ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020
A gene's-eye view of sexual antagonism.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- The maintenance of genetic polymorphism underlying sexually antagonistic traits.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- Polygenic response of sex chromosomes to sexual antagonism.Evolution; international journal of organic evolution · 2024Article
- Sexual antagonism in sequential hermaphrodites.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Sexual conflict, heterochrony and tissue specificity as evolutionary problems of adaptive plasticity in development.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Review
- The rarer-sex effect.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Slower-X: reduced efficiency of selection in the early stages of X chromosome evolution.Evolution letters · 2023Article
- X chromosomes show relaxed selection and complete somatic dosage compensation across Timema stick insect species.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2022Article
- How much does the unguarded X contribute to sex differences in life span?Evolution letters · 2022Article
- The X-linked splicing regulator MBNL3 has been co-opted to restrict placental growth in eutherians.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Genetic conflicts and the case for licensed anthropomorphizing.Behavioral ecology and sociobiology · 2022Review
- Medawar and Hamilton on the selective forces in the evolution of ageing.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021Article
- Sexual Antagonism, Temporally Fluctuating Selection, and Variable Dominance Affect a Regulatory Polymorphism in Drosophila melanogaster.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
- Development of a Set of Microsatellite Markers to Investigate Sexually Antagonistic Selection in the Invasive AntInsects · 2021Article
- Variable dosage compensation is associated with female consequences of an X-linked, male-beneficial mutation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Is the X chromosome a hot spot for sexually antagonistic polymorphisms? Biases in current empirical tests of classical theory.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Females and males may face different selection pressures. Accordingly, alleles that confer a benefit for one sex often incur a cost for the other. Classic evolutionary theory holds that the X chromosome, whose sex-biased transmission sees it spending more time in females, should value females more than males, whereas autosomes, whose transmission is unbiased, should value both sexes equally. However, recent mathematical and empirical studies indicate that male-beneficial alleles may be more favoured by the X chromosome than by autosomes. Here we develop a gene's-eye-view approach that reconciles the classic view with these recent discordant results, by separating a gene's valuation of female versus male fitness from its ability to induce fitness effects in either sex. We use this framework to generate new comparative predictions for sexually antagonistic evolution in relation to dosage compensation, sex-specific mortality and assortative mating, revealing how molecular mechanisms, ecology and demography drive variation in masculinization versus feminization across the genome.
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.