ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
No evidence for sex-differential transcriptomes driving genome-wide sex-differential natural selection.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. 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.
- Reverse genetics of sexual antagonism.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Analysis of the impact of gene evolution on reproductive effects reveals prevalent sexual and germline-soma conflicts.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Drivers of systemic male-female allele frequency divergence in humans.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Sex differences in human transcriptomes have been argued to drive sex-differential selection (SDS). Here, we show that previous evidence supporting this hypothesis has been largely unfounded. We develop a method to test for a genome-wide relationship between sex differences in expression and selection on expression-influencing alleles (expression quantitative trait loci [eQTLs]). We apply it across 34 human tissues and find no evidence for a general relationship. We offer possible explanations for the lack of evidence, including that it is due in part to eQTL ascertainment bias toward sites under weak selection. We conclude that the drivers of ongoing SDS in humans remain to be identified.
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.