The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dosage compensation is less effective in birds than in mammals
Open accessAbstract
Background: In animals with heteromorphic sex chromosomes, dosage compensation of sex-chromosome genes is thought to be critical for species survival. Diverse molecular mechanisms have evolved to effectively balance the expressed dose of X-linked genes between XX and XY animals, and to balance expression of X and autosomal genes. Dosage compensation is not understood in birds, in which females (ZW) and males (ZZ) differ in the number of Z chromosomes. Results: Using microarray analysis, we compared the male:female ratio of expression of sets of Z-linked and autosomal genes in two bird species, zebra finch and chicken, and in two mammalian species, mouse and human. Male:female ratios of expression were significantly higher for Z genes than for autosomal genes in several finch and chicken tissues. In contrast, in mouse and human the male:female ratio of expression of X-linked genes is quite similar to that of autosomal genes, indicating effective dosage compensation even in humans, in which a significant percentage of genes escape X-inactivation. Conclusion: Birds represent an unprecedented case in which genes on one sex chromosome are expressed on average at constitutively higher levels in one sex compared with the other. Sex-chromosome dosage compensation is surprisingly ineffective in birds, suggesting that some genomes can do without effective sex-specific sex-chromosome dosage compensation mechanisms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tissue-specific expression and regulation of sexually dimorphic genes in mice
Yang, X., Schadt, E. E., Wang, S., Wang, H., Arnold, A. P., Ingram-Drake, L., Drake, T. A., & Lusis, A. J. (2006) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.5217506 · Cited by 922
Self-citationSkeletal muscle gene expression profiles in 20–29 year old and 65–71 year old women
Welle, S., Brooks, A. I., Delehanty, J. M., Needler, N., Bhatt, K., Shah, B., & Thornton, C. A. (2004) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2003.11.011 · Cited by 210 · cited 3×
“GDS472 contained data for 15 females and GDS287 listed data for 15 males.”
MethodResult
Cited by
The evolution of sex-biased genes and sex-biased gene expression
Ellegren, H., & Parsch, J. (2007) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2167 · Cited by 925
Genome analysis of the platypus reveals unique signatures of evolution
paper, A. L. O. A. A. T. A. A. A. T. E. O. T. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature06936 · Cited by 719
Arnold, A. P., & Chen, X. (2009) · Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2008.11.001 · Cited by 587
Self-citationThe Number of X Chromosomes Causes Sex Differences in Adiposity in Mice
Chen, X., McClusky, R., Chen, J., Beaven, S. W., Tontonoz, P., Arnold, A. P., & Reue, K. (2012) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002709 · Cited by 326
Self-citationBurgoyne, P. S., & Arnold, A. P. (2016) · Biology of Sex Differences · doi:10.1186/s13293-016-0115-5 · Cited by 154
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Itoh, Y., Melamed, E., Yang, X., Kampf, K., Wang, S., Yehya, N., Van Nas, A., Replogle, K., Band, M. R., Clayton, D. F., Schadt, E. E., Lusis, A. J., & Arnold, A. P.
- Venue
- Journal of Biology
- Published
- 2007-03-22
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-2
- ISSN
- 1475-4924 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2157457551
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
