Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28606137›Full record

ArticleBMC evolutionary biology2017

Male-benefit sexually antagonistic genotypes show elevated vulnerability to inbreeding.

Karl Grieshop, David Berger, Göran Arnqvist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC evolutionary biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Ecology and sexual conflict drive the macroevolutionary dynamics of female-limited color polymorphisms in damselflies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  3. Sex-Specific Dominance of Gene Expression in Seed Beetles.Molecular biology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  4. On the resolution of sexual conflict over shared traits.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

3 authors.

Karl GrieshopDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden. karlgrieshop@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8925-5066
David BergerDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.
Göran ArnqvistDepartment of Ecology and Genetics, Animal Ecology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18D, 752 36, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is theoretical and empirical evidence for strong sexual selection in males having positive effects on population viability by serving to purify the genome of its mutation load at a low demographic cost. However, there is also theoretical and empirical evidence for negative effects of sexual selection on female fitness, and therefore population viability, known as the gender load. This can take the form of sexually antagonistic (SA) genetic variation where alleles with a selective advantage in males pose a detriment to female fitness, and vice versa. Here, using seed beetles, we shed light on a previously unexplored manifestation of the gender load: the effect of SA genetic variation on tolerance to inbreeding.

resultsWe found that genotypes encoding high male, but low female fitness exhibited significantly greater rates of extinction upon enforced inbreeding relative to genotypes encoding high female but low male fitness. Also, genotypes encoding low fitness in both sexes exhibited greater rates of extinction relative to generally high-fitness genotypes (though marginally non-significant), an expected finding attributable to variation in mutation load across genotypes. Despite follow-up investigations aiming to identify the mechanism(s) underlying these findings, it remains unclear whether the gender load and the mutation load have independent consequences for tolerance to inbreeding, or whether these two types of genetic architecture interact epistatically to render male-benefit genetic variation relatively intolerant to inbreeding.

conclusionsRegardless of the underlying mechanism(s), our results show that male-benefit/female-detriment SA genetic variation poses a previously unseen detriment to population viability due to its elevated vulnerability to inbreeding/homozygosity. This suggests that sexual selection in the context of SA genetic variance for fitness may enhance the gender load on population viability more than previously appreciated, due to selecting for male-benefit SA genetic variation that engenders lineages to extinction upon inbreeding. We note that our results imply that SA alleles that are sexually selected for in males may be underrepresented or even lacking in panels of inbred lines.

Indexed as

InbreedingAllelesAnimalsColeopteraFemaleGenetic VariationGenotypeMaleMutationSelection, GeneticSex CharacteristicsAntagonistic pleiotropyBalancing selectionFitnessGenetic variationInbreeding depressionIntralocus sexual conflictMutation loadSexually antagonistic selection

Identifiers

PMID28606137
PMCPMC5469140

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.