Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30523165›Full record

ArticleGenetics2018

Mogens Westergaard's Contributions to Understanding Sex Chromosomes.

Deborah Charlesworth

Abstract readBiographyHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Deborah CharlesworthAshworth Laboratory, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK deborah.charlesworth@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A long-standing question in biology concerns the genetic mechanisms by which two sexes can evolve (botanists call this the dioecious condition and zoologists call it gonochory) from a functionally ancestral hermaphroditic state (without separate sexes). In 1932, H. J. Muller, one of the great 20th century geneticists but also a fine evolutionary biologist, pointed out that two mutations were necessary. It was therefore puzzling that sex determination often involves a single genetic locus. Muller believed that the evolution of a single-gene system was possible, because maize geneticists had synthesized a single-gene system with separate sexes. However, this system is highly artificial, requiring geneticists to actively eliminate the wild-type allele at one of the two genes involved. This genetic system cannot therefore explain the natural evolution of dioecy. In 1958, Westergaard reviewed studies from a diversity of flowering plants, and showed that the genetics of natural sex determination in plants does not support the maize system. Instead, the genetic results pointed to a model involving two separate factors, with close linkage creating a single genetic locus. Moreover, Westergaard also pointed out that a two-gene model offers a natural explanation for the evolution of suppressed recombination between sex chromosome pairs. Studying plants allowed genetic analyses of the early steps in the evolution of dioecy, using dioecious species that evolved recently from species without separate sexes, whereas Muller failed to fully understand such evolutionary changes because he focused on animals, where later changes have often happened and obscured the early stages.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularAllelesChromosomes, PlantGenetic LinkageGeneticsHistory, 20th CenturyMagnoliopsidaSex ChromosomesSex Determination Processes

Identifiers

PMID30523165
PMCPMC6283167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.