ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2025
Sex-Biased Gene Expression Under Sexually Antagonistic and Sex-Limited Selection.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sex differences in gene expression are ubiquitous, evolve quickly, and are expected to underlie phenotypic sexual dimorphism (SD). Despite long-standing interest, the impact of sex-specific selection on the transcriptome remains poorly understood. Here, we test fundamental questions on the role of constraints on gene expression evolution arising from the mode of selection and genetic architecture. We also test the relationship between sex-biased expression and evolved SD. We assess these using body size selection lines in the seed beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus, that have evolved variation in SD in response to either sex-limited (SL) or sexually antagonistic (SA). We find that sex differences in the phenotypic responses and expression changes are generally well aligned. SL selection, despite a phenotypic response similar to SA selection in males, but not in females, resulted in a more extensive expression differentiation and increase of sex-biased expression than SA selection. These patterns show that SA selection imposes a transcriptomic constraint and is not required for sex-bias to evolve. Sex-biased transcripts show lower cross-sex correlations in expression changes than unbiased transcripts, suggesting greater sex differences in their underlying genetic architecture. Although male-biased transcripts are disproportionately affected when selection targeted males, we find no support for a transcriptome-wide association between sex-bias and SD. In the light of these unique experimental insights into how sex-specific selection on size changes adult transcription, our findings have important implications for inferring selection history and mode from patterns of sex-biased gene expression in natural populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.