Abstract
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. While 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.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding was provided by the Swedish Research Council (Grant number: 2019-03567) and by the Royal Society to EHM as a University Research Fellowship and Enhancement Award. TJ was funded by the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) and the German Research Foundation (DFG grant number: JA 2653/2-1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Abstract updated
Data Availability
All the data is publicly available on the Pubmed database. Links to specific collections of articles are all given in the manuscript. These are: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/collections/60255050/?sort=pubdate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/collections/60254985/?sort=pubdate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/collections/57906298/?sort=pubdate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/collections/60278165/?sort=pubdate Data for the meta-analysis is provided as a file in the supplementary material.
