ArticleGenetics2021
Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.
Article in Genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reconciling theories of dominance with the relative rates of adaptive substitution on sex chromosomes and autosomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fitness effects of deleterious mutations can differ between females and males due to: (i) sex differences in the strength of purifying selection; and (ii) sex differences in ploidy. Although sex differences in fitness effects have important broader implications (e.g., for the evolution of sex and lifespan), few studies have quantified their scope. Those that have belong to one of two distinct empirical traditions: (i) quantitative genetics, which focusses on multi-locus genetic variances in each sex, but is largely agnostic about their genetic basis; and (ii) molecular population genetics, which focusses on comparing autosomal and X-linked polymorphism, but is poorly suited for inferring contemporary sex differences. Here, we combine both traditions to present a comprehensive analysis of female and male adult reproductive fitness among 202 outbred, laboratory-adapted, hemiclonal genomes of Drosophila melanogaster. While we find no clear evidence for sex differences in the strength of purifying selection, sex differences in ploidy generate multiple signals of enhanced purifying selection for X-linked loci. These signals are present in quantitative genetic metrics-i.e., a disproportionate contribution of the X to male (but not female) fitness variation-and population genetic metrics-i.e., steeper regressions of an allele's average fitness effect on its frequency, and proportionally less nonsynonymous polymorphism on the X than autosomes. Fitting our data to models for both sets of metrics, we infer that deleterious alleles are partially recessive. Given the often-large gap between quantitative and population genetic estimates of evolutionary parameters, our study showcases the benefits of combining genomic and fitness data when estimating such parameters.
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.