ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2022
Some thoughts about the words we use for thinking about sex chromosome evolution.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating the Semantic Labyrinth of "Sex" in the Study of Reproductive Trait Evolution.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Satellite DNAs and the evolution of the multiple XScientific reports · 2024Article
- The contributions of Nettie Stevens to the field of sex chromosome biology.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Review
- Sex determination and sex chromosome evolution in land plants.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Does polyploidy inhibit sex chromosome evolution in angiosperms?Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sex chromosomes are familiar to most biologists since they first learned about genetics. However, research over the past 100 years has revealed that different organisms have evolved sex-determining systems independently. The differences in the ages of systems, and in how they evolved, both affect whether sex chromosomes have evolved. However, the diversity means that the terminology used tends to emphasize either the similarities or the differences, sometimes causing misunderstandings. In this article, I discuss some concepts where special care is needed with terminology. The following four terms regularly create problems: 'sex chromosome', 'master sex-determining gene', 'evolutionary strata' and 'genetic degeneration'. There is no generally correct or wrong use of these words, but efforts are necessary to make clear how they are to be understood in specific situations. I briefly outline some widely accepted ideas about sex chromosomes, and then discuss these 'problem terms', highlighting some examples where careful use of the words helps bring to light current uncertainties and interesting questions for future work. This article is part of the theme issue 'Sex determination and sex chromosome evolution in land plants'.
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.