4.6 Article

Empirical Evidence for Son-Killing X Chromosomes and the Operation of SA-Zygotic Drive

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023508

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0128780, DEB-0111613]
  2. National Institutes of Health [1R01HD057974-01]
  3. Wenner-Gren Foundations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Diploid organisms have two copies of all genes, but only one is carried by each haploid gamete and diploid offspring. This causes a fundamental genetic conflict over transmission rate between alternative alleles. Single genes, or gene clusters, only rarely code for the complex phenotypes needed to give them a transmission advantage (drive phenotype). However, all genes on a male's X and Y chromosomes co-segregate, allowing different sex-linked genes to code for different parts of the drive phenotype. Correspondingly, the well-characterized phenomenon of male gametic drive, occurring during haploid gametogenesis, is especially common on sex chromosomes. The new theory of sexually antagonistic zygotic drive of the sex chromosomes (SA-zygotic drive) extends the logic of gametic drive into the diploid phase of the lifecycle, whenever there is competition among siblings or harmful sib-sib mating. The X and Y are predicted to gain a transmission advantage by harming offspring of the sex that does not carry them. Results: Here we analyzed a mutant X-chromosome in Drosophila simulans that produced an excess of daughters when transmitted from males. We developed a series of tests to differentiate between gametic and SA-zygotic drive, and provide multiple lines of evidence that SA-zygotic drive is responsible for the sex ratio bias. Driving sires produce about 50% more surviving daughters than sons. Conclusion: Sex-ratio distortion due to genetic conflict has evolved via gametic drive and maternally transmitted endosymbionts. Our data indicate that sex chromosomes can also drive by harming the non-carrier sex of offspring.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据