Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31289691›Full record

ArticleEvolution letters2019

How to make a haploid male.

Laura Ross, Nicholas G Davies, Andy Gardner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura RossInstitute of Evolutionary Biology University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH9 3JT United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3184-4161
Nicholas G DaviesDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine London WC1E 7HT United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-1412
Andy GardnerSchool of Biology University of St Andrews Dyers Brae St Andrews KY16 9TH United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1304-3734
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Haplodiploidy has evolved repeatedly among invertebrates, and appears to be associated with inbreeding. Evolutionary biologists have long debated the possible benefits for females in diplodiploid species to produce haploid sons-beginning their population's transition to haplodiploidy-and whether inbreeding promotes or inhibits this transition. However, little attention has been given to what makes a haploid individual male rather than female, and whether the mechanism of sex determination may modulate the costs and benefits of male haploidy. We remedy this by performing a theoretical analysis of the origin and invasion of male haploidy across the full range of sex-determination mechanisms and sib-mating rates. We find that male haploidy is facilitated by three different mechanisms of sex determination-all involving male heterogamety-and impeded by the others. We also find that inbreeding does not pose an obvious evolutionary barrier, on account of a previously neglected sex-ratio effect whereby the production of haploid sons leads to an abundance of granddaughters that is advantageous in the context of inbreeding. We find empirical support for these predictions in a survey of sex determination and inbreeding across haplodiploids and their sister taxa.

Indexed as

haplodiploidyinbreedingKin selectionmale heterogametypopulation geneticssex chromosomesex determination

Identifiers

PMID31289691
PMCPMC6591549
OpenAlexW2921656626

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.