Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39079663›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2024

Mate choice in the brain: species differ in how male traits 'turn on' gene expression in female brains.

Jason Keagy, Hans A Hofmann, Janette W Boughman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jason KeagyDepartment of Ecosystem Science and Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1235-4837
Hans A HofmannDepartment of Integrative Biology, Institute for Neuroscience, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3335-330X
Janette W BoughmanDepartment of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5731-7389

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mate choice plays a fundamental role in speciation, yet we know little about the molecular mechanisms that underpin this crucial decision-making process. Stickleback fish differentially adapted to limnetic and benthic habitats are reproductively isolated and females of each species use different male traits to evaluate prospective partners and reject heterospecific males. Here, we integrate behavioural data from a mate choice experiment with gene expression profiles from the brains of females actively deciding whether to mate. We find substantial gene expression variation between limnetic and benthic females, regardless of behavioural context, suggesting general divergence in constitutive gene expression patterns, corresponding to their genetic differentiation. Intriguingly, female gene co-expression modules covary with male display traits but in opposing directions for sympatric populations of the two species, suggesting male displays elicit a dynamic neurogenomic response that reflects known differences in female preferences. Furthermore, we confirm the role of numerous candidate genes previously implicated in female mate choice in other species, suggesting evolutionary tinkering with these conserved molecular processes to generate divergent mate preferences. Taken together, our study adds important new insights to our understanding of the molecular processes underlying female decision-making critical for generating sexual isolation and speciation.

Indexed as

BrainMating Preference, AnimalSmegmamorphaAnimalsFemaleGene ExpressionMaleSpecies Specificitybraingene expressionmate choicespeciationstickleback

Identifiers

PMID39079663
PMCPMC11288669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.