Systematic review reveals sexually antagonistic knockouts in model organisms.

Sexual antagonism is thought to be an important selective force in multiple evolutionary processes, but very few examples of the genes involved are known. Such a deficit of loci could partially be explained by the lack of overlap in terminology between scientific disciplines. Following a similar review in humans, we searched systematically for studies that described genes with sexually antagonistic or sex-opposite effects in any taxa, using terms designed to capture alternative descriptions of sexual antagonism. Despite drawing on a potentially very large pool of studies we found only eight articles, which between them described seven candidate variants, five of these were gene knockouts. In every case, the variants had net negative effects on the focal trait. One locus was independently validated between studies, but in comparison to previous data on variants in humans and the fruit-fly, the studies generally suffered from small sample sizes, with concomitant high variance. Our review highlights the radically different effects that gene deletions can have on males and females, where the beneficial effects seen in one sex may facilitate the evolution of gene loss. We searched systematically for genetic variants with sexually antagonistic or sex-opposite effects in any taxa. Of 2116 articles, we found seven candidate variants, five of which were gene knockouts. Our review highlights the radically different effects that gene deletions can have on males and females, where the beneficial effects seen in one sex may facilitate the evolution of gene loss.

Systematic review reveals multiple sexually antagonistic polymorphisms affecting human disease and complex traits.

An evolutionary model for sex differences in disease risk posits that alleles conferring higher risk in one sex may be protective in the other. These sexually antagonistic (SA) alleles are predicted to be maintained at frequencies higher than expected under purifying selection against unconditionally deleterious alleles, but there are apparently no examples in humans. Discipline-specific terminology, rather than a genuine lack of such alleles, could explain this disparity. We undertook a two-stage review of evidence for SA polymorphisms in humans using search terms from (i) evolutionary biology and (ii) biomedicine. Although the first stage returned no eligible studies, the second revealed 51 genes with sex-opposite effects; 22 increased disease risk or severity in one sex but protected the other. Those with net positive effects occurred at higher frequencies. None were referred to as SA. Our review reveals significant communication barriers to fields as a result of discipline-specific terminology.