptional Interference Promotes Rapid Expression Divergence of Drosophila Nested Genes.Genome biology and evolution · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many biological processes depend on very few copies of intervening elements, which makes such processes particularly susceptible to the stochastic fluctuations of these elements. The intrinsic stochasticity of certain processes is propagated across biological levels, causing genotype- and environment-independent biological variation which might permit populations to better cope with variable environments. Biological variations of stochastic nature might also allow the accumulation of variations at the genetic level that are hidden from natural selection, which might have a great potential for population diversification. The study of any mechanism that resulted in the modulation of stochastic variation is, therefore, of potentially wide interest. I propose that sex might be an important modulator of the stochastic variation in gene expression, i.e., gene expression noise. Based on known associations between different patterns of gene expression variation, I hypothesize that in metazoans the gene expression noise might be generally larger in heterogametic than in homogametic individuals. I directly tested this hypothesis by comparing putative genotype- and environment-independent variations in gene expression between females and males of Drosophila melanogaster strains. Also, considering the potential effect of the propagation of gene expression noise across biological levels, I indirectly tested the existence of a metazoan sexual dimorphism in gene expression noise by analyzing putative genotype- and environment-independent variation in phenotypes related to interaction with the environment in D. melanogaster strains and metazoan species. The results of these analyses are consistent with the hypothesis that gene expression is generally noisier in heterogametic than in homogametic individuals. Further analyses and discussion of existing literature permits the speculation that the sexual dimorphism in gene expression noise is ultimately based on the nuclear dynamics in gametogenesis and very early embryogenesis of sex-specific chromosomes, i.e., Y and W chromosomes.
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.