ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Assortative mating enhances postzygotic barriers to gene flow via ancestry bundling.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The paradoxical extinction: Exploring signatures of assortative mating as a possible mechanism that maintains canonical Red Wolf genetic ancestry in the American Gulf Coast canids.The Journal of heredity · 2026Article
- Differentiating mechanism from outcome for ancestry-assortative mating in admixed human populations.Genetics · 2025Article
- Differentiating mechanism from outcome for ancestry-assortative mating in admixed human populations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Color polymorphism and mating trends in a population of the alpine leaf beetle Oreina gloriosa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Non-random mating within an Island rookery of Hawaiian hawksbill turtles: demographic discontinuity at a small coastline scale.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Hybridization and subsequent genetic introgression are now known to be common features of the histories of many species, including our own. Following hybridization, selection often purges introgressed DNA genome-wide. While assortative mating can limit hybridization in the first place, it is also known to play an important role in postzygotic selection against hybrids and, thus, the purging of introgressed DNA. However, this role is usually thought of as a direct one: a tendency for mates to be conspecific reduces the sexual fitness of hybrids, reducing the transmission of introgressed ancestry. Here, we explore a second, indirect role of assortative mating as a postzygotic barrier to gene flow. Under assortative mating, parents covary in their ancestry, causing ancestry to be "bundled" in their offspring and later generations. This bundling effect increases ancestry variance in the population, enhancing the efficiency with which postzygotic selection purges introgressed DNA. Using whole-genome simulations, we show that the bundling effect can comprise a substantial portion of mate choice's overall effect as a postzygotic barrier to gene flow. We then derive a simple method for estimating the impact of the bundling effect from standard metrics of assortative mating. Applying this method to data from a diverse set of hybrid zones, we find that the bundling effect increases the purging of introgressed DNA by between 1.2-fold (in a baboon system with weak assortative mating) and 14-fold (in a swordtail system with strong assortative mating). Thus, assortative mating's bundling effect contributes substantially to the genetic isolation of species.
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.