4.7 Article

Sex chromosomes and speciation in birds and other ZW systems

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 27, 期 19, 页码 3831-3851

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.14537

关键词

hybridization; sex chromosomes; sexual antagonism; speciation; W chromosome; Z chromosome

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [311931]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Theory and empirical patterns suggest a disproportionate role for sex chromosomes in evolution and speciation. Focusing on ZW sex determination (females ZW, males ZZ; the system in birds, many snakes, and lepidopterans), I review how evolutionary dynamics are expected to differ between the Z, W and the autosomes, discuss how these differences may lead to a greater role of the sex chromosomes in speciation and use data from birds to compare relative evolutionary rates of sex chromosomes and autosomes. Neutral mutations, partially or completely recessive beneficial mutations, and deleterious mutations under many conditions are expected to accumulate faster on the Z than on autosomes. Sexually antagonistic polymorphisms are expected to arise on the Z, raising the possibility of the spread of preference alleles. The faster accumulation of many types of mutations and the potential for complex evolutionary dynamics of sexually antagonistic traits and preferences contribute to a role for the Z chromosome in speciation. A quantitative comparison among a wide variety of bird species shows that the Z tends to have less within-population diversity and greater between-species differentiation than the autosomes, likely due to both adaptive evolution and a greater rate of fixation of deleterious alleles. The W chromosome also shows strong potential to be involved in speciation, in part because of its co-inheritance with the mitochondrial genome. While theory and empirical evidence suggest a disproportionate role for sex chromosomes in speciation, the importance of sex chromosomes is moderated by their small size compared to the whole genome.

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

4.7
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