Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25993542›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2015

Y fuse? Sex chromosome fusions in fishes and reptiles.

Matthew W Pennell, Mark Kirkpatrick, Sarah P Otto, Jana C Vamosi, Catherine L Peichel, Nicole Valenzuela, Jun Kitano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genomic origins and evolution of neo-sex chromosomes in Pacific Island birds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Matthew W PennellInstitute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.
Mark KirkpatrickDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Sarah P OttoDepartment of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jana C VamosiDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Catherine L PeichelDivisions of Basic Sciences and Human Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Nicole ValenzuelaDepartment of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Jun KitanoEcological Genetics Laboratory, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chromosomal fusion plays a recurring role in the evolution of adaptations and reproductive isolation among species, yet little is known of the evolutionary drivers of chromosomal fusions. Because sex chromosomes (X and Y in male heterogametic systems, Z and W in female heterogametic systems) differ in their selective, mutational, and demographic environments, those differences provide a unique opportunity to dissect the evolutionary forces that drive chromosomal fusions. We estimate the rate at which fusions between sex chromosomes and autosomes become established across the phylogenies of both fishes and squamate reptiles. Both the incidence among extant species and the establishment rate of Y-autosome fusions is much higher than for X-autosome, Z-autosome, or W-autosome fusions. Using population genetic models, we show that this pattern cannot be reconciled with many standard explanations for the spread of fusions. In particular, direct selection acting on fusions or sexually antagonistic selection cannot, on their own, account for the predominance of Y-autosome fusions. The most plausible explanation for the observed data seems to be (a) that fusions are slightly deleterious, and (b) that the mutation rate is male-biased or the reproductive sex ratio is female-biased. We identify other combinations of evolutionary forces that might in principle account for the data although they appear less likely. Our results shed light on the processes that drive structural changes throughout the genome.

Indexed as

AnimalsEvolution, MolecularFemaleFishesGenomeMalePhylogenyReptilesSex Chromosomes

Identifiers

PMID25993542
PMCPMC4439076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.