ArticleGenome biology and evolution2024
Comparative Genomic Analysis of the Pattern of Evolution of Male and Female Reproductive Proteins in Seed Beetles.
Article in Genome biology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effects of sexual selection on functional and molecular reproductive divergence during experimental evolution in seed beetles.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review: Deep Learning for Analyzing Genomic Data to Discover Evolutionary Patterns.Scientifica · 2026Review
- Correlated Gene Copy Number Changes in a Seminal Fluid Protein Network inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Male seminal fluid proteins often show signs of positive selection and divergent evolution, believed to reflect male-female coevolution. Yet, our understanding of the predicted concerted evolution of seminal fluid proteins and female reproductive proteins is limited. We sequenced, assembled, and annotated the genome of two species of seed beetles allowing a comparative analysis of four closely related species of these herbivorous insects. We compare the general pattern of evolution in genes encoding seminal fluid proteins and female reproductive proteins with those in digestive protein genes and well-conserved reference genes. We found that female reproductive proteins showed an overall ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous substitutions (ω) similar to that of conserved genes, while seminal fluid proteins and digestive proteins exhibited higher overall ω values. Further, seminal fluid proteins and digestive proteins showed a higher proportion of sites putatively under positive selection, and explicit tests showed no difference in relaxed selection between protein types. Evolutionary rate covariation analyses showed that evolutionary rates among seminal fluid proteins were on average more closely correlated with those in female reproductive proteins than with either digestive or conserved genes. Gene expression showed the expected negative covariation with ω values, except for male-biased genes where this negative relationship was reversed. In conclusion, seminal fluid proteins showed relatively rapid evolution and signs of positive selection. In contrast, female reproductive proteins evolved at a lower rate under selective constraints, on par with genes known to be well conserved. Although our findings provide support for concerted evolution of seminal fluid proteins and female reproductive proteins, they also suggest that these two classes of proteins evolve under partly distinct selective regimes.
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.