ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2020
Changes in life history and population size can explain the relative neutral diversity levels on X and autosomes in extant human populations.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allele frequency dynamics under sex-biased demography and sex-specific inheritance in a pedigreed jay population.Genetics · 2024Article
- Accurate inference of population history in the presence of background selection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- How Can We Resolve Lewontin's Paradox?Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In human populations, the relative levels of neutral diversity on the X and autosomes differ markedly from each other and from the naïve theoretical expectation of 3/4. Here we propose an explanation for these differences based on new theory about the effects of sex-specific life history and given pedigree-based estimates of the dependence of human mutation rates on sex and age. We demonstrate that life history effects, particularly longer generation times in males than in females, are expected to have had multiple effects on human X-to-autosome (X:A) diversity ratios, as a result of male-biased mutation rates, the equilibrium X:A ratio of effective population sizes, and the differential responses to changes in population size. We also show that the standard approach of using divergence between species to correct for male mutation bias results in biased estimates of X:A effective population size ratios. We obtain alternative estimates using pedigree-based estimates of the male mutation bias, which reveal that X:A ratios of effective population sizes are considerably greater than previously appreciated. Finally, we find that the joint effects of historical changes in life history and population size can explain the observed X:A diversity ratios in extant human populations. Our results suggest that ancestral human populations were highly polygynous, that non-African populations experienced a substantial reduction in polygyny and/or increase in the male-to-female ratio of generation times around the Out-of-Africa bottleneck, and that current diversity levels were affected by fairly recent changes in sex-specific life history.
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.