Literature DB >> 33081608

Is the X chromosome a hot spot for sexually antagonistic polymorphisms? Biases in current empirical tests of classical theory.

Filip Ruzicka1, Tim Connallon1.   

Abstract

Females and males carry nearly identical genomes, which can constrain the evolution of sexual dimorphism and generate conditions that are favourable for maintaining sexually antagonistic (SA) polymorphisms, in which alleles beneficial for one sex are deleterious for the other. An influential theoretical prediction, by Rice (Rice 1984 Evolution 38, 735-742), is that the X chromosome should be a 'hot spot' (i.e. enriched) for SA polymorphisms. While important caveats to Rice's theoretical prediction have since been highlighted (e.g. by Fry (2010) Evolution 64, 1510-1516), several empirical studies appear to support it. Here, we show that current tests of Rice's theory-most of which are based on quantitative genetic measures of fitness (co)variance-are frequently biased towards detecting X-linked effects. We show that X-linked genes tend to contribute disproportionately to quantitative genetic patterns of SA fitness variation whether or not the X is enriched for SA polymorphisms. Population genomic approaches for detecting SA loci, including genome-wide association study of fitness and analyses of intersexual FST, are similarly biased towards detecting X-linked effects. In the light of our models, we critically re-evaluate empirical evidence for Rice's theory and discuss prospects for empirically testing it.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fitness covariance; intersexual Fst; sex chromosomes; sex-specific selection; sexual antagonism; theoretical models

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33081608      PMCID: PMC7661300          DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.1869

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN: 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


  75 in total

Review 1.  Evolution on the X chromosome: unusual patterns and processes.

Authors:  Beatriz Vicoso; Brian Charlesworth
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 53.242

2.  Evolutionary inevitability of sexual antagonism.

Authors:  Tim Connallon; Andrew G Clark
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  A note on the island model with sex dependent migration.

Authors:  T Prout
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1981-09       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  An experimental test of the mutation-selection balance model for the maintenance of genetic variance in fitness components.

Authors:  Nathaniel P Sharp; Aneil F Agrawal
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  The effects of selection and genetic drift on the genomic distribution of sexually antagonistic alleles.

Authors:  Charles Mullon; Andrew Pomiankowski; Max Reuter
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  Regions of stable equilibria for models of differential selection in the two sexes under random mating.

Authors:  J F Kidwell; M T Clegg; F M Stewart; T Prout
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1977-01       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Intralocus sexual conflict and environmental stress.

Authors:  David Berger; Karl Grieshop; Martin I Lind; Julieta Goenaga; Alexei A Maklakov; Göran Arnqvist
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Experimental mutation-accumulation on the X chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster reveals stronger selection on males than females.

Authors:  Martin A Mallet; Jessica M Bouchard; Christopher M Kimber; Adam K Chippindale
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2011-06-06       Impact factor: 3.260

9.  Genome-wide sexually antagonistic variants reveal long-standing constraints on sexual dimorphism in fruit flies.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Mark S Hill; Tanya M Pennell; Ilona Flis; Fiona C Ingleby; Richard Mott; Kevin Fowler; Edward H Morrow; Max Reuter
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 8.029

10.  Sex-Specific Selection and Sex-Biased Gene Expression in Humans and Flies.

Authors:  Changde Cheng; Mark Kirkpatrick
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  5 in total

1.  Sex differences in deleterious mutational effects in Drosophila melanogaster: combining quantitative and population genetic insights.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon; Max Reuter
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2021-11-05       Impact factor: 4.402

2.  Searching for signatures of sexually antagonistic selection on stickleback sex chromosomes.

Authors:  Andrius J Dagilis; Jason M Sardell; Matthew P Josephson; Yiheng Su; Mark Kirkpatrick; Catherine L Peichel
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 6.671

3.  An unbiased test reveals no enrichment of sexually antagonistic polymorphisms on the human X chromosome.

Authors:  Filip Ruzicka; Tim Connallon
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Experimental evolution reveals sex-specific dominance for surviving bacterial infection in laboratory populations of Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Manas Geeta Arun; Amisha Agarwala; Zeeshan Ali Syed; Mayank Kashyap; Saudamini Venkatesan; Tejinder Singh Chechi; Vanika Gupta; Nagaraj Guru Prasad
Journal:  Evol Lett       Date:  2021-10-14

5.  Systematic review reveals multiple sexually antagonistic polymorphisms affecting human disease and complex traits.

Authors:  Jon Alexander Harper; Tim Janicke; Edward H Morrow
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 4.171

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.