Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34370728›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2021

How did the guppy Y chromosome evolve?

Deborah Charlesworth, Roberta Bergero, Chay Graham, Jim Gardner, Karen Keegan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Parsimony and Poeciliid Sex Chromosome Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Repeated translocation of a supergene underlying rapid sex chromosome turnover inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah CharlesworthInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3939-9122
Roberta BergeroInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Chay GrahamUniversity of Cambridge, Department of Biochemistry, Sanger Building, 80 Tennis Court Road, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4533-9521
Jim GardnerInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Karen KeeganInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3458-7079
University of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sex chromosome pairs of many species do not undergo genetic recombination, unlike the autosomes. It has been proposed that the suppressed recombination results from natural selection favouring close linkage between sex-determining genes and mutations on this chromosome with advantages in one sex, but disadvantages in the other (these are called sexually antagonistic mutations). No example of such selection leading to suppressed recombination has been described, but populations of the guppy display sexually antagonistic mutations (affecting male coloration), and would be expected to evolve suppressed recombination. In extant close relatives of the guppy, the Y chromosomes have suppressed recombination, and have lost all the genes present on the X (this is called genetic degeneration). However, the guppy Y occasionally recombines with its X, despite carrying sexually antagonistic mutations. We describe evidence that a new Y evolved recently in the guppy, from an X chromosome like that in these relatives, replacing the old, degenerated Y, and explaining why the guppy pair still recombine. The male coloration factors probably arose after the new Y evolved, and have already evolved expression that is confined to males, a different way to avoid the conflict between the sexes.

Indexed as

AnimalsEvolution, MolecularFish ProteinsMalePoeciliaRecombination, GeneticSelection, GeneticSkin PigmentationX ChromosomeY ChromosomeFish Proteins

Identifiers

PMID34370728
PMCPMC8376059
OpenAlexW3184941417

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.