Expression Divergence in Response to Sex-biased Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It remains debated whether greater degrees of sexual dimorphism would evolve if not for intersexual genetic constraints. Here, we used experimental evolution to partially break the intersexual genetic constraint in Drosophila melanogaster to investigate the effects of a shared gene pool on the evolution of sexual dimorphism in gene expression. In six replicate populations of 1,000 flies, a dominant marker (DsRed) was used to force a "Red" pool of genetically variable Chromosome 2 copies through exclusive father-to-son inheritance, while a complimentary pool of "NonRed" chromosomes was inherited primarily from mothers to daughters. After 100 generations, we demonstrated the effect of Red male-limited chromosomes in increasing male mating success. Differentially expressed genes between flies with and without Red chromosomes had on average higher intersexual genetic correlations (rMF), as expected if such correlations represent a constraint to sex-specific adaptation under normal inheritance. If conflict hinders the evolution of further dimorphism, the transcriptomes of male-selected Red chromosomes were predicted to evolve to be "masculinized" relative to female-selected NonRed chromosomes. Consistent with this, splicing patterns in Red males (but not Red females) were masculinized relative to NonRed males. Contrastingly, gene expression levels were largely feminized in Red flies of both sexes compared with NonRed. We discuss alternative forms of intralocus sexual conflict that may explain these patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".