Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33092533›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2020

Disruptive natural selection by male reproductive potential prevents underexpression of protein-coding genes on the human Y chromosome as a self-domestication syndrome.

Mikhail Ponomarenko, Maxim Kleshchev, Petr Ponomarenko, Irina Chadaeva, Ekaterina Sharypova, Dmitry Rasskazov, Semyon Kolmykov, Irina Drachkova, Gennady Vasiliev, Natalia Gutorova and 6 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mikhail PonomarenkoInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia. pon@bionet.nsc.ru.ORCID 0000-0003-1663-318X
Maxim KleshchevInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Petr PonomarenkoInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Irina ChadaevaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Ekaterina SharypovaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Dmitry RasskazovInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Semyon KolmykovInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Irina DrachkovaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Gennady VasilievInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Natalia GutorovaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Elena IgnatievaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Ludmila SavinkovaInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Anton BogomolovInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Ludmila OsadchukInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Alexandr OsadchukInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Dmitry OshchepkovInstitute of Cytology and Genetics, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, 10 Lavrentyev Ave, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
Institute of Cytology and Genetics · RUNovosibirsk State University · RU

Funding

Russian Science Support Foundation 19-15-00075
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn population ecology, the concept of reproductive potential denotes the most vital indicator of chances to produce and sustain a healthy descendant until his/her reproductive maturity under the best conditions. This concept links quality of life and longevity of an individual with disease susceptibilities encoded by his/her genome. Female reproductive potential has been investigated deeply, widely, and comprehensively in the past, but the male one has not received an equal amount of attention. Therefore, here we focused on the human Y chromosome and found candidate single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers of male reproductive potential.

resultsExamining in silico (i.e., using our earlier created Web-service SNP_TATA_Z-tester) all 1206 unannotated SNPs within 70 bp proximal promoters of all 63 Y-linked genes, we found 261 possible male-reproductive-potential SNP markers that can significantly alter the binding affinity of TATA-binding protein (TBP) for these promoters. Among them, there are candidate SNP markers of spermatogenesis disorders (e.g., rs1402972626), pediatric cancer (e.g., rs1483581212) as well as male anxiety damaging family relationships and mother's and children's health (e.g., rs187456378). First of all, we selectively verified in vitro both absolute and relative values of the analyzed TBP-promoter affinity, whose Pearson's coefficients of correlation between predicted and measured values were r = 0.84 (significance p <  0.025) and r = 0.98 (p <  0.025), respectively. Next, we found that there are twofold fewer candidate SNP markers decreasing TBP-promoter affinity relative to those increasing it, whereas in the genome-wide norm, SNP-induced damage to TBP-promoter complexes is fourfold more frequent than SNP-induced improvement (p <  0.05, binomial distribution). This means natural selection against underexpression of these genes. Meanwhile, the numbers of candidate SNP markers of an increase and decrease in male reproductive potential were indistinguishably equal to each other (p <  0.05) as if male self-domestication could have happened, with its experimentally known disruptive natural selection. Because there is still not enough scientific evidence that this could have happened, we discuss the human diseases associated with candidate SNP markers of male reproductive potential that may correspond to domestication-related disorders in pets.

conclusionsOverall, our findings seem to support a self-domestication syndrome with disruptive natural selection by male reproductive potential preventing Y-linked underexpression of a protein.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticChromosomes, Human, YDatabases, GeneticDomesticationHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePromoter Regions, GeneticReproductionTATA-Box Binding ProteinTATA-Box Binding ProteinCandidate SNP markerGeneHumanPromoterReproductive potentialSingle-nucleotide polymorphismTATA-binding proteinTATA boxVerificationY chromosome

Identifiers

PMID33092533
PMCPMC7583315
OpenAlexW3093507202

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.