ArticleGenetics2021
Evaluating human autosomal loci for sexually antagonistic viability selection in two large biobanks.
Article in Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved polygenic risk prediction models for breast cancer subtypes in women of African ancestry.Nature genetics · 2026Article
- Drivers of systemic male-female allele frequency divergence in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Integrating multi-ancestry genomic and proteomic data to identify blood risk biomarkers and target proteins for breast cancer genetic risk loci.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- A semi-empirical Bayes approach for calibrating weak instrumental bias in sex-specific Mendelian randomization studies.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- The African-Specific Variant in the Duffy Antigen Receptor for Chemokines Gene, CD8+ T-Cell Density, and Aggressive Breast Cancer Subtypes in Black Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Hiding in plain sight: the Y chromosome and its reinvigorated role in evolutionary processes.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- The maintenance of genetic polymorphism underlying sexually antagonistic traits.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- No evidence for sex-differential transcriptomes driving genome-wide sex-differential natural selection.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- The battle of the sexes in humans is highly polygenic.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Genome-wide association analyses of breast cancer in women of African ancestry identify new susceptibility loci and improve risk prediction.Nature genetics · 2024Article
- Dominance reversals: the resolution of genetic conflict and maintenance of genetic variation.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Review
- Comprehensive whole-genome analyses of the UK Biobank reveal significant sex differences in both genotype missingness and allele frequency on the X chromosome.Human molecular genetics · 2024Article
- Unveiling recent and ongoing adaptive selection in human populations.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Toward a deeper understanding of gene-by-sex interaction models.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- Amplification is the primary mode of gene-by-sex interaction in complex human traits.Cell genomics · 2023Article
- Genome- and transcriptome-wide association studies of 386,000 Asian and European-ancestry women provide new insights into breast cancer genetics.American journal of human genetics · 2022Article
- Article
- Sex-specific natural selection on SNPs inEvolution letters · 2022Article
- An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Sex and sexual differentiation are pervasive across the tree of life. Because females and males often have substantially different functional requirements, we expect selection to differ between the sexes. Recent studies in diverse species, including humans, suggest that sexually antagonistic viability selection creates allele frequency differences between the sexes at many different loci. However, theory and population-level simulations indicate that sex-specific differences in viability would need to be very large to produce and maintain reported levels of between-sex allelic differentiation. We address this contradiction between theoretical predictions and empirical observations by evaluating evidence for sexually antagonistic viability selection on autosomal loci in humans using the largest cohort to date (UK Biobank, n = 487,999) along with a second large, independent cohort (BioVU, n = 93,864). We performed association tests between genetically ascertained sex and autosomal loci. Although we found dozens of genome-wide significant associations, none replicated across cohorts. Moreover, closer inspection revealed that all associations are likely due to cross-hybridization with sex chromosome regions during genotyping. We report loci with potential for mis-hybridization found on commonly used genotyping platforms that should be carefully considered in future genetic studies of sex-specific differences. Despite being well powered to detect allele frequency differences of up to 0.8% between the sexes, we do not detect clear evidence for this signature of sexually antagonistic viability selection on autosomal variation. These findings suggest a lack of strong ongoing sexually antagonistic viability selection acting on single locus autosomal variation in humans.
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.