Coadaptation and conflict, misconception and muddle, in the evolution of genomic imprinting
Misconception and muddle.pdf (353.9Kb)
Access StatusFull text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("dark deposit"). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
MetadataShow full item record
CitationHaig, D. 2013. “Coadaptation and Conflict, Misconception and Muddle, in the Evolution of Genomic Imprinting.” Heredity 113 (2) (October 16): 96–103. doi:10.1038/hdy.2013.97.
AbstractCommon misconceptions of the ‘parental conflict’ theory of genomic imprinting are addressed. Contrary to widespread belief, the theory defines conditions for cooperation as well as conflict in mother–offspring relations. Moreover, conflict between genes of maternal and paternal origin is not the same as conflict between mothers and fathers. In theory, imprinting can evolve either because genes of maternal and paternal origin have divergent interests or because offspring benefit from a phenotypic match, or mismatch, to one or other parent. The latter class of models usually require maintenance of polymorphism at imprinted loci for the maintenance of imprinted expression. The conflict hypothesis does not require maintenance of polymorphism and is therefore a more plausible explanation of evolutionarily conserved imprinting.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:32970055
- FAS Scholarly Articles