4.3 Article

Limits to Genomic Divergence Under Sexually Antagonistic Selection

Journal

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 3813-3824

Publisher

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400711

Keywords

antagonistic selection; sexual conflict; male-female divergence; intersexual F-ST; genetic load

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [T32GM007413, R01GM102511]
  2. ARCS Oregon Chapter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Since the autosomal genome is shared between the sexes, sex-specific fitness optima present an evolutionary challenge. While sexually antagonistic selection might favor different alleles within females and males, segregation randomly reassorts alleles at autosomal loci between sexes each generation. This process of homogenization during transmission thus prevents between-sex allelic divergence generated by sexually antagonistic selection from accumulating across multiple generations. However, recent empirical studies have reported high male-female F-ST statistics. Here, we use a population genetic model to evaluate whether these observations could plausibly be produced by sexually antagonistic selection. To do this, we use both a single-locus model with nonrandom mate choice, and individual-based simulations to study the relationship between strength of selection, degree of between-sex divergence, and the associated genetic load. We show that selection must be exceptionally strong to create measurable divergence between the sexes and that the decrease in population fitness due to this process is correspondingly high. Individual-based simulations with selection genome-wide recapitulate these patterns and indicate that small sample sizes and sampling variance can easily generate substantial male-female divergence. We therefore conclude that caution should be taken when interpreting autosomal allelic differentiation between the sexes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available