The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Centromere-Associated Female Meiotic Drive Entails Male Fitness Costs in Monkeyflowers
Abstract
Female meiotic drive, in which paired chromosomes compete for access to the egg, is a potentially powerful but rarely documented evolutionary force. In interspecific monkeyflower ( Mimulus ) hybrids, a driving M. guttatus allele ( D ) exhibits a 98:2 transmission advantage via female meiosis. We show that extreme interspecific drive is most likely caused by divergence in centromere-associated repeat domains and document cytogenetic and functional polymorphism for drive within a population of M. guttatus. In conspecific crosses, D had a 58:42 transmission advantage over nondriving alternative alleles. However, individuals homozygous for the driving allele suffered reduced pollen viability. These fitness effects and molecular population genetic data suggest that balancing selection prevents the fixation or loss of D and that selfish chromosomal transmission may affect both individual fitness and population genetic load.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The two examples of female meiotic drive discovered in plants so far, in maize and monkeyflower (Buckler et al., 1999; Fishman and Saunders, 2008; Clark and Akera, 2021; Finseth et al., 2021), are not associated with translocations.”
From Genomics of plant speciation (2023) · cites this paper as Fishman and Saunders, 2008
Citations
Cites
THE GENETIC BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE
Felsenstein, J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1975) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1975.tb00851.x · Cited by 3,894
The Centromere Paradox: Stable Inheritance with Rapidly Evolving DNA
Henikoff, S., Ahmad, K., & Malik, H. S. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1062939 · Cited by 1,394
Kumar, A., & Bennetzen, J. L. (1999) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.33.1.479 · Cited by 1,055
Understanding quantitative genetic variation
Barton, N., & Keightley, P. D. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg700 · Cited by 833
Balancing Selection and Its Effects on Sequences in Nearby Genome Regions
Charlesworth, D. (2006) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020064 · Cited by 727
Fishman, L., Kelly, A. J., Morgan, E. A., & Willis, J. H. (2001) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/159.4.1701 · Cited by 334
Self-citationTheoretical models of selection and mutation on quantitative traits
Johnson, T., & Barton, N. (2005) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1667 · Cited by 317
A molecular view of plant centromeres
Jiang, J., Birchler, J. A., Parrott, W. A., & Dawe, R. K. (2003) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2003.10.011 · Cited by 315
Female Meiosis Drives Karyotypic Evolution in Mammals
de Villena, F. P., & Sapienza, C. (2001) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/159.3.1179 · Cited by 281
Nonrandom segregation during meiosis: the unfairness of females
de Villena, F. P., & Sapienza, C. (2001) · Mammalian Genome · doi:10.1007/s003350040003 · Cited by 228
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The genetics of inbreeding depression
Charlesworth, D., & Willis, J. H. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2664 · Cited by 2,313
The genomic landscape of species divergence in Ficedula flycatchers
Ellegren, H., Smeds, L., Burri, R., Olason, P. I., Backström, N., Kawakami, T., Künstner, A., Mäkinen, H., Nadachowska‐Brzyska, K., Qvarnström, A., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11584 · Cited by 640
The molecular evolutionary basis of species formation
Presgraves, D. C. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2718 · Cited by 595
Melters, D. P., Bradnam, K. R., Young, H. A., Telis, N., May, M. R., Ruby, J. G., Sebra, R., Peluso, P. S., Eid, J. S., Rank, D. R., et al. (2013) · Genome biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-1-r10 · Cited by 528
The Genetics of Hybrid Incompatibilities
Maheshwari, S., & Barbash, D. A. (2011) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genet-110410-132514 · Cited by 439
Metadata
- Authors
- Fishman, L., & Saunders, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Montana (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fishman, Lila
- Saunders, Arpiar
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2008-12-05
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 5907
- Pages
- 1559-1562
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W1987871994
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 14.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
- Keywords
- interspecific hybrids, Mimulus guttatus, selfish genetic elements, pollen viability, balancing selection
- MeSH terms
- Alleles, Base Sequence, Centromere, Crosses, Genetic, Biological Evolution, Genetic Markers, Heterozygote, Hybridization, Genetic, Meiosis, Molecular Sequence Data, Polymorphism, Genetic, Repetitive Sequences, Nucleic Acid, Selection, Genetic, Linkage Disequilibrium, Chromosome Segregation, Mimulus, Chromosomes, Plant
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
