ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2022
Comparison of methodological approaches to the study of young sex chromosomes: A case study in Poecilia.
Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Before the East African Radiation: Sex Chromosome Systems in Basal Haplotilapiine Cichlids.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Multiple Origins of Sex Chromosomes in Nothobranchius Killifishes.Molecular ecology · 2025Article
- Reduced Efficacy of Selection on a Young Z Chromosome Region of Schistosoma japonicum.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Turnover of sex chromosomes in the Lake Tanganyika cichlid tribe Tropheini (Teleostei: Cichlidae).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Genome assemblies forFrontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Parsimony and Poeciliid Sex Chromosome Evolution.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Evolutionary History of the Poecilia picta Sex Chromosomes.Genome biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Comparison of methodological approaches to the study of young sex chromosomes: A case study in Poecilia.Journal of evolutionary biology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies of sex chromosome systems at early stages of divergence are key to understanding the initial process and underlying causes of recombination suppression. However, identifying signatures of divergence in homomorphic sex chromosomes can be challenging due to high levels of sequence similarity between the X and the Y. Variations in methodological precision and underlying data can make all the difference between detecting subtle divergence patterns or missing them entirely. Recent efforts to test for X-Y sequence differentiation in the guppy have led to contradictory results. Here, we apply different analytical methodologies to the same data set to test for the accuracy of different approaches in identifying patterns of sex chromosome divergence in the guppy. Our comparative analysis reveals that the most substantial source of variation in the results of the different analyses lies in the reference genome used. Analyses using custom-made genome assemblies for the focal population or species successfully recover a signal of divergence across different methodological approaches. By contrast, using the distantly related Xiphophorus reference genome results in variable patterns, due to both sequence evolution and structural variations on the sex chromosomes between the guppy and Xiphophorus. Changes in mapping and filtering parameters can additionally introduce noise and obscure the signal. Our results illustrate how analytical differences can alter perceived results and we highlight best practices for the study of nascent sex chromosomes.
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.