MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409725238 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2421185122

A selfish supergene causes meiotic drive through both sexes in <i>Drosophila</i>

2025· article· en· W4409725238 on OpenAlexafffund
Graeme L. Keais, Chadi M. Saad-Roy, Emmanuel Gonzalez-Sqalli, Loren H. Rieseberg, Ryan M.R. Gawryluk, P. van den Driessche, Kevin H.-C. Wei, Benjamin Loppin, Steve J. Perlman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAdolph C. and Mary Sprague Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science, University of California Berkeley
KeywordsMeiosisMeiotic driveBiologySupergene (geology)GeneticsChromosome segregationHomologous recombinationEvolutionary biologyChromosomal crossoverGameteChromosomeGeneSpermEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meiotic drivers are selfish genetic elements that bias their own transmission during meiosis or gamete formation. Due to the fundamental differences between male and female meiosis in animals and plants, meiotic drivers operate through distinct mechanisms in the two sexes: In females, they exploit the asymmetry of meiosis to ensure their inclusion in the egg, whereas in males, they eliminate competing gametes after symmetric meiosis. Meiotic drive is commonly reported in males, where it strongly influences the evolution of spermatogenesis, while the few known cases in females have highlighted its crucial role in centromere evolution. Despite a growing number of examples in a wide range of organisms, meiotic drive has so far only been observed in one sex or the other since its discovery nearly 100 y ago. Here, we show that a selfish X chromosome known to cause meiotic drive in male Drosophila testacea flies also causes meiotic drive in females. We find that this X chromosome has supergene architecture, harboring extensive structural rearrangements that suppress recombination between the two X chromosomes. This has contributed to a substantial expansion of its size compared to the wild-type chromosome, partly due to the accumulation of species-specific repetitive elements. Our findings suggest that female meiotic drive may play an important role in the evolutionary dynamics of polymorphic structural variants that suppress recombination, including inversions, translocations, and supergenes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→