ArticleGenetics2015
Beyond 2/3 and 1/3: The Complex Signatures of Sex-Biased Admixture on the X Chromosome.
Article in Genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic insights into natural selection in recent human history.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans was strongly sex biased.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Wide-scale geographical analysis of genetic ancestry in the South African Coloured population.BMC 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
- Genetic and linguistic comparisons reveal complex sex-biased transmission of language features.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- 9,000 years of genetic continuity in southernmost Africa demonstrated at Oakhurst rockshelter.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Article
- BaTwa populations from Zambia retain ancestry of past hunter-gatherer groups.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Allele frequency dynamics under sex-biased demography and sex-specific inheritance in a pedigreed jay population.Genetics · 2024Article
- Counting the genetic ancestors from source populations in members of an admixed population.Genetics · 2024Article
- Modeling the effects of consanguinity on autosomal and X-chromosomal runs of homozygosity and identity-by-descent sharing.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Identity-by-descent-based estimation of the X chromosome effective population size with application to sex-specific demographic history.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Integrating sex-bias into studies of archaic introgression on chromosome X.PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- On the number of genealogical ancestors tracing to the source groups of an admixed population.Genetics · 2023Article
- Interpreting mismatches between linguistic and genetic patterns among speakers of Tanimuka (Eastern Tukanoan) and Yukuna (Arawakan).Interface focus · 2023Article
- Response to Pfenning and Lachance.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Challenges of accurately estimating sex-biased admixture from X chromosomal and autosomal ancestry proportions.American journal of human genetics · 2023Article
- Genomic and demographic processes differentially influence genetic variation across the human X chromosome.PloS one · 2023Article
- Review
- Sex-biased admixture and assortative mating shape genetic variation and influence demographic inference in admixed Cabo Verdeans.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sex-biased demography, in which parameters governing migration and population size differ between females and males, has been studied through comparisons of X chromosomes, which are inherited sex-specifically, and autosomes, which are not. A common form of sex bias in humans is sex-biased admixture, in which at least one of the source populations differs in its proportions of females and males contributing to an admixed population. Studies of sex-biased admixture often examine the mean ancestry for markers on the X chromosome in relation to the autosomes. A simple framework noting that in a population with equally many females and males, two-thirds of X chromosomes appear in females, suggests that the mean X-chromosomal admixture fraction is a linear combination of female and male admixture parameters, with coefficients 2/3 and 1/3, respectively. Extending a mechanistic admixture model to accommodate the X chromosome, we demonstrate that this prediction is not generally true in admixture models, although it holds in the limit for an admixture process occurring as a single event. For a model with constant ongoing admixture, we determine the mean X-chromosomal admixture, comparing admixture on female and male X chromosomes to corresponding autosomal values. Surprisingly, in reanalyzing African-American genetic data to estimate sex-specific contributions from African and European sources, we find that the range of contributions compatible with the excess African ancestry on the X chromosome compared to autosomes has a wide spread, permitting scenarios either without male-biased contributions from Europe or without female-biased contributions from Africa.
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.