4.5 Article

Evolution of Sex Chromosome Dosage Compensation in Animals: A Beautiful Theory, Undermined by Facts and Bedeviled by Details

Journal

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages 2461-2476

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evx154

Keywords

sex chromosomes; dosage compensation; heterogamety

Funding

  1. NSF-DEB [1457758]
  2. University of Kansas
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [1457758] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many animals with genetic sex determination harbor heteromorphic sex chromosomes, where the heterogametic sex has half the gene dose of the homogametic sex. This imbalance, if reflected in the abundance of transcripts or proteins, has the potential to deleteriously disrupt interactions between X-linked and autosomal loci in the heterogametic sex. Classical theory predicts that molecular mechanisms will evolve to provide dosage compensation that recovers expression levels comparable to ancestral expression prior to sex chromosome divergence. Such dosage compensating mechanisms may also, secondarily, result in balanced sex-linked gene expression between males and females. However, numerous recent studies addressing sex chromosome dosage compensation (SCDC) in a diversity of animals have yielded a surprising array of patterns concerning dosage compensation in the heterogametic sex, as well as dosage balance between sexes. These results substantially contradict longstanding theory, catalyzing both novel perspectives and new approaches in dosage compensation research. In this review, we summarize the theory, analytical approaches, and recent results concerning evolutionary patterns of SCDC in animals. We also discuss methodological challenges and discrepancies encountered in this research, which often underlie conflicting results. Finally, we discuss what outstanding questions and opportunities exist for future research on SCDC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available