ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Brinkmanship in intragenomic conflict.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Brinkmanship in intragenomic conflict.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When the Darwinian interests of genes in the genome collide, intragenomic conflicts evolve. Recent advances in social evolution predict that intragenomic conflicts shape diverse phenotypes. However, principles governing which side wins remain unresolved. Here, we use game theory to predict that power asymmetries arise from differences in appetite for risk between rival genes in 'wars of nerve'. We focus on 'genomic imprinting': differing expression between alleles inherited from mothers and fathers. Escalating conflict is commonly believed to risk damaging the whole organism. We show that genes can exploit risk strategically: genes prepared to take greater risks with the body's vulnerability to disorders and mortality gain coercive advantages, deterring countermoves. Kin selection generates differences in appetite for risk: for instance, if harm to the body frees resources for maternal siblings, genes from mothers have less to lose from gambling with the current body than do genes from fathers. Seemingly maladaptive developmental risks can be adaptively useful for higher-nerve genes, much as political states manipulate risk to coerce rivals. Our results suggest a determinant of power alongside the 'loudest voice prevails' principle, and call for empirical investigation of the extent and means by which risks of imprinting-related disorders are amplified by intragenomic brinkmanship.
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.