4.8 Article

Evolution of dosage compensation under sexual selection differs between X and Z chromosomes

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8720

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation
  2. European Research Council [260233]
  3. National Environment Research Council PhD studentship
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D009189/1, NE/G019452/1, NE/G00563X/1]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/F500351/1, EP/I017909/1, EP/K038656/1]
  6. EPSRC [EP/I017909/1, EP/K038656/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. NERC [NE/D009189/1, NE/G00563X/1, NE/G019452/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K038656/1, EP/I017909/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G019452/1, NE/D009189/1, NE/G00563X/1, 1346682] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Complete sex chromosome dosage compensation has more often been observed in XY than ZW species. In this study, using a population genetic model and the chicken transcriptome, we assess whether sexual conflict can account for this difference. Sexual conflict over expression is inevitable when mutation effects are correlated across the sexes, as compensatory mutations in the heterogametic sex lead to hyperexpression in the homogametic sex. Coupled with stronger selection and greater reproductive variance in males, this results in slower and less complete evolution of Z compared with X dosage compensation. Using expression variance as a measure of selection strength, we find that, as predicted by the model, dosage compensation in the chicken is most pronounced in genes that are under strong selection biased towards females. Our study explains the pattern of weak dosage compensation in ZW systems, and suggests that sexual selection plays a major role in shaping sex chromosome dosage compensation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available