ArticleGenetics2018
Mogens Westergaard's Contributions to Understanding Sex Chromosomes.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developmental robustness of the shoot apical meristem despite sex-chromosome dosage imbalance in Silene latifolia.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Highly sex specific gene expression in Jojoba.BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- A CLAVATA3-like Gene Acts as a Gynoecium Suppression Function in White Campion.Molecular biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Sex Determination by Two Y-Linked Genes in Garden Asparagus.The Plant cell · 2020Article
- Y Keep Your X? Insights into the Genetic Basis of Plant Sex Chromosome Evolution.The Plant cell · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.