Males and females differ in appearance, physiology and behavior. But we do not fully understand the health and evolutionary consequences of these differences. One reason for this is that, until recently, females were often excluded from medical studies. This made it difficult to know if a treatment would perform as well in females as males. To correct this, organizations that fund research now require scientists to include both sexes in studies. This has led to some questions about how to account for sex differences in studies.

One reason females have historically been excluded from medical studies is that some scientists assumed that they would have more variable responses to a particular treatment based on their estrous cycles. Other scientists, however, believe that males of a given species might be more variable because of the evolutionary pressures they face in competing for mates. Better understanding how males and females vary would help scientists better design studies to ensure they provide accurate answers.

Now, Zajitschek et al. debunk both the idea that males are more variable and the idea that females are more variable. To do this, Zajitschek et al. analyzed differences in 218 traits, like body size or certain behaviors, among nearly 27,000 male and female mice. This showed that neither male mice nor female mice were universally more different from other mice of their sex across all features. Instead, sex differences in how much variation existed in male or female mice depended on the individual trait. For example, males varied more in physical features like size, while females showed more differences in their immune systems.

The results suggest it is particularly important to consider sex-specific variability in both medical and other types of studies. To help other researchers better design experiments to factor in such variability, Zajitschek et al. created an interactive tool that will allow scientists to look at sex-based differences in individual features among male or female mice.

Sex differences arise because selection acts on the two sexes differently, especially on traits associated with mating and reproduction (Darwin, 1871). Therefore, sex differences are widespread, a fact which is unsurprising to any evolutionary biologist. However, scientists in many (bio-)medical fields have not necessarily regarded sex as a biological factor of intrinsic interest (Clayton, 2016; Flanagan, 2014; Karp et al., 2017; Klein et al., 2015; Prendergast et al., 2014; Shansky and Woolley, 2016). Therefore, many (bio-)medical studies have only been conducted with male subjects. Consequently, our knowledge is biased. For example, we know far more about drug efficacy in male compared to female subjects, contributing to a poor understanding of how the sexes respond differently to medical interventions (Nowogrodzki, 2017). This gap in knowledge is predicted to lead to overmedication and adverse drug reactions in women (Zucker and Prendergast, 2020). Only recently have (bio-)medical scientists started considering sex differences in their research (Dorris et al., 2015; Ingvorsen et al., 2017; Robinson et al., 2017; Smarr et al., 2017; Ahmad et al., 2017; Foltin and Evans, 2018; Thompson et al., 2018). Indeed, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have now implemented new guidelines for animal and human research study designs, requiring that sex be included as a biological variable (Clayton, 2016; Clayton and Collins, 2014; NIH, 2015a).

When comparing the sexes, biologists generally focus on mean differences in trait values, placing little or no emphasis on sex differences in trait variability (see Figure 1 for a diagram explaining differences in means and variances). Despite this, two hypotheses exist that explain why trait variability might be expected to differ between the sexes. Interestingly, these two hypotheses make opposing predictions.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

First, the ‘estrus-mediated variability hypothesis’ (Figure 2), which emerged in the (bio-)medical research field, assumes that the female estrous cycle (see e.g. Prendergast et al., 2014; Beery and Zucker, 2011) causes higher variability across traits in female subjects. A wide range of labile traits are presumed to co-vary with physiological changes that are induced by reproductive hormones. High variability is, therefore, expected to be particularly prominent when the stage of the estrous cycle is unknown and unaccounted for. This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at different stages of their estrous cycle, is the main reason for why female research subjects are often excluded from biomedical research trials, especially in the fields of neuroscience, physiology and pharmacology (NIH, 2015a). Female exclusion has traditionally been justified based on the grounds that including females in empirical research leads to a loss of statistical power, or that animals must be sampled across the estrous cycle for one to make valid conclusions, requiring more time and resources.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Second, the ‘greater male variability hypothesis’ suggests males exhibit higher trait variability because of two different mechanisms. The first mechanism is based on males being the heterogametic sex in mammals. Mammalian females possess two X chromosomes, leading to an ‘averaging’ of trait expression across the genes on each chromosome. In contrast, males exhibit greater variance because expression of genes on a single X chromosome is likely to lead to more extreme trait values (Reinhold and Engqvist, 2013). The second mechanism is based on males being under stronger sexual selection (Pomiankowski and Moller, 1995; Cuervo and Møller, 1999; Cuervo and Møller, 2001). Empirical evidence supports higher variability of traits that are sexually selected, often harbouring high genetic variance and being condition-dependent, which makes sense as ‘condition’ as a trait is likely to be based on numerous loci (Rowe and Houle, 1996; Tomkins et al., 2004). Thus, higher genetic and, thus, phenotypic variance resulting from sexual selection is expected to characterise sexually selected traits. In mammals, it is likely that both mechanisms are operating concomitantly. So far, the ‘greater male variability hypothesis’ has gained some support in the evolutionary and psychological literature (Reinhold and Engqvist, 2013; Lehre et al., 2009).

Here, we conduct the first comprehensive test of the greater male variability and estrus-mediated variability hypotheses in mice (Figure 2; Reinhold and Engqvist, 2013; Johnson et al., 2008; Hedges and Nowell, 1995; Itoh and Arnold, 2015; Becker et al., 2016; Beery, 2018), examining sex differences in variance across 218 traits in 26,916 animals. To this end, we carry out a series of meta-analyses in two steps (Figure 3). First, we quantify the natural logarithm of the male to female coefficients of variation, CV, or relative variance (lnCVR) for each cohort (population) of mice, for different traits, along with the variability ratio of male to female standard deviations, SD, on the log scale (lnVR, following Nakagawa et al., 2015, see Figure 1). Then, we analyse these effect sizes to quantify sex bias in variance for each trait using meta-analytic methods. To better understand our results, and match them to previously reported sex differences in trait means (Karp et al., 2017), we also quantify and analyse the log response ratio (lnRR). Next, we statistically amalgamate the trait-level results to test our hypotheses and to quantify the degree of sex bias in and across nine functional trait groups (for details on the grouping, see below). Our meta-analytic approach allows easy interpretation and comparison with earlier and future studies. Further, the proposed method using lnCVR (and lnVR) is probably the only practical method to compare variability between two sexes within and across studies (Nakagawa et al., 2015; Senior et al., 2020), as far as we are aware. Also, the use of a ratio (i.e. lnRR, lnVR, lnCVR) between two groups (males and females) naturally controls for different units (e.g. cm, g, ml) as well as for changes in traits over time and space.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We tested competing predictions from two hypotheses explaining why sex biases in trait variability exist. Neither the ‘greater male variability’ hypothesis nor the ‘estrus-mediated variability’ hypothesis explain the observed patterns in sex-biased trait variation on their own. Therefore, our results add further empirical weight to calls that question the basis for the routine exclusion of one sex in biomedical research based on the estrus-mediated variability hypothesis (Flanagan, 2014; Klein et al., 2015; Prendergast et al., 2014; Shansky and Woolley, 2016; Becker et al., 2016). It is important to know that for each trait we estimated the mean effect size (i.e. lnCVR) over strains and locations. As such, our results may not necessarily apply to every group of mice, which may or may not result in stronger support for either of the two hypotheses.

Greater male variability vs. estrus-mediated variability?

Evolutionary biologists commonly expect greater variability in the heterogametic sex than the homogametic sex. In mammals, males are heterogametic, and hence are expected to exhibit higher trait variability compared to females, which is also consistent with an expectation from sexual selection theory (Reinhold and Engqvist, 2013). Our results provide only partial support for the greater male variability hypothesis, because the expected pattern only manifested for morphological traits (see Figures 4 and 5). This result corroborates a previous analysis across animals, which found that the heterogametic sex was more variable in body size (Reinhold and Engqvist, 2013). However, our data do not support the conclusion that higher variability in males occurs across all traits, including for many other morphological traits.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

The estrus-mediated variability hypothesis was, at least until recently (Prendergast et al., 2014; Smarr et al., 2017), regularly used as a rationale for including only male subjects in many biomedical studies. So far, we know very little about the relationship between hormonal fluctuations and general trait variability within and among female subjects. Our results are consistent with the estrus-mediated variability hypothesis for immunological traits only. Immune responses can strongly depend on sex hormones (Zuk and McKean, 1996; Grossman, 1989), which may explain higher female variability in these traits. However, if estrus status affects traits through variation in hormone levels, we would expect to also find higher female variability in physiological and hematological traits. This was not the case in our dataset. Interestingly, however, eye morphology (structural traits, which should fluctuate little across the estrous cycle) also appeared to be more variable in females than males, but little is known about sex differences in ocular traits in general (Wagner et al., 2008; Shaqiri et al., 2018). Overall, we find no consistent support for the female estrus-mediated variability hypothesis.

In line with our findings, recent studies have refuted the prediction of higher female variability (Prendergast et al., 2014; Smarr et al., 2017; Beery and Zucker, 2011; Becker et al., 2016; Beery, 2018). For example, several rodent studies have found that males are more variable than females (Prendergast et al., 2014; Smarr et al., 2017; Becker et al., 2016; Beery, 2018; Fritz et al., 2017; Mogil and Chanda, 2005). Further studies should investigate whether higher female variability in immunological traits is indeed due to the estrous cycle, or generally because of greater between-individual variation (Figure 2).

In general, we found many traits to be sexually dimorphic (Figure 5) in accordance with the previous study, which used the same database (Karp et al., 2017). Although the original study also provided estimates for sex differences in traits both with and without controlling for weight (we did not control for weight; Nakagawa et al., 2017). More specifically, males are larger than females, while females have higher immunological parameters (see Figure 5). Notably, the most sexually dimorphic trait means also show the greatest differences in trait variance (Figures 4 and 5). Indeed, theory predicts that sexually selected traits (e.g. larger body size for males due to male-male competition) are likely more variable, as these traits are often condition-dependent (Rowe and Houle, 1996). Therefore, this sex difference in variability could be more pronounced under natural conditions compared to laboratory settings. This relationship may explain why male-biased morphological traits are larger and more variable.

The code and data generated during this study are freely accessible on GitHub. (https://github.com/itchyshin/mice_sex_diff; copy archived at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:rev:2868f59b32d05a61091e70962e6e6a16463c6a64/) as well as OSF (https://osf.io/25h4t/). Original/source data (pre-cleaned dataset as downloaded from IMPC) can be downloaded from zenodo (DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3759701). The supporting files also contain the full code workflow.

1. 1. Zajitschek SRK
   2. Zajitschek F
   3. Bonduriansky R
   4. Brooks RC
   5. Cornwell W
   6. Falster DS
   7. Lagiz M
   8. Mason J
   9. Senior AM
   10. Noble DWA
   11. Nakagawa S

   (2020) Zenodo

   Raw data for: Sex and Power: Sexual dimorphism in trait variability and its eco-evolutionary and statistical implications.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3759701

1. 1. Ahmad AA
   2. Randall MD
   3. Roberts RE

   (2017) Sex differences in the role of phospholipase A₂ -dependent arachidonic acid pathway in the perivascular adipose tissue function in pigs

   The Journal of Physiology 595:6623–6634.

   https://doi.org/10.1113/JP274831

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Becker JB
   2. Prendergast BJ
   3. Liang JW

   (2016) Female rats are not more variable than male rats: a meta-analysis of neuroscience studies

   Biology of Sex Differences 7:34.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0087-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Beery AK

   (2018) Inclusion of females does not increase variability in rodent research studies

   Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 23:143–149.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.06.016

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Beery AK
   2. Zucker I

   (2011) Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research

   Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 35:565–572.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Caswell H
   2. Weeks DE

   (1986) Two-Sex models: chaos, extinction, and other dynamic consequences of sex

   The American Naturalist 128:707–735.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/284598

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Clayton JA

   (2016) Studying both sexes: a guiding principle for biomedicine

   The FASEB Journal 30:519–524.

   https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.15-279554

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Clayton JA
   2. Collins FS

   (2014) Policy: NIH to balance sex in cell and animal studies

   Nature 509:282–283.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/509282a

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cleasby IR
   2. Nakagawa S

   (2011) Neglected biological patterns in the residuals

   Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:2361–2372.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-011-1254-7

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Colchero F
   2. Aliaga AE
   3. Jones OR
   4. Conde DA

   (2017) Individual heterogeneity determines sex differences in mortality in a monogamous bird with reversed sexual dimorphism

   Journal of Animal Ecology 86:899–907.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12677

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cuervo JJ
    2. Møller AP

    (1999) Phenotypic variation and fluctuating asymmetry in sexually dimorphic feather ornaments in relation to sex and mating system

    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68:505–529.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1999.tb01186.x

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cuervo JJ
    2. Møller AP

    (2001) Components of phenotypic variation in avian ornamental and non-ornamental feathers

    Evolutionary Ecology 15:53–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011913804309

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Darwin C

    (1871)

    The descent of man and Selection in Relation to Sex

    Journal of Anatomy and Physiology 5:363–372.

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Dickinson ME
    2. Flenniken AM
    3. Ji X
    4. Teboul L
    5. Wong MD
    6. White JK
    7. Meehan TF
    8. Weninger WJ
    9. Westerberg H
    10. Adissu H
    11. Baker CN
    12. Bower L
    13. Brown JM
    14. Caddle LB
    15. Chiani F
    16. Clary D
    17. Cleak J
    18. Daly MJ
    19. Denegre JM
    20. Doe B
    21. Dolan ME
    22. Edie SM
    23. Fuchs H
    24. Gailus-Durner V
    25. Galli A
    26. Gambadoro A
    27. Gallegos J
    28. Guo S
    29. Horner NR
    30. Hsu C-W
    31. Johnson SJ
    32. Kalaga S
    33. Keith LC
    34. Lanoue L
    35. Lawson TN
    36. Lek M
    37. Mark M
    38. Marschall S
    39. Mason J
    40. McElwee ML
    41. Newbigging S
    42. Nutter LMJ
    43. Peterson KA
    44. Ramirez-Solis R
    45. Rowland DJ
    46. Ryder E
    47. Samocha KE
    48. Seavitt JR
    49. Selloum M
    50. Szoke-Kovacs Z
    51. Tamura M
    52. Trainor AG
    53. Tudose I
    54. Wakana S
    55. Warren J
    56. Wendling O
    57. West DB
    58. Wong L
    59. Yoshiki A
    60. Wurst W
    61. MacArthur DG
    62. Tocchini-Valentini GP
    63. Gao X
    64. Flicek P
    65. Bradley A
    66. Skarnes WC
    67. Justice MJ
    68. Parkinson HE
    69. Moore M
    70. Wells S
    71. Braun RE
    72. Svenson KL
    73. de Angelis MH
    74. Herault Y
    75. Mohun T
    76. Mallon A-M
    77. Henkelman RM
    78. Brown SDM
    79. Adams DJ
    80. Lloyd KCK
    81. McKerlie C
    82. Beaudet AL
    83. Bućan M
    84. Murray SA

    (2016) High-throughput discovery of novel developmental phenotypes

    Nature 537:508–514.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19356

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Dorris DM
    2. Cao J
    3. Willett JA
    4. Hauser CA
    5. Meitzen J

    (2015) Intrinsic excitability varies by sex in prepubertal striatal medium spiny neurons

    Journal of Neurophysiology 113:720–729.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00687.2014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. Software

    1. Fisher Z
    2. Tipton E
    3. Zhipeng H
    4. Fisher MZ

    (2017) robumeta, version 2.0

    Robust Variance Meta-Regression.

    https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/robumeta/index.html
16. 1. Flanagan KL

    (2014) Sexual dimorphism in biomedical research: a call to analyse by sex

    Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 108:385–387.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/tru079

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Foltin RW
    2. Evans SM

    (2018) Sex differences in the anorexigenic effects of dexfenfluramine and amphetamine in baboons

    Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 26:335–340.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000201

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Fritz A
    2. Amrein I
    3. Wolfer DP

    (2017) Similar reliability and equivalent performance of female and male mice in the open field and water-maze place navigation task

    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics 175:380–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.31565

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Grossman C

    (1989) Possible underlying mechanisms of sexual dimorphism in the immune response, fact and hypothesis

    Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 34:241–251.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4731(89)90088-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hansen TF
    2. Houle D

    (2008) Measuring and comparing evolvability and constraint in multivariate characters

    Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21:1201–1219.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01573.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hedges LV
    2. Nowell A

    (1995) Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and numbers of high-scoring individuals

    Science 269:41–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. Book

    1. Higgins JP

    (2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

    John Wiley & Sons.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Ingvorsen C
    2. Karp NA
    3. Lelliott CJ

    (2017) The role of sex and body weight on the metabolic effects of high-fat diet in C57BL/6N mice

    Nutrition & Diabetes 7:e261.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nutd.2017.6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Itoh Y
    2. Arnold AP

    (2015) Are females more variable than males in gene expression? Meta-analysis of microarray datasets

    Biology of Sex Differences 6:8.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-015-0036-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Johnson W
    2. Carothers A
    3. Deary IJ

    (2008) Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: a new look at the old question

    Perspectives on Psychological Science 3:518–531.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Karp NA
    2. Mason J
    3. Beaudet AL
    4. Benjamini Y
    5. Bower L
    6. Braun RE
    7. Brown SDM
    8. Chesler EJ
    9. Dickinson ME
    10. Flenniken AM
    11. Fuchs H
    12. Angelis MH
    13. Gao X
    14. Guo S
    15. Greenaway S
    16. Heller R
    17. Herault Y
    18. Justice MJ
    19. Kurbatova N
    20. Lelliott CJ
    21. Lloyd KCK
    22. Mallon AM
    23. Mank JE
    24. Masuya H
    25. McKerlie C
    26. Meehan TF
    27. Mott RF
    28. Murray SA
    29. Parkinson H
    30. Ramirez-Solis R
    31. Santos L
    32. Seavitt JR
    33. Smedley D
    34. Sorg T
    35. Speak AO
    36. Steel KP
    37. Svenson KL
    38. Wakana S
    39. West D
    40. Wells S
    41. Westerberg H
    42. Yaacoby S
    43. White JK
    44. International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium

    (2017) Prevalence of sexual dimorphism in mammalian phenotypic traits

    Nature Communications 8:15475.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15475

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Klein SL
    2. Schiebinger L
    3. Stefanick ML
    4. Cahill L
    5. Danska J
    6. de Vries GJ
    7. Kibbe MR
    8. McCarthy MM
    9. Mogil JS
    10. Woodruff TK
    11. Zucker I

    (2015) Opinion: sex inclusion in basic research drives discovery

    PNAS 112:5257–5258.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502843112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Lehre AC
    2. Lehre KP
    3. Laake P
    4. Danbolt NC

    (2009) Greater intrasex phenotype variability in males than in females is a fundamental aspect of the gender differences in humans

    Developmental Psychobiology 51:198–206.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20358

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Lemaître JF
    2. Ronget V
    3. Tidière M
    4. Allainé D
    5. Berger V
    6. Cohas A
    7. Colchero F
    8. Conde DA
    9. Garratt M
    10. Liker A
    11. Marais GAB
    12. Scheuerlein A
    13. Székely T
    14. Gaillard JM

    (2020) Sex differences in adult lifespan and aging rates of mortality across wild mammals

    PNAS 117:8546–8553.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911999117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Lindström J
    2. Kokko H

    (1998) Sexual reproduction and population dynamics: the role of polygyny and demographic sex differences

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 265:483–488.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0320

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Mogil JS
    2. Chanda ML

    (2005) The case for the inclusion of female subjects in basic science studies of pain

    Pain 117:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Poulin R
    3. Mengersen K
    4. Reinhold K
    5. Engqvist L
    6. Lagisz M
    7. Senior AM

    (2015) Meta‐analysis of variation: ecological and evolutionary applications and beyond

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 6:143–152.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12309

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Noble DW
    3. Senior AM
    4. Lagisz M

    (2017) Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists

    BMC Biology 15:18.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-017-0357-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Samarasinghe G
    3. Haddaway NR
    4. Westgate MJ
    5. O'Dea RE
    6. Noble DWA
    7. Lagisz M

    (2019) Research weaving: visualizing the future of research synthesis

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34:224–238.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Nakagawa S
    2. Santos ESA

    (2012) Methodological issues and advances in biological meta-analysis

    Evolutionary Ecology 26:1253–1274.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10682-012-9555-5

    • Google Scholar
36. Report

    1. NIH

    (2015a)

    Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable in NIH-Funded Research, Notice NOT-OD-102

    National Institutes of Health.

    • Google Scholar
37. Report

    1. NIH

    (2015b)

    Enhancing Reproducibility Through Rigor and Transparency, Notice NOT-OD-103

    National Institutes of Health.

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Nowogrodzki A

    (2017) Inequality in medicine

    Nature 550:S18–S19.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/550S18a

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Pomiankowski A
    2. Moller AP

    (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character 260:21–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1995.0054

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Prendergast BJ
    2. Onishi KG
    3. Zucker I

    (2014) Female mice liberated for inclusion in neuroscience and biomedical research

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 40:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    http://www.r-project.org
42. 1. Reinhold K
    2. Engqvist L

    (2013) The variability is in the sex chromosomes

    Evolution 67:3662–3668.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12224

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Robinson CM
    2. Wang Y
    3. Pfeiffer JK

    (2017) Sex-Dependent intestinal replication of an enteric virus

    Journal of Virology 91:e02101-16.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02101-16

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Rowe L
    2. Houle D

    (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 263:1415–1421.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1996.0207

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Senior AM
    2. Viechtbauer W
    3. Nakagawa S

    (2020) Revisiting and expanding the meta-analysis of variation: the log coefficient of variation ratio

    Research Synthesis Methods 11:553–567.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1423

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Shansky RM
    2. Woolley CS

    (2016) Considering sex as a biological variable will be valuable for neuroscience research

    The Journal of Neuroscience 36:11817–11822.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1390-16.2016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Shaqiri A
    2. Roinishvili M
    3. Grzeczkowski L
    4. Chkonia E
    5. Pilz K
    6. Mohr C
    7. Brand A
    8. Kunchulia M
    9. Herzog MH

    (2018) Sex-related differences in vision are heterogeneous

    Scientific Reports 8:8.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25298-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Smarr BL
    2. Grant AD
    3. Zucker I
    4. Prendergast BJ
    5. Kriegsfeld LJ

    (2017) Sex differences in variability across timescales in BALB/c mice

    Biology of Sex Differences 8:3.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-016-0125-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Tannenbaum C
    2. Ellis RP
    3. Eyssel F
    4. Zou J
    5. Schiebinger L

    (2019) Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering

    Nature 575:137–146.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Thompson LP
    2. Chen L
    3. Polster BM
    4. Pinkas G
    5. Song H

    (2018) Prenatal hypoxia impairs cardiac mitochondrial and ventricular function in guinea pig offspring in a sex-related manner

    American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 315:R1232–R1241.

    https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00224.2018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Tomkins JL
    2. Radwan J
    3. Kotiaho JS
    4. Tregenza T

    (2004) Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:323–328.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.029

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Viechtbauer W

    (2010) Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package

    Journal of Statistical Software 36:i03.

    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Voelkl B
    2. Altman NS
    3. Forsman A
    4. Forstmeier W
    5. Gurevitch J
    6. Jaric I
    7. Karp NA
    8. Kas MJ
    9. Schielzeth H
    10. Van de Casteele T
    11. Würbel H

    (2020) Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 21:384–393.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Wagner H
    2. Fink BA
    3. Zadnik K

    (2008) Sex- and gender-based differences in healthy and diseased eyes

    Optometry - Journal of the American Optometric Association 79:636–652.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optm.2008.01.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Webster MM
    2. Rutz C

    (2020) How STRANGE are your study animals?

    Nature 582:337–340.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01751-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Zucker I
    2. Prendergast BJ

    (2020) Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women

    Biology of Sex Differences 11:32.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-020-00308-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Zuk M
    2. McKean KA

    (1996) Sex differences in parasite infections: patterns and processes

    International Journal for Parasitology 26:1009–1024.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(96)80001-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This study makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of sex-differences in trait variability. It applies a meta-analytic approach to mouse datasets to test two hypotheses of sex-specific variability in mammals: that females show greater variability due to estrous, and that males show greater variability due to heterogamy and/or sexual selection. It reveals that, at least for mice, neither hypothesis is universally true for all traits. Rather, variability is greater in females for some traits, and greater in males for others. These interesting results provide new insights into sex bias in variability, that will inform experimental design in diverse biological fields.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Sex and Power: sexual dimorphism in trait variability and its eco-evolutionary and statistical implications" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, including Rosalyn Gloag as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor. The following individual involved in the review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Irving Zucker (Reviewer #3).

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Based on these discussions, and the individual reviews appended below, we regret to inform you that your work in its current form is not suitable for publication in eLife.

All reviewers agreed that the topic of the study was an interesting one, and that the issue of sex differences in trait variability is relevant to good experimental design. As you'll see below, however, reviewer #2 felt that the current analytical treatment of this mouse dataset is not appropriate to the question. Of particular concern is that sources of variability other than sex were not adequately considered. We recommend that this issue, and others outlined in the reviews below, are carefully addressed in any revision. Given the interest in the topic, we are prepared to reconsider a thoroughly revised version of the manuscript, if you think you can adequately address the concerns raised, but please note that this does not guarantee formal re-evaluation let alone eventual acceptance.

Reviewer #1:

This study looks at whether there are sex differences in the variability of traits in mice, via a meta-analysis of published datasets. The analyses show that females typically show greater variability in traits categorised as immunological, while males show greater variability in morphological traits. Traits related to the eye were also more variable in females. These findings are interpreted in light of evolutionary theory about greater between-individual variability in males, and greater within-individual variability in female mammals due to estrus. A online tool is provided to allow researchers to consider possible sex-specific variability in traits at the experimental design phase.

I enjoyed the paper and thought the question and conclusions were interesting. The figures are great. I am not an expert in meta-analyses, nor in mice, so my comments mostly relate to the hypotheses and discussion of the results.

1) The paper jumps about quite a bit between talking about sex differences relevant to mammals only and those that might apply to animals more generally. For example, the Introduction begins with reference to biomedical research (mammals) and the estrus hypothesis (mammals) but then introduces the "male variability" hypothesis by stating the "males are often the heterogametic sex". Given that the subject of your study is the mouse, I think it would be more logical to restrict the Introduction to mammals (i.e. explain the two hypotheses with respect to mammals). You could then include a section in the Discussion on if/why we might expect the same trends in other animals (see below also).

2) I feel that the rationale behind the two hypotheses (female estrus and male variability) could be explained better in the Introduction. i.e. why estrus might produce higher variability in females and why stronger sexual selection or male heterogamety might produce greater male variability. A few extra sentences on each would probably be enough. At the same time, I think it would be worth clarifying a priori the extent to which these hypotheses are expected to apply to different traits. Some predictions are given only in the Discussion (e.g. estrus expected to mostly affect immune response and physiology).

3) The Discussion on eco-evolutionary implications would be greatly strengthened if it included at least one specific example of how sex-specific differences in trait variability might affect the evolutionary trajectory of a population. At present, one very general hypothetical is given, but I did not find it easy to follow (disease/climate change kills more of one sex than the other –> sex ratio of the population is skewed (temporarily?) –> mating system is "influenced" –> "downstream affects on population dynamics"). It is also stated that "modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to existing models (cf 44)". The cited study there is on Eurasian sparrowhawks. I'm not familiar with this sparrowhawk study, but perhaps it is a suitable one to highlight in more detail as a clear example? What sort of different conclusions would be expected? It's great that your paper is aiming to speak to a broad range of biologists, but I think that greater clarity in this section is needed to make ecologists and evolutionary biologists really take notice.

Reviewer #2:

Summary

There are significant methodology and interpretative concerns with this article. The analysis over stretches and does not consider the potential weaknesses. It needs to refocus on the primary question of whether there is a pattern in the sex's impact on the variance for these traits. The analysis then needs to go deeper and remove other sources of variance that could be confounding their findings.

Methodology

1) The methodology is not clear.

2) Meta-analysis is used when you don't have access to the raw data – why not use mixed effect regression models?

3) The variance summary metric is calculated for an institute and strain for data collected in multiple batches, with potential baseline shifts as the data is collected across many years. This isn't a representative metric of variability for a sex as there are multiple sources of variance impacting this metric.

4) Figure 3B and code: It is very rare for a fixed effect analysis to be justifiable. Why assume that there is no variation between the different traits when testing effect of sex? Normally you would explore sources of heterogeneity by meta regression rather than just assume it is sex differences.

5) "A previous study found that the heterogametic sex was more variable in body size". If this holds, would not traits that are correlated with body weight also demonstrate the same finding?

6) "minimum of 2 different institutes" is a very low N. Why would this give meaningful analysis? What was the minimum amount of data for a strain*centre for a trait to be included?

7) Consider the recent discussions on phenotypic plasticity and the phenotypic interaction with the environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-020-0313-3). This suggests a fixed effect model is not appropriate. The results and approach need discussing in this context.

Conclusion

1) It isn't made clear that this analysis is trying to assess the role of sex across strains and institutes.

2) There is no discussion of the potential weakness of the analysis.

3) Figure 3A:

– Why is there no discussion of measures of heterogeneity within the meta-analysis at the population level?

– Should the differences in classification as male or female biased within functional group not be assessed by a fisher exact test and the p value adjusted for multiple testing before you state an area has a difference?

4) Concern by "Notably most SD trait means also show the greater difference in trait variance" – seems to be an eyeball rather than a statistical analysis.

5) I have concerns on relating these results to power:

– These estimates are from an analysis across strains, batches and institutes looking at global behaviour in the traits. This absolute variance measure would be very different to that seen in a lab within a classic parallel group design study with one strain.

– They advocate a factorial design but suggest the powering of the sexes independently. This feeds into the misconception that to study both sexes you have to double your sample size.

6) The authors report that this analysis on mean differences was in accordance with previous studies. Not really. The differences will arise from the different approaches taken and highlights how this summary metric is losing sensitivity. The authors relate many of these changes to a difference in body size. However, the earlier published analysis, adjusted for body weight.

7) Why would the "difference in variability impact on the potential of each sex to respond to changes in specific environments"?

Reviewer #3:

This is a comprehensive meta-analysis of empirical literature on sex differences in mammalian trait variability. The authors nicely articulate competing hypotheses: "estrus-mediated variability" (which predicts higher trait variability in females because they exhibit cyclic reproductive [estrous] hormone secretion that occurs over multi-day timescales) vs. "male variability hypothesis" (which predicts higher trait variability in males because they are the heterogametic sex). Several prior meta-analyses related to this have not provided support for the estrus-mediated variability hypothesis. The analysis performed here differs significantly from prior work in that the subjects were 27,147 mice from the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium, which generated over 2x10⁶ data points. Unlike other meta-analyses, the subjects of this analysis were therefore more systematically evaluated (9 wildtype strains across 11 labs). A total of 218 continuous traits were evaluated, grouped into 9 functional trait groups. Some traits were biased towards males and others towards females. There was no consistent pattern of greater variability in either sex. The results support a straightforward conclusion that neither hypothesis adequately explains patterns of trait variability. the discussion is a restrained defense of the practice of including females (please clarify that monitoring of estrous cycles was not performed in these studies so the females are classified as as "unstaged"); consequently females can be included in research studies without a default assumption that they are any more likely to introduce more variability than including males. The authors also apply their data on widespread differences in trait specific lnCVR values to the potential for phenotypic response to selection due to rapidly changing environmental events. The Discussion is well written with the sections that are each meaningful. The web-based tool is a very helpful contribution. The discussion of statistical implications of the work (e.g., equalizing power and Type I consequences of unequal variance) is of significance to research on mammalian biology.

1) The present work adds important new information to a growing literature (see for example Smarr BL, Rowland NE Zucker I. Male and female mice show equal variability in food intake across 4-day spans that encompass estrous cycles. PLoS One. 2019 Jul 15;14(7):e0218935) indicating that incorporation of unstaged female rodents in biomedical research does not increase variability compared to that generated by males; importantly, it also specifies several circumstances in which specific traits are more variable in one sex than the other.

2) The statement “ This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at

different stages of their estrous cycle, is the main reason for why female research subjects are often excluded from biomedical research trials, especially in the neurosciences, physiology and pharmacology” is a strong overgeneralization and should be tempered and/or clarified: "However, scientists in (bio-)medical fields have not traditionally regarded sex as a biological factor of intrinsic interest (2-7)." This is an overstatement. The study of sex differences and sexual differentiation in mammals (a class of animals of most direct relevance to biomedical research) has a long history, complete with dedicated journals (e.g. Biology of Sex Differences), learned societies, etc. Such an enduring interest in sex among biologists only makes the present work more interesting and important. This critique may be addressed with a more clear definition of "(bio-)medical", here, and throughout the manuscript.

3) Colloquialisms such as "This is an important step, but we can go much further" are vague and difficult for this reader to endorse as true, as written and we recommend deletion.

4) In the Introduction, the authors delineate competing hypotheses: "estrus-mediated variability" vs. "male variability hypothesis". In their elaboration of the former hypothesis, the authors should clarify that the historical concern regarding decreased power and increased variability in females compared to males specifically regarded the inclusion of females that were not synchronized (or "staged") so as to be tested/treated on the same day/phase of the estrous cycle. Data from these so-called “randomly cycling” females were predicted to be more variable than data from males. "Staged" females were presumed to be less variable, and the interventions and costs associated with the presumed need for staging are viewed as onerous. But a growing literature, including the important new results from the present study, argues that there is no empirical support for the contention that females generally are more variable than males across many traits.

5) Materials and methods: the data analysis pipeline is clear and rigorous. It should be stated that the data used come from unstaged females.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Sexual dimorphism in trait variability and its eco-evolutionary and statistical implications" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by a Senior Editor, a Reviewing Editor, and a reviewer.

The manuscript has been improved, but three issues were raised in this second round of review that need to be addressed before final acceptance:

1) Please ensure that the proposal for sample heterogenization by Voelkl et al., 2020, is not misrepresented in your discussion. In that review, the authors do recommend heterogenization but not in an uncontrolled fashion, rather a systematic inclusion of variation with a randomised block design. If there is only one replicate per treatment per block then, yes, the variance measured in this manuscript (and hence app) will be a good representation of the variance expected. This type of design is likely to be rare and most researchers will use a RBD with replication within a block and less strains. Please carefully revise your manuscript to avoid suggesting that the recommendation is to mix different strains (as that isn't quite correct).

2) Regarding the powering of studies, you state: "If we assume that responses to an experimental treatment will be similar between the sexes for this functional trait group, we will require more females to achieve the same statistical power as for the males." The wording here implies that the power calculations for a treatment effect are calculated separately for the males and the females. This reinforces the misconception that when you study both sexes you should consider the powering as two independent randomised complete designs (and hence if the variance is equal you would double the sample size). As you are talking about designs which include both sexes (not the selection of one versus the other), there is a need to explicitly state that power in a factorial design is achieved by assessment of the treatment effect from both the males and the females. If the variance is different between the sexes, there is a need to increase the N in the more variable sex to achieve the same final sensitivity.

3) While the Discussion section on "eco-evolutionary implications" is improved, this section still lacks clarity, the second paragraph in particular. What are "population dynamic models" and why are they important? What "different conclusions" are alluded to when you state, "explicitly modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to traditional modelling approaches"? There is also no longer any mention of climate change in this paragraph, even though it is mentioned in the Abstract as an example of an "eco-evolutionary ramification". These points need strengthening to justify the article's title and capture the attention of a wider range of biologists.

Finally, the editors of eLife have recently decided to adopt the STRANGE framework for animal-behaviour research (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01751-5?sf235295265=1) and will shortly update the journal's author guidelines and transparent reporting form. Given the link between STRANGE and the topic of your article, please consider, if possible, in your final revision how your study might engage with this new framework.

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

[…]

1) The paper jumps about quite a bit between talking about sex differences relevant to mammals only and those that might apply to animals more generally. For example, the Introduction begins with reference to biomedical research (mammals) and the estrus hypothesis (mammals) but then introduces the "male variability" hypothesis by stating the "males are often the heterogametic sex". Given that the subject of your study is the mouse, I think it would be more logical to restrict the Introduction to mammals (i.e. explain the two hypotheses with respect to mammals). You could then include a section in the Discussion on if/why we might expect the same trends in other animals (see below also).

This is a great suggestion. We have changed the corresponding paragraph accordingly; now this reads:

“Second, the “greater male variability hypothesis” suggests males exhibit higher trait variability because of two different mechanisms. The first mechanism is based on males being the heterogametic sex in mammals...”

2) I feel that the rationale behind the two hypotheses (female estrus and male variability) could be explained better in the Introduction. i.e. why estrus might produce higher variability in females and why stronger sexual selection or male heterogamety might produce greater male variability. A few extra sentences on each would probably be enough. At the same time, I think it would be worth clarifying a priori the extent to which these hypotheses are expected to apply to different traits. Some predictions are given only in the Discussion (e.g. estrus expected to mostly affect immune response and physiology).

We realise that we were too concise in the original manuscript. We have added additional explanations to the estrous cycle hypothesis:

“…. A wide range of labile traits are presumed to co-vary with physiological changes that are induced by reproductive hormones. High variability is, therefore, expected to be particularly prominent when the stage of the estrous cycle is unknown and unaccounted for. This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at different stages of their estrous cycle, is the main reason for why female research subjects are often excluded from biomedical research trials, especially in the neurosciences, physiology and pharmacology. …”

And the male variability hypothesis:

“Second, the “greater male variability hypothesis” suggests males exhibit higher trait variability because of two different mechanisms. […] So far, the “greater male variability hypothesis” has gained some support in the evolutionary and psychological literature.”

Because we had no a priori expectations regarding which traits would be differently affected, this is not expanded upon in the Introduction. In fact, we had expected to find overarching support for either higher male or higher female variability, which was not supported by the data.

3) The Discussion on eco-evolutionary implications would be greatly strengthened if it included at least one specific example of how sex-specific differences in trait variability might affect the evolutionary trajectory of a population. At present, one very general hypothetical is given, but I did not find it easy to follow (disease/climate change kills more of one sex than the other –> sex ratio of the population is skewed (temporarily?) –> mating system is "influenced" –> "downstream effects on population dynamics"). It is also stated that "modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to existing models". The cited study there is on Eurasian sparrowhawks. I'm not familiar with this sparrowhawk study, but perhaps it is a suitable one to highlight in more detail as a clear example? What sort of different conclusions would be expected? It's great that your paper is aiming to speak to a broad range of biologists, but I think that greater clarity in this section is needed to make ecologists and evolutionary biologists really take notice.

We have rewritten the entire paragraph to strengthen our eco-evolutionary implications:

“Demographic parameters, such as age-dependent mortality rate, are often different for each sex. Indeed, recognition of this fact has resulted in population dynamic models taking these widely observed sex differences into account. For example, a study on European sparrowhawks found that variability in mortality was higher in females compared to males. In this species, sex-specific variation affects age-dependent mortality and results in higher female life expectancy. As such, explicitly modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to traditional modelling approaches.”

Reviewer #2:

Summary

There are significant methodology and interpretative concerns with this article. The analysis over stretches and does not consider the potential weaknesses. It needs to refocus on the primary question of whether there is a pattern in the sex's impact on the variance for these traits. The analysis then needs to go deeper and remove other sources of variance that could be confounding their findings.

Reviewer 2 has carefully read the code and its annotations, because s/he correctly points out our mistake in the annotation (see below; this html is an extensive document including a flow diagram of our data processing and statistical analyses based on >2,900 lines of code). Thus, we believe that reviewer 2’s concerns mainly stem from our omissions of some methodological descriptions and justifications in the original manuscript.

We have taken these criticisms seriously to further improve the clarity of our written methodology. In our revised version, we have clearly stated how our method deals with the confounders (see our replies below). By using a meta-analytical method (2nd comment by reviewer 2 – and we have expanded it there), many confounding effects have been taken care of. We do note, however, that our extended html was indeed helpful because reviewer 3 states “Materials and methods: the data analysis pipeline is clear and rigorous.”, which contrasts with what reviewer 2 says.

Methodology

1) The methodology is not clear.

We have endeavoured to make our methodology more accessible and comprehensive by addressing reviewer 2’s and the others’ comments. We would like to point out that we do have a methodological flowchart in our supplementary material as we were very much aware that our method is complex (and therefore, it might have been unclear). We have added more explanation in the main text and the supplement where possible (see our other replies to reviewer 2 below).

2) Meta-analysis is used when you don't have access to the raw data – why not use mixed effect regression models?

This is an important comment; it appears that our original version did not cover the justification for the approach clearly enough. However, in medicine, for example, a meta-analytic method like ours are often used even when one has raw data from different studies (i.e. individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses, where they could also analyse raw data in these “meta-analyses”, rather than using summary effect sizes; see Debray et al., 2015, 6: p293, Res. Syn. Meth.). That aside, we have three main reasons why we used a meta-analytic approach (although the original manuscript omitted the second and third reasons – we have added this now, for exact wording see below).

First, as we wrote in the original manuscript: “Our meta-analytic approach allows easy interpretation and comparison with earlier and future studies.” This is because lnCVR and lnRR can be interpreted in terms of % differences between sexes (most of us have good intuitions for % differences compared to absolute differences in particular units, say, cm).

Second, and this is probably the most important reason, in the most common versions of mixed effect models, we cannot compare and contrast differences in variances between two groups. One possible way around this would be to model heteroskedasticity explicitly (see Cleasby and Nakagawa, 2011), which would require the specification and estimation of complex variance-covariance structure in the model residuals and introduce potential model identification problems. In any case, the approach we took using lnCVR, allows for a simpler and direct test of the research question. This is the main reason to use a meta-analytic approach.

Third, the use of standardised effect size, such as lnRR (log response ratio) or lnCVR, is sometimes referred to as the “contrast” method. This is because these effect sizes are the ratio of two effects between the treatment and control groups (females and males in our case). Taking a ratio has major advantages over modelling raw data, because it controls for different units across traits and it better controls for temporal and spatial changes in the traits themselves across control/treatment groups (here males and females; assuming that changes are relative). This is one of the biggest benefits of meta-analysis.

This “contrast” approach also addresses another part of the comment made by reviewer 2 in their opening paragraph that “It needs to refocus on the primary question of whether there is a pattern in the sex's impact on the variance for these traits. The analysis then needs to go deeper and remove other sources of variance that could be confounding their findings”. By taking the ratio within each study (i.e. relative to a concurrent control under matching conditions), the confounding effects are accounted for within each study and the effect size – and any potential effect on variance – is isolated. Thus, many experiment-specific factors do not need to be modelled explicitly; this is one of the arguments underlying conventional meta-analysis. The method used here (lnCVR) uses the same “contrast” approach and has the same advantages.

We now understand that our omissions of the second and third reasons made it difficult for reviewer 2 (and others) to assess the validity of our approach, generating concerns. Therefore, we have added these reasons to the manuscript:

“… Further, the proposed method using lnCVR (and lnVR) is probably the only practical method to compare variability between two sexes within and across studies, as far as we are aware. Also, the use of a ratio (i.e. lnRR, lnVR, lnCVR) between two groups (males and females) naturally controls for different units (e.g., cm, g, ml) and also for changes in traits over time and space.”

3) The variance summary metric is calculated for an institute and strain for data collected in multiple batches, with potential baseline shifts as the data is collected across many years. This isn't a representative metric of variability for a sex as there are multiple sources of variance impacting this metric.

As described above, lnCVR (like lnRR, lnVR, and Hedges’ g) is a contrast metric that is relative to a concurrent control under matching conditions. Assuming “potential baseline shifts” affect males and females equally, these variabilities are already taken care of when using ratio-based effect sizes. We now have mentioned this point in the Introduction (see above). Also, we had added this sentence in the Materials and methods section:

“As mentioned above, the use of ratio-based effect sizes such as lnCVR, lnVR and lnRR controls for baseline changes over time and space, assuming that these changes affect males and females similarly. However, we acknowledge that we could not test this assumption.”

4) Figure 3B and code: It is very rare for a fixed effect analysis to be justifiable. Why assume that there is no variation between the different traits when testing effect of sex? Normally you would explore sources of heterogeneity by meta regression rather than just assume it is sex differences.

We agree with reviewer 2 and we have to apologise for our mistake. We believe reviewer 2 thought we might have used fixed-effect models from the code annotation:

“# Final fixed effects meta-analyses within grouping terms”. This was an annotation mistake.

In the code, we ran random-effects meta-analyses throughout. Indeed, in our Materials and methods section of the original manuscript, we stated that we have used “random-effects” models and also multilevel models, which are a version of random-effects models (see Nakagawa et al., 2017).

“…, we estimated overall effect sizes for nine functional groups by aggregating meta-analytic results via a “classical” random-effect models using the function rma.uni in the R package metafor.”

This is for the second-order meta-analysis aggregating traits into groups of traits:

“we used the function rma.mv in the R package metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010) by fitting the following multilevel meta-analytic model, an extension of random-effects models (sensu Nakagawa & Santos 2012):

ES_i ~ 1 + (1 |Strain_j ) + (1 | Location_k) + (1 | Unit_i) + Error_i, ”

This is for each trait. As you can see, we are marginalising over strains and locations to get the average effect sizes for both lnRR (mean difference) and lnCVR (relative variance difference).

We thank reviewer 2 for spotting this mistake in code annotation, and now it has been corrected.

5) "A previous study found that the heterogametic sex was more variable in body size". If this holds, would not traits that are correlated with body weight also demonstrate the same finding?

Reviewer 2 would be correct if we were talking about mean differences (i.e. lnRR). We would expect, for example, traits, which correlate with body size, would show males have larger trait value in these traits. And this can be shown in our results of lnRR.

However, this will not necessarily be the case for differences in relative variance (i.e. lnCVR). This is because trait CVs do not necessarily correlate with trait means. This is the reason why we have provided % differences of CV (along with mean and SD) for all the traits we investigated via a Shiny App. The Shiny App will be useful for researchers to find which traits have potentially sex-biased CVs.

6) "minimum of 2 different institutes" is a very low N. Why would this give meaningful analysis? What was the minimum amount of data for a strain*centre for a trait to be included?

We are sorry that this was not clear. Despite having a minimum of two institutions, these institutions usually had replicated samples of mice from different experiments. In fact, we meta-analysed traits with between 2–18 effect sizes (mean = 9.09 effects, SD = 4.47); note that for Cochrane reviews, the median number of effect sizes per meta-analysis is 3 (so overall our meta-analyses have higher sample sizes than Cochrane reviews). While a minimum of N = 6 mice were used to create effect sizes for any given group (male or female), in reality samples sizes of male / female groups were much larger (males: mean = 396.66 (SD = 238.23), median = 465.56; females: mean = 407.35 (SD = 240.31), median = 543.89). We have now clarified these details in the Materials and methods as follows:

“Overall, we meta-analysed traits with between 2–18 effect sizes (mean = 9.09 effects, SD = 4.47). However, each meta-analysis contained a total number of individual mice that ranged from 83/91 to 13467/13449 (males/females). While a minimum of N = 6 mice were used to create effect sizes for any given group (male or female), in reality samples sizes of male / female groups were much larger (males: mean = 396.66 (SD = 238.23), median = 465.56; females: mean = 407.35 (SD = 240.31), median = 543.89).”

In addition, we want to emphasize that using meta-analytic methods accounts for sampling error variances in estimating overall mean effect sizes.

7) Consider the recent discussions on phenotypic plasticity and the phenotypic interaction with the environment (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-020-0313-3). This suggests a fixed effect model is not appropriate. The results and approach need discussing in this context.

As mentioned above, we did not use fixed-effect models; this was an annotation mistake left in our code, which is now fixed (see our reply to Comment 4). Further, we are aware of this paper. Indeed, several co-authors of the paper are long-standing collaborators of the senior author. We have now cited this paper in the manuscript (the reason for this is described below).

Conclusion

1) It isn't made clear that this analysis is trying to assess the role of sex across strains and institutes.

Reviewer 2 is correct. Our models marginalised the effect of strains and institutions when estimating average effect size (like many meta-analyses would do). However, measures of total heterogeneity (i.e. the sum of total strain, production center and unit level variance / total variance) for each trait were extremely low (0-1% lnCVR; 0-0.4% lnVR and 0-0.4% lnRR). We now make this clear by stating the following in the Discussion:

“It is important to know that for each trait we obtained the mean effect size (i.e. lnCVR) over strains and locations. As such, our results may not necessarily apply to every group of mice, which may or may not result in stronger support for either of the two hypotheses.”

Please also see our other replies related to the limitations of our work below.

2) There is no discussion of the potential weakness of the analysis.

Now we have added sentences discussing potential limitations (see our replies to other comments; points 2 and 3). We also, however, discussed the strength of our analyses too in these locations. Our work will, of course, have all the typical weaknesses of meta-analyses, although we do not expect publication biases, which is excellent news.

Indeed, our work was motivated by the paper by reviewer 3 (cited in the original manuscript):

B. J. Prendergast, K. G. Onishi, I. Zucker, Female mice liberated for inclusion in

neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 40, 1–5 (2014).

This important synthesis comparing CV between females and males was not a formal meta-analysis. Therefore, this synthesis does not account for the differences in sample sizes (the number of mice) and baseline changes in traits. Our meta-analytic approach goes beyond this paper by statistically formalising how one can compare CV between two groups (males vs. females). This must be the reason, we believe, reviewer 3 is very favourable and liked our approach, as suggested by his comments. Our responses to reviewer 2’s comments 2 and 3 have now dealt with this point, highlighting the strengths as well as weaknesses of our approach.

3) Figure 3A:

– Why is there no discussion of measures of heterogeneity within the meta-analysis at the population level?

This is because this was not particularly relevant to our main aim – testing the two hypotheses explaining sex differences in variability. In addition, our analysis focused on broad trait categories, because at the trait level, effect sizes ranged between 218 /trait making estimating heterogeneity challenging to compute. We have, however, calculated these as requested by reviewer 2 and, unsurprisingly, measures of total heterogeneity for each trait (218 traits total) were extremely low (ranges 0 – 1% lnCVR; 0 – 0.4% lnVR and 0 – 0.4% lnRR). Given heterogeneity for individual traits is unlikely to be reliable, and is not of direct interest, we have not included them in our revision. However, should the Editor or reviewer feel these are important we are still happy to provide them.

– Should the differences in classification as male or female biased within functional group not be assessed by a fisher exact test and the p value adjusted for multiple testing before you state an area has a difference?

This suggestion probably stemmed from our lack of explanation for the reason why we did not do such tests. The main reason is that, if you apply such statistics as Fisher’s exact tests, we are endorsing vote counting practices. Vote counting (statistical tests of count data) has been severely criticised because it does not take sample sizes (the number of subjects) into account (see, for example, Higgins and Green, 2018; Cochrane Handbook). Instead, we did provide statistical inferential tests for corresponding meta-analyses, which are recommended. Further, we did not do such statistical tests because Fisher’s exact tests or related tests (Chi-square tests) are severely limited by sample sizes. Everything else being equal, higher sample sizes will eventually bring statistical significance, as we described in Nakagawa and Cuthill (2007, 82:p591, Biol Rev).

We have added the following in the Materials and methods section:

“Although we present the frequencies of male- and female-biased traits in Figure 3A, we did not run inferential statistical tests on these counts because such tests would be considered as vote-counting, which has been severely criticised in the meta-analytic literature…”

Nonetheless, if the Editor and reviewers think providing inferential statistics for these counts (i.e. vote counting) would be helpful additions, we would be happy to add them.

4) Concern by "Notably most SD trait means also show the greater difference in trait variance" – seems to be an eyeball rather than a statistical analysis.

Yes, this was just a description of the counts because of the reason described above in relation to statistical tests of counts without considering underlying sample sizes (i.e. vote counting) – these inferences are however statistically supported by meta-analytic results, which we have now made clear in the manuscript.

5) I have concerns on relating these results to power:

– These estimates are from an analysis across strains, batches and institutes looking at global behaviour in the traits. This absolute variance measure would be very different to that seen in a lab within a classic parallel group design study with one strain.

We understand reviewer 2’s concern here. Our results are overall effects and it may not be readily applicable to a specific strain. However, we would like to point out three reasons why we have done this. First, our main aim is to compare sex differences in trait variability in order to test two competing hypotheses in a general manner that is not specific to traits or labs (of course, we apologise that we omitted these reasons in the original manuscript, which has led to this misunderstanding).

Second, reviewer 2 coincidentally points out this paper in the comment above:

Voelkl B, Altman NS, Forsman A, Forstmeier W, Gurevitch J, Jaric I, Karp NA, Kas MJ, Schielzeth H, Van de Casteele T, Würbel H.

Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2020 Jun 2:1-0.

According to this paper, they are encouraging future experiments to use techniques called “heterogenization” where different strains are mixed to increase the robustness of experimental results. In this very context, our estimates of differences in mean traits and SD and CV are, we believe, entirely relevant.

Third, as reviewer 2 correctly indicates, we also believe that, if researchers were to use one strain of mice, it would be more useful to use strain- or lab-specific estimates of (descriptive) statistics (mean, SD and CV) from that particular lab and strain; note that for common traits such data are usually made available by commercial breeding facilities. However, our results are overall means, and so, we are providing the very first benchmarks for researchers to compare their statistics to. Given these reasons, our results are widely relevant as we described in the original manuscript.

However, it is important to address this concern by reviewer 2, so that we have now added:

“Further, these estimates are overall mean differences across strains and locations. Therefore, these may not be particularly informative if one’s experiment only includes one specific strain. However, we point out that our estimates may be useful in the light of a recent recommendation of using “heterogenization” where different strains are mixed to increase the robustness of experimental results (Voelkl et al., 2020). Also, even in the case of using a particular strain, our tool can provide potentially useful benchmarks.”

– They advocate a factorial design but suggest the powering of the sexes independently. This feeds into the misconception that to study both sexes you have to double your sample size.

We certainly did not intend to suggest researchers need to double their sample sizes. Indeed, we did not mention anything about “doubling sample size in both sexes” in our previous manuscript version. Rather, we indicated that researchers may want to consider how they allocate sampling effort for each of the sex to maximise power, as follows:

“For example, given a limited number of animal subjects in an experiment measuring immunological traits, a balanced sex ratio may not be optimal. Female immunological traits are generally more variable (i.e. higher CV and SD). If we assume that responses to an experimental treatment will be similar between the sexes for this functional trait group, we will require more females to achieve the same statistical power as for the males.”

However, reviewer 2 is correct in the context that adequately powered experiments require a lot of animals. And this will be made even more clear, we believe, if researchers start conducting power analysis separately for both sexes.

6) The authors report that this analysis on mean differences was in accordance with previous studies. Not really. The differences will arise from the different approaches taken and highlights how this summary metric is losing sensitivity. The authors relate many of these changes to a difference in body size. However, the earlier published analysis, adjusted for body weight.

We have sought to make our discussion on these points more accurate. The paper which looked at mean differences between sexes is:

Karp, N. A., et al. "Prevalence of sexual dimorphism in mammalian phenotypic traits." Nature communications 8.1 (2017): 1-12.

In this paper, the authors both looked at mean differences with and without controlling for weights. Therefore, we made it more accurate by saying:

“In general, we found many traits to be sexually dimorphic (Figure 4) in accordance with the previous study, which used the same database (Karp et al., 2017), although the original study did provide estimates for sex differences in traits both with and without controlling for weight (we did not control for weight; cf. 40).”

This question also relates to why we do not use weight correction in our analyses. There are two main reasons for this.

First, our focus on the paper is to compare trait variability differences between sexes, not residual variability differences between sexes once weight is controlled for. Such residual analyses (or related analyses) have several potential shortcomings (e.g., Garcia-Berthou 2001, p708, J Anim Ecol). Also, some of us have written about the dangers of controlling weights when comparing two groups in this paper:

Nakagawa, S., et al. "Divide and conquer? Size adjustment with allometry and intermediate outcomes." BMC biology 15.1 (2017): 1-6.

Second, we were and are interested in actual variability differences across different traits, which are more suitable for testing, we believe, the two hypotheses in our manuscript. Also, such comparisons were also made in reviewer 3’s important original synthesis comparing CV between males and females (listed above).

7) Why would the "difference in variability impact on the potential of each sex to respond to changes in specific environments"?

This may have not been very clear in the original version. What we wanted to say is that, all else being equal (e.g., the same trait means), the sex which has higher trait variability is more likely to be under stronger selection than the other sex. This point was not well articulated. We have fully rewritten this paragraph:

“Demographic parameters, such as age-dependent mortality rate (Lemaitre et al., 2020), are often different for each sex. Indeed, recognition of this fact has resulted in population dynamic models taking these widely observed sex differences into account (Colchero et al., 2017; Caswell and Weeks, 1986). For example, a study on European sparrowhawks found that variability in mortality was higher in females compared to males (Lindstrom and Kokko, 1998). In this species, sex-specific variation affects age-dependent mortality and results in higher female life expectancy. As such, explicitly modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to traditional modelling approaches.”

Reviewer #3:

[…]

1) The present work adds important new information to a growing literature (see for example Smarr BL, Rowland NE Zucker I. Male and female mice show equal variability in food intake across 4-day spans that encompass estrous cycles. PLoS One. 2019 Jul 15;14(7):e0218935) indicating that incorporation of unstaged female rodents in biomedical research does not increase variability compared to that generated by males; importantly, it also specifies several circumstances in which specific traits are more variable in one sex than the other.

We thank the reviewer for his positive feedback. We have now further extended our explanations on the estrous cycle, such as in:

“… A wide range of labile traits are presumed to co-vary with physiological changes that are induced by reproductive hormones. High variability is, therefore, expected to be particularly prominent when the stage of the estrous cycle is unknown and unaccounted for. This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at different stages of their estrous cycle, …”

In addition, we have added a recent publication by the reviewer to our manuscript, which predicts the adverse effects of sex-specific drug testing:

Zucker, I., Prendergast, B.J. Sex differences in pharmacokinetics predict adverse drug reactions in women. Biol Sex Differ 11, 32 (2020).

The respective part now reads:

“For example, we know far more about drug efficacy in male compared to female subjects, contributing to a poor understanding of how the sexes respond differently to medical interventions (Nowogrodzki, 2017). This gap in knowledge is predicted to lead to overmedication and adverse drug reactions in women (Zucker and Prendergast, 2020).”

2) The statement “This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at

different stages of their estrous cycle, is the main reason for why female research subjects are often excluded from biomedical research trials, especially in the neurosciences, physiology and pharmacology” is a strong overgeneralization and should be tempered and/or clarified: "However, scientists in (bio-)medical fields have not traditionally regarded sex as a biological factor of intrinsic interest." This is an overstatement. The study of sex differences and sexual differentiation in mammals (a class of animals of most direct relevance to biomedical research) has a long history, complete with dedicated journals (e.g. Biology of Sex Differences), learned societies, etc. Such an enduring interest in sex among biologists only makes the present work more interesting and important. This critique may be addressed with a more clear definition of "(bio-)medical", here, and throughout the manuscript.

We are well aware that in the biological field and biomedically relevant fields sex differences are a central research topic, and were trying to imply with our wording of “(bio-)medical” (i.e. main concern on medical applications, less interest in the biomedical study species, excluding “biology” as a field), this has only gained recent attention (i.e. within the last 10 years there has been a marked increase in journals specialising in this topic). To tone this down we have changed that sentence, as follows:

“… However, scientists in many (bio-)medical fields have not necessarily regarded sex as a biological factor of intrinsic interest …”

3) Colloquialisms such as "This is an important step, but we can go much further" are vague and difficult for this reader to endorse as true, as written and we recommend deletion.

This sentence has been deleted.

4) In the Introduction, the authors delineate competing hypotheses: "estrus-mediated variability" vs. "male variability hypothesis". In their elaboration of the former hypothesis, the authors should clarify that the historical concern regarding decreased power and increased variability in females compared to males specifically regarded the inclusion of females that were not synchronized (or "staged") so as to be tested/treated on the same day/phase of the estrous cycle. Data from these so-called “randomly cycling” females were predicted to be more variable than data from males. "Staged" females were presumed to be less variable, and the interventions and costs associated with the presumed need for staging are viewed as onerous. But a growing literature, including the important new results from the present study, argues that there is no empirical support for the contention that females generally are more variable than males across many traits.

We thank the reviewer for his detailed account of staging and its predictions for female variability. Indeed, this is exactly what we intended to convey. We have clarified our writing, and the new paragraph now reads:

“First, the “estrus-mediated variability hypothesis” (Figure 2), which emerged in the (bio-)medical research field, assumes that the female estrous cycle (see for example 6, 18) causes higher variability across traits in female subjects. A wide range of labile traits are presumed to co-vary with physiological changes that are induced by reproductive hormones. High variability is, therefore, expected to be particularly prominent when the stage of the estrous cycle is unknown and unaccounted for. This higher trait variability, resulting from females being at different stages of their estrous cycle, is the main reason for why female research subjects are often excluded from biomedical research trials, especially in the neurosciences, physiology and pharmacology…”

5) Materials and methods: the data analysis pipeline is clear and rigorous. It should be stated that the data used come from unstaged females.

We added: “… All data are from unstaged females (with no information about the stage of their estrous cycle)...”

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

The manuscript has been improved, but three issues were raised in this second round of review that need to be addressed before final acceptance:

1) Please ensure that the proposal for sample heterogenization by Voelkl et al., 2020, is not misrepresented in your discussion. In that review, the authors do recommend heterogenization but not in an uncontrolled fashion, rather a systematic inclusion of variation with a randomised block design. If there is only one replicate per treatment per block then, yes, the variance measured in this manuscript (and hence app) will be a good representation of the variance expected. This type of design is likely to be rare and most researchers will use a RBD with replication within a block and less strains. Please carefully revise your manuscript to avoid suggesting that the recommendation is to mix different strains (as that isn't quite correct).

This is an important point. We changed this to:

“However, we point out that our estimates may be useful in the light of a recent recommendation of using “heterogenization” where many different strains are systematically included (i.e., randomized complete block design) to increase the robustness of experimental results (Voelkl et al., 2020). However, note that an experiment with heterogenization might only include a few strains with several animals per strain. Even in such a case using just a few strains, our tool could provide potentially useful benchmarks.”

2) Regarding the powering of studies, you state: "If we assume that responses to an experimental treatment will be similar between the sexes for this functional trait group, we will require more females to achieve the same statistical power as for the males." The wording here implies that the power calculations for a treatment effect are calculated separately for the males and the females. This reinforces the misconception that when you study both sexes you should consider the powering as two independent randomised complete designs (and hence if the variance is equal you would double the sample size). As you are talking about designs which include both sexes (not the selection of one versus the other), there is a need to explicitly state that power in a factorial design is achieved by assessment of the treatment effect from both the males and the females. If the variance is different between the sexes, there is a need to increase the N in the more variable sex to achieve the same final sensitivity.

Now we understood this point. We have changed the original paragraph:

“For example, given a limited number of animal subjects in an experiment measuring immunological traits, a balanced sex ratio may not be optimal. Female immunological traits are generally more variable (i.e. higher CV and SD). If we assume that responses to an experimental treatment will be similar between the sexes for this functional trait group, we will require more females to achieve the same statistical power as for the males.”

To this revised paragraph:

“For example, female immunological traits are generally more variable (i.e. having higher CV and SD). Therefore, in an experiment measuring immunological traits, we would need to include a larger sample (N) of females than males (N_[female] > N_[male]; N_[total] = N_[female] + N_[male]) to achieve the same power as when the experiment only includes males (N_[total*] = 2N_[male]). In other words, this experiment with both sexes would need a larger sample size than the same experiment with males only (N_[total] > N_[total*]).”

3) While the Discussion section on "eco-evolutionary implications" is improved, this section still lacks clarity, the second paragraph in particular. What are "population dynamic models" and why are they important? What "different conclusions" are alluded to when you state, "explicitly modelling sex difference in trait variability could lead to different conclusions compared to traditional modelling approaches"? There is also no longer any mention of climate change in this paragraph, even though it is mentioned in the Abstract as an example of an "eco-evolutionary ramification". These points need strengthening to justify the article's title and capture the attention of a wider range of biologists.

To address all these points, we have reworded this original paragraph to this:

“Demographic parameters, such as age-dependent mortality rate (Lemaître et al., 2020) can often be different for each sex. For example, a study on European sparrowhawks found that variability in mortality was higher in females compared to males (Colchero et al., 2017). In this species, sex-specific variation affects age-dependent mortality and results in higher average female life expectancy. Therefore, population dynamic models, which make predictions about how populations change in their size over time, should take sex differences in variability into account to produce more accurate predictions (cf. Caswell and Wekks, 1986; Lindstrom and Kokko, 1998). In our rapidly changing world, better predictions on population dynamics are vital for understanding whether climate change is likely to result in population extinction and lead to further biodiversity loss.”

Also, in the preceding paragraph, we added this sentence to expand our eco-evolutionary ramifications and the link to climate change:

“For example, more variable morphological traits of males could potentially provide them with better capacity than females to adapt morphologically to changing climate.”

Finally, the editors of eLife have recently decided to adopt the STRANGE framework for animal-behaviour research (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01751-5?sf235295265=1) and will shortly update the journal's author guidelines and transparent reporting form. Given the link between STRANGE and the topic of your article, please consider, if possible, in your final revision how your study might engage with this new framework.

Our original manuscript has a relevant sentence:

“Therefore, this sex difference in variability could be more pronounced under natural conditions compared to laboratory settings. This relationship may explain why male-biased morphological traits are larger and more variable.”

Further, we have added this sentence citing the STRANGE framework paper:

“Incidentally, heterogenization would be key to make one’s experimental outcome more generalizable (Webster and Rutz, 2020). ”

However, we note that we do not mention the term STRANGE in our paper, as introducing this framework requires a good explanation, which we feel is out of the scope of this manuscript.

Author details

1. Susanne RK Zajitschek

   1. Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
   2. Liverpool John Moores University, School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing, Project administration

   For correspondence

   susi.zajitschek@gmail.com

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4676-9950

2. Felix Zajitschek

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6010-6112

3. Russell Bonduriansky

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5786-6951

4. Robert C Brooks

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Investigation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6926-0781

5. Will Cornwell

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4080-4073

6. Daniel S Falster

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9814-092X

7. Malgorzata Lagisz

   Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Visualization, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3993-6127

8. Jeremy Mason

   European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2796-5123

9. Alistair M Senior

   University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Sydney, Australia

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9805-7280

10. Daniel WA Noble

    1. Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    2. Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

    Contribution

    Validation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Shinichi Nakagawa

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9460-8743

11. Shinichi Nakagawa

    Evolution & Ecology Research Center, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing - review and editing, Writing - original draft

    Contributed equally with

    Daniel WA Noble

    For correspondence

    s.nakagawa@unsw.edu.au

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7765-5182

• 3,541

  Page views

• 352

  Downloads

• 39

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.