Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice

Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice View ORCID Profile Andrew P Morgan doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.10.669551 Andrew P Morgan * Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Andrew P Morgan For correspondence: andrew.parker.morgan{at}gmail.com Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Supplementary material Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Meiotic recombination ensures the fidelity of chromosome segregation in most organisms with sexual reproduction. The distribution of crossovers along chromosomes is governed in part by interference, which prevents multiple crossovers from occurring in close proximity, though not all crossovers are subject to interference. Neither the factors that control the strength of interference, nor the extent to which they vary within and between species, are well understood. Here I confirm that crossover interference is stronger in male than in female meiosis in house mice ( Mus musculus ), provide the first estimate of the proportion of non-interfering crossovers in female mice, and show that this proportion is lower than in males. Interference is stronger on shorter chromosomes in both sexes, but the frequency of non-interfering crossovers is similar across the range of chromosome size. Together with evidence that interference varies across strains and subspecies, my results provide a foundation for studying the evolution and sexual dimorphism in this important feature of meiosis in mice. Introduction Meiotic recombination is essential for faithful chromosome segregation in most sexually-reproducing organisms ( Hassold and Hunt 2001 ). Both the number and the spatial distribution of crossovers are tightly regulated, but vary within and between species. At fine scale, the position of crossovers is determined in part by the location of double-strand breaks, which in turn are associated with specific sequence motifs and/or epigenetic marks which differ by taxa (reviewed in Paigen and Petkov (2010) ). At the chromosome scale, crossovers tend to be spaced more evenly than expected by chance. This observation dates back to the first linkage maps inferred from Drosophila ( Sturtevant 1913 , 1915 ) and is known as crossover interference. The mechanisms and evolutionary significance of crossover interference remain incompletely understood ( Hunter 2015 ). Muller (1916) first speculated that even spacing of crossovers might promote orderly chromosome segregation. There is now ample evidence that aberrant placement of crossovers with respect to the centromere, telomere or to each other contributes to nondisjunction ( Hassold et al. 1991 ; Koehler et al. 1996 ; Hassold and Hunt 2001 ). Others have proposed that interference arises as a consequence of processes that ensure at least one crossover per bivalent ( Jones 1984 ) and maintain the total number of crossovers per meiosis within some optimum range ( Martini et al. 2006 ; Cole et al. 2012 ). Further, a subset of crossovers are also processed via a distinct pathway that is not subject to interference ( Santos et al. 2003 ; Higgins et al. 2004 ; Guillon et al. 2005 ; Holloway et al. 2008 ). Like other features of the recombination landscape ( Morelli and Cohen 2005 ; Sardell and Kirkpatrick 2020 ), both the magnitude of interference and the frequency of non-interfering crossovers vary between sexes in several mammal species ( Otto and Payseur 2019 ). Comparative studies are hindered by the relative paucity of empirical estimates of interference parameters in both sexes. Recombination tends to be much easier to study in the male than in the female germline – spermatocytes are usually more readily obtained than oocytes, and breeding many progeny from one male is often less resource-intensive than breeding the same number of progeny from one female. Our knowledge of meiosis in mammals is thus biased towards the male germline. Here I use a large panel of 8-way intercross pedigrees from the Collaborative Cross (CC) (Churchill et al . 2004) to provide sex-specific estimates of the strength of crossover interference and the proportion of non-interfering crossovers in both sexes of house mice ( Mus musculus ). The CC is an excellent vehicle for studying recombination ( Liu et al. 2014 ) because it comprises hundreds of informative meioses through both sexes in a randomized genetic background with balanced contributions from 8 founder strains representing all the major subspecies of mice ( M. m. domesticus, M. m. musculus and M. m. castaneus ). I confirm that interference is stronger in males than females and show for the first time that the proportion of non-interfering crossovers is also greater in males than females. Longer chromosomes show stronger interference than shorter chromosomes in both sexes, but no difference in proportion of non-interfering crossovers. Results and discussion Fully-phased autosomal haplotypes were obtained from one male and one female offspring from each of 237 intercross families with the structure shown in Figure 1A . Briefly, the 8 founder strains (G 0 generation, not shown) were randomly intercrossed to create the G 1 hybrids, which were again intercrossed to create the G 2 hybrids. The offspring of the G 2 pairs are denoted the G 2 :F 1 and their genomes are a readout of the meioses in the G 1 and G 2 animals. Pedigree constraints allow each haplotype junction to be assigned to a crossover event in exactly one of 8 meioses, so the 474 offspring provide at least partial information for the outcome of 1 896 meioses (see Liu et al. (2014) ). (Crossovers in the G 1 meioses are only observed if they are transmitted to the G 2 :F 1 .) I limit my attention to the 948 fully observed meioses in the G 2 generation, which resulted in a total of 12 191 crossovers (6 537 in female and 5 654 in male meioses). Of 18 012 transmitted chromosomes, 7 457 (41.4%) were non-recombinant, 8 950 (49.7%) had exactly one crossover and 1 605 (8.9%) had two or more crossovers. An average of 13.8 crossovers were transmitted per meiosis in females and 11.9 in males. On chromosomes with more than one crossover, the mean distance between adjacent crossovers was 44.8 cM (SD 14.2 cM) in females and 44.4 cM (SD 13.0 cM) in maless, on the sex-specific genetic maps estimated from this population ( Figure 1B ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1. Estimating crossover interference genome-wide. ( A ) Pedigree of a representative intercross family. Founder haplotypes are color-coded, and each family is uniquely defined by the order of founder strains in the first generation. Crossovers identified in the G 2 :F 1 offspring can be assigned to exactly one meiosis. ( B ) Sex-specific genetic maps, smoothed over 1 Mb windows. ( B ) Empirical distribution of inter-crossover distances (histograms) compared to simulations (lines) using posterior mean values for ν 0 (gamma model) or { ν, p } (gamma-sprinkling model). ( D , E ) Posterior distribution of global sex-specific estimates of ν and p . Solid dots show posterior mean; bars show 25% − 75%ile (thick) and 2.5% − 97.5%ile (thin) quantile intervals. Sex-specific interference parameters were estimated under the gamma ( Broman and Weber 2000 ) and “gamma-sprinkling” ( Housworth and Stahl 2003 ) models of crossover interference using an extension of a Bayesian procedure I have described previously ( Morgan and Payseur 2024 ) ( Figure 1C-E ). The gamma model quantifies strength of interference via a single parameter (here denoted ν 0 ). The gamma-sprinkling model treats crossovers as a mixture of two processes: with interference, under the gamma model (with probability 1 − p ); or without interference, equivalent to the gamma model with ν ≡ 1 (with probability p ). Importantly, these are statistical abstractions and not mechanistic models. See Supplementary note 1 for motivation and details. Under the simpler gamma model, interference was stronger in males ( ν 0,male = 11.5 [95% HPDI 10.5 − 12.5]) than in females ( ν 0,female = 10.0 [95% HPDI 9.3 − 10.8]). At the maximum-likelihood estimate, the gamma-sprinkling model provided better fit to the data (−2 * log-likelihood ratio = 84.2, p = 5.2 × 10 −19 , likelihood-ratio test; ΔAIC = 80.2). Subsequent results are from the the model including non-interfering crossovers since it is both biologically plausible and statistically supported. Interference was 1.6 times stronger in males ( ν male = 18.6 [95% HPDI 16.3 − 21.1]) than in females ( ν female = 11.2 [95% HPDI 10.2 − 12.3]). The proportion of crossovers that escape interference was also 2.9 times greater in males ( p male = 0.027 [95% HPDI 0.019 − 0.036]) than in females ( p female = 0.0094 [95% HPDI 0.0054 − 0.016]). As a posterior predictive check, the distribution of inter-crossover distances from simulations under the gamma and gamma-sprinkling models was qualitatively similar to the observed distribution ( Figure 1C ). Many prior studies have shown that crossover interference is heterogeneous across chromosomes. I extended my model to allow chromosome-specific values of ν and p but was not able to obtain stable estimates due to limited sample size. Results from a reduced model without non-interfering crossovers were more stable and showed strong negative correlation between ν and chromosome length in both sexes (Spearman’s ρ = −0.39, p = 0.017; Figure S1 ). I reasoned that I could at least partially capture this signal by aggregating over chromosomes of similar size, and therefore divided them into three groups, each comprising about one-third of the cumulative genetic map. Results are shown in Figure 2 . Interference was clearly stronger on shorter relative to longer chromosomes – 1.5 times (95% HPDI 1.1 − 1.9) stronger in females and 2.4 times (95% HPDI 1.6 − 3.7) stronger in males. The proportion of non-interfering crossovers was similar across the range of chromosome size (just 0.96 times greater in females and 1.0 times greater in males, not significantly different from unity). Sex differences in interference parameters were preserved across the range of chromosome size, though the difference in strength of interference between short and long chromosomes was greater in males. Considering female meioses only, interference on the X chromosome was similar in magnitude to that on autosomes of similar size ( Figure S2 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. Interchromosomal variation in crossover interference. ( A ) Strength of interference estimated for chromosomes binned by size (“long”, chromosomes 1-5; “medium”, chromosomes 6-12; “short”, chromosomes 13-19). ( B , C ) Proportion of non-interfering crossovers. ( C ) Sex contrasts for ν and p , expressed as ratios. ( D , E ) Sex-specific contrasts between ν and p for “short” and “long” chromosomes. Previous studies in mice based on linkage mapping of chromosome 1 ( Petkov et al. 2007 ) and cytological analyses ( de Boer et al. 2006 ; Peterson and Payseur 2021 ) have shown stronger interference in males than females. I confirm those findings. my estimate of ν female = 11.2 was nearly identical to the only previous estimate from linkage data (11.3) in ( Mus musculus × Mus spretus ) F 1 females ( Broman et al. 2002 ). As with cattle ( Wang et al. 2016 ), pigs ( Brekke et al. 2025 ), domestic dogs ( Campbell et al. 2016 ) and humans ( Campbell et al. 2015 ), I observed an inverse relationship between (genetic) chromosome size and chromosome-level interference in both sexes. This results in a negative correlation between the genome-wide strength of interference and the average genetic length of a chromosome arm across species (Spearman’s ρ = −0.66, p = 0.022; Figure S3 ), though there is no such relationship with the proportion of non-interfering crossovers (Spearman’s ρ = 0.28, p = 0.38). The proportion of non-interfering crossovers in mice was about half as large as in these other species ( Table 1 ). At least in this small group of species, there is no consistent pattern as to whether interference is stronger in males or females; in the sex with the longer or shorter genetic map; or in the sex with more or fewer non-interfering crossovers. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table 1: Sex-specific interference parameters for available mammal species. cM, length of the autosomal recombination map. N, haploid chromosome number. FN, number of haploid chromosome arms (“fundamental number”, ( Matthey 1945 )). Why does crossover interference differ between sexes? One possibility is that the physical process(es) that constitute interference, whatever they are, scale with the length of the synaptonemal complex (SC). The SC is longer in females in humans ( Tease and Hultén 2004 ) and mice ( de Boer et al. 2006 ), and crossover counts are positively correlated with SC length within and across individuals in many species ( Lynn et al. 2002 ; de Boer et al. 2006 ; Dumont and Payseur 2011 ; Wang et al. 2019 ). Petkov et al. (2007) showed that the coefficient of co-incidence, a measure of interference between pairs of loci, depends on distance between loci on the SC (in µm) rather than in genomic coordinates (base pairs) in mice. This predicts that interference will be stronger in the sex with shorter SC relative to genome size and shorter genetic map. Humans, mice and pigs fit this pattern; dogs and cows do not. The relationship between SC length and recombination rate is very well-conserved while the direction of sex differences in interference is not. Factors beyond SC length must therefore be at play and it seems likely that some of these are lineage-specific. Since crossovers tend to be suppressed near centromeres ( Hunter 2015 ) but the number of crossovers per meiosis is proportional to the number of chromosome arms ( Pardo-Manuel de Villena and Sapienza 2001 ), lineage-specific features of chromosome organization and karyotype may contribute. So too may differences in life history: longer generation time means longer duration of meiotic arrest, and may favor weaker interference in females for optimal positioning of crossovers for secure attachment to the spindle ( Kong et al. 2004 ; Campbell et al. 2015 ). It is tempting to speculate that sex differences in crossover interference are related to the unique susceptibility of the female germline to meiotic drive – to the extent that weaker interference alters the probability of a crossover between the centromere and a driving locus, it could oppose the spread of the driver if it acts at meiosis I, or favor spread if it acts at meiosis II ( Brandvain and Coop 2012 ). The direction and magnitude of effect would depend on the genetic position, mechanism of action, and fitness effect of the driving allele. Finally, sex differences in interference may arise indirectly from the balance between sex-specific (and possibly sexually-antagonistic) selective pressures on recombination rate ( Mank 2009 ; Dumont 2017 ) and mechanisms that ensure crossover homeostasis. What explains the divergent relationship between ν and p on chromosome size? The biophysical constraints on the maximum number of crossovers and minimum spacing of crossovers compatible with successful chromosome segregation, may be such that chromosomes below some threshold size can accommodate one and only one crossover. That corresponds to complete interference ( ν → ∞), and indeed, small chromosomes tend to have larger values of ν across species. If the non-interfering pathway is not subject to the same constraints, I predict that p would be uncorrelated with chromosome size. Some caveats do apply to these results. First, by using haplotypes transmitted in live offspring as the sub-strate for analysis, I limit my study to viable gametes only. To the extent that interference is systematically different in gametes which are eliminated by meiotic checkpoints or cannot produce a viable zygote, my findings may be biased. Second, it is not clear how to connect the treatment of interference as a statistical phenomenon to an underlying molecular process. Mechanistic models such as the beam-film model ( Kleckner et al . 2004 ; Zhang et al. 2014 ) offer an alternative perspective. In this model, the chromosome axis is treated as a thin “film” on the surface of a flexible “beam” under some tensile stress, across which are arrayed precursor sites. A “crack” (corresponding to a crossover) can form at a precursor site, which relieves tensile stress locally and inhibits further cracks (crossovers) nearby. The effect decays over space, so at sufficient distance away from the first crack, another can form, repeating the process. This continues until tensile stress has been dissipated to the extent that no more cracks are induced. Several of the key features of crossover patterning – interference, obligate crossover, crossover homeostasis and the genetic map itself – arise naturally from this model. Zhang et al. (2014) show that the distribution of inter-crossover distance is sensitive to the number of precursor sites (double-strand breaks), the probability that a precursor site will mature into a crossover and the distance over which tensile stress decays. The latter of these is probably most similar to the statistical description of interference. Simulation results from with the beam-film model imply that the quantity ν is actually a function of multiple distinct layers of regulation. Fitting the beam-film model to empirical data is not straightforward and, importantly, requires knowing the position of all crossovers on a chromosome (as by cytological measurements on gametocytes) and not just the random subset that are transmitted to progeny. The gamma and gamma-sprinkling models remain useful for describing interference from pedigree data in a common frame of reference across different organisms. Finally, I note that the while p is an estimate of the of the proportion of non-interfering crossovers in aggregate, some independent validation is needed. These “class II” crossovers are resolved by distinct enzyme complexes (reviewed in Gray and Cohen (2016) ) but experimental methods to identify them are less mature than those for the class I crossovers that predominate in most eukaryotes studied. The gamma-sprinkling model generally has better fit to empirical data than simpler the gamma model, as shown in this manuscript and elsewhere ( Otto and Payseur 2019 ), but it is possible that the parameter p just adds some flexibility to the lower tail of the distribution of inter-crossover distances rather than directly estimating the proportion of non-interfering crossovers. Materials and methods This work re-analyzes published crossover data from the mouse Collaborative Cross (CC) project ( Churchill et al. 2004 ). Briefly, the CC is a panel of recombinant inbred mouse lines (RILs), each of which was initiated with an 8-way intercross followed by inbreeding. One male and one female of the last outbreeding generation in a subset of 237 lines were genotyped using a high-density SNP array and used to characterize the genome of the incipient RILs. Mouse breeding, DNA extraction, genotyping, haplotype inference, and construction of the recombination map are described in detail in Liu et al. (2014) . Coordinates of haplotype segments were defined on the sex-specific genetic map estimated from this cross. Crossover interference was analyzed under the “gamma-sprinkling” (or Housworth-Stahl) model. Some proportion p ∈ (0, 1) of crossovers are modeled as non-interfering, while the remaining 1 − p are subject to interference under the gamma model ( Broman and Weber 2000 ) in which the strength of interference is represented by the single unitless parameter ν > 0. (Note that my parameterization assumes that p is strictly positive, though it can be arbitrarily small. This differs from some other implementations.) I allow both ν and p to vary across groups of meioses (indexed by i = 1, … m ) and groups of chromosomes (indexed by j = 1, … n ), using an extension of the hiearchical Bayesian approach described in Morgan and Payseur (2024) . Let group-specific parameters ν ij , p ij be defined as follows: where β 0 is a global intercept term (to apply some shrinkage) and the β i and β j are subject- and chromosome-specific effects. The prior distribution is given by . That is, group-specific β i are assumed uncorrelated. The α terms are defined similarly. The likelihood of a set of transmitted chromosome segments, given the parameter vector θ = ( β, α ), was calculated with the C routine R_stahl_loglik from the R package xoi v0.72 ( Broman 2023 ). Inference was done by a simple Metropolis-coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler, with proposal distribution tuned to achieve a rejection rate of around 0.4. The sampler was run for 25 000 iterations, of which the first 5 000 were discarded as burn-in. Quantities of interest were calculated directly from the posterior distributions, with summary statistics calculated using R package coda v0.19-4.1. Data availability Processed data underlying key analyses in this manuscript will be available on Figshare: doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.29876591 Analysis code is available on Github: https://github.com/andrewparkermorgan/mouse_crossover_interference_2 Funding Support was provided by the following grants from the National Institutes of Health: P50 GM076468 (Gary A Churchill) and F30 MH103925 (Andrew Morgan). Conflicts of interest None of the authors have any competing financial interests in the work described in this manuscript. Supplementary material Supplementary note 1 . Description of statistical models for crossover interference. File S1 . Table of 21 993 crossovers (COs) reported in ( Liu et al. 2014 ). Columns are as follows. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Additional notes Physical positions are reported on the mm9/GRCm37 assembly, as this was used during the original analysis, without liftover to the current mm39 assembly. Only genetic positions are actually used in this manuscript. Founder strains are reported as 1-letter codes: A = A/J; B = C57BL/6J; C = 129S1/SvImJ; D = NOD/ShiLtJ; E = NZO/HlLtJ; F = CAST/EiJ; G = PWK/PhJ; H = WSB/EiJ. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S1: Chromosome-specific interference parameters under the simple gamma model without non-interfering crossovers. ( A ) Chromosome-specific values of ν with 95% HPDIs plotted against genetic chromosome length. ( B ) Comparison of male versus female estimates of ν for each chromosome. Dotted reference line passes through the intercept and has slope 1. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S2: Chromosome-specific interference parameters under the simple gamma model without non-interfering crossovers, in females only. Chromosome-specific values of ν with 95% HPDIs plotted against genetic chromosome length, for labelled autosomes (grey) and the X chromosome (black). Download figure Open in new tab Figure S3: Interference vs length of genetic map. Sex-specific values of ν ( A ) and p ( B ) plotted against the average genetic length of a chromosome arm in 5 mammal species. Acknowledgements I thank Bret Payseur for helpful discussions and the anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions on sharpening the manuscript. Funder Information Declared National Institute of General Medical Sciences, https://ror.org/04q48ey07 , P50 GM076468 National Institute of Mental Health, https://ror.org/04xeg9z08 , F30 MH103925 Footnotes (1) Addition of supplementary note detailing the statistical model for crossover interference (note: this is review of prior literature, not new intellectual contribution) (2) Addition of results from gamma model as well as gamma-sprinkling model (3) Discussion of gamma model in comparison to the (mechanistic) beam-film model for interference http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.29876591 https://github.com/andrewparkermorgan/mouse_crossover_interference_2 References ↵ Brandvain , Y. and G. Coop , 2012 Scrambling eggs: meiotic drive and the evolution of female recombination rates . Genetics 190 : 709 – 723 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Brekke , C. , A. B. Gjuvsland , P. Berg , and S. E. Johnston , 2025 Independent genetic basis of meiotic crossover positioning and interference in domestic pigs . Sci. Rep . 15 : 9260 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Broman , K. W. , 2023 xoi: Tools for Analyzing Crossover Interference . ↵ Broman , K. W. , L. B. Rowe , G. A. Churchill , and K. Paigen , 2002 Crossover interference in the mouse . Genetics 160 : 1123 – 1131 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Broman , K. W. and J. L. Weber , 2000 Characterization of human crossover interference . Am. J. Hum. Genet . 66 : 1911 – 1926 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Campbell , C. L. , C. Bhérer , B. E. Morrow , A. R. Boyko , and A. Auton , 2016 A pedigree-based map of recombination in the domestic dog genome . G3 . ↵ Campbell , C. L. , N. A. Furlotte , N. Eriksson , D. Hinds , and A. Auton , 2015 Escape from crossover interference increases with maternal age . Nat. Commun . 6 : 6260 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Churchill , G. A. , D. C. Airey , H. Allayee , J. M. Angel , A. D. Attie , et al. , 2004 The collaborative cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits . Nat. Genet . 36 : 1133 – 1137 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Cole , F. , L. Kauppi , J. Lange , I. Roig , R. Wang , et al. , 2012 Homeostatic control of recombination is implemented progressively in mouse meiosis . Nat. Cell Biol . 14 : 424 – 430 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ de Boer , E. , P. Stam , A. J. J. Dietrich , A. Pastink , and C. Heyting , 2006 Two levels of interference in mouse meiotic recombination . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A . 103 : 9607 – 9612 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Dumont , B. L. , 2017 X-chromosome control of genome-scale recombination rates in house mice . Genetics 205 : 1649 – 1656 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Dumont , B. L. and B. A. Payseur , 2011 Evolution of the genomic recombination rate in murid rodents . Genetics 187 : 643 – 657 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Gray , S. and P. E. Cohen , 2016 Control of meiotic crossovers: From double-strand break formation to designation . Annu. Rev. Genet . 50 : 175 – 210 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Guillon , H. , F. Baudat , C. Grey , R. M. Liskay , and B. de Massy , 2005 Crossover and noncrossover pathways in mouse meiosis . Mol. Cell 20 : 563 – 573 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Hassold , T. and P. Hunt , 2001 To err (meiotically) is human: the genesis of human aneuploidy . Nat. Rev. Genet . 2 : 280 – 291 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Hassold , T. J. , S. L. Sherman , D. Pettay , D. C. Page , and P. A. Jacobs , 1991 XY chromosome nondisjunction in man is associated with diminished recombination in the pseudoautosomal region . Am. J. Hum. Genet . 49 : 253 – 260 . OpenUrl PubMed Web of Science ↵ Higgins , J. D. , S. J. Armstrong , F. C. H. Franklin , and G. H. Jones , 2004 The arabidopsis MutS homolog AtMSH4 functions at an early step in recombination: evidence for two classes of recombination in arabidopsis . Genes Dev . 18 : 2557 – 2570 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Holloway , J. K. , J. Booth , W. Edelmann , C. H. McGowan , and P. E. Cohen , 2008 MUS81 generates a subset of MLH1-MLH3-independent crossovers in mammalian meiosis . PLoS Genet . 4 : e1000186 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Housworth , E. A. and F. W. Stahl , 2003 Crossover interference in humans . Am. J. Hum. Genet . 73 : 188 – 197 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Hunter , N. , 2015 Meiotic recombination: The essence of heredity . Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol . 7 : a016618 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Jones , G. H. , 1984 The control of chiasma distribution . Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol . 38 : 293 – 320 . OpenUrl PubMed ↵ Kleckner , N. , D. Zickler , G. H. Jones , J. Dekker , R. Padmore , et al. , 2004 A mechanical basis for chromosome function . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A . 101 : 12592 – 12597 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Koehler , K. E. , R. S. Hawley , S. Sherman , and T. Hassold , 1996 Recombination and nondisjunction in humans and flies . Hum. Mol. Genet . 5 Spec No : 1495 – 1504 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Kong , A. , J. Barnard , D. F. Gudbjartsson , G. Thorleifsson , G. Jonsdottir , et al. , 2004 Recombination rate and reproductive success in humans . Nat. Genet . 36 : 1203 – 1206 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Liu , E. Y. , A. P. Morgan , E. J. Chesler , W. Wang , G. A. Churchill , et al. , 2014 High-resolution sex-specific linkage maps of the mouse reveal polarized distribution of crossovers in male germline . Genetics 197 : 91 – 106 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Lynn , A. , K. E. Koehler , L. Judis , E. R. Chan , J. P. Cherry , et al. , 2002 Covariation of synaptonemal complex length and mammalian meiotic exchange rates . Science 296 : 2222 – 2225 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Mank , J. E. , 2009 The evolution of heterochiasmy: the role of sexual selection and sperm competition in determining sex-specific recombination rates in eutherian mammals . Genet. Res. (Camb .) 91 : 355 – 363 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Martini , E. , R. L. Diaz , N. Hunter , and S. Keeney , 2006 Crossover homeostasis in yeast meiosis . Cell 126 : 285 – 295 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Matthey , R. , 1945 L’évolution de la formule chromosomiale chez les vertébrés . Experientia 1 : 78 – 86 . OpenUrl ↵ Morelli , M. A. and P. E. Cohen , 2005 Not all germ cells are created equal: aspects of sexual dimorphism in mammalian meiosis . J Reprod Fertil 130 : 761 – 781 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Morgan , A. P. and B. A. Payseur , 2024 Genetic background affects the strength of crossover interference in house mice . Genetics 228 . ↵ Muller , H. J. , 1916 The mechanism of crossing-over . Am. Nat . 50 : 193 – 221 . OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Otto , S. P. and B. A. Payseur , 2019 Crossover interference: Shedding light on the evolution of recombination . Annu. Rev. Genet . 53 : 19 – 44 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Paigen , K. and P. Petkov , 2010 Mammalian recombination hot spots: properties, control and evolution . Nat. Rev. Genet . 11 : 221 – 233 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Pardo-Manuel de Villena , F. and C. Sapienza , 2001 Recombination is proportional to the number of chromosome arms in mammals . Mamm. Genome 12 : 318 – 322 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Peterson , A. L. and B. A. Payseur , 2021 Sex-specific variation in the genome-wide recombination rate . Genetics 217 : 1 – 11 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Petkov , P. M. , K. W. Broman , J. P. Szatkiewicz , and K. Paigen , 2007 Crossover interference underlies sex differences in recombination rates . Trends Genet . 23 : 539 – 542 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Santos , T. d. L. , N. Hunter , C. Lee , B. Larkin , J. Loidl , et al. , 2003 The Mus81-Mms4 endonuclease acts independently of double-holliday junction resolution to promote a distinct subset of crossovers during meiosis in budding yeast . Genetics 164 : 81 – 94 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text ↵ Sardell , J. M. and M. Kirkpatrick , 2020 Sex differences in the recombination landscape . Am. Nat . 195 : 361 – 379 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Sturtevant , A. H. , 1913 The linear arrangement of six sex-linked factors in drosophila, as shown by their mode of association . J. Exp. Zool . 14 : 43 – 59 . OpenUrl CrossRef Web of Science ↵ Sturtevant , A. H. , 1915 The behavior of the chromosomes as studied through linkage . Z. Indukt. Abstamm. Vererbungsl . 13 : 234 – 287 . OpenUrl ↵ Tease , C. and M. A. Hultén , 2004 Inter-sex variation in synaptonemal complex lengths largely determine the different recombination rates in male and female germ cells . Cytogenet. Genome Res . 107 : 208 – 215 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science ↵ Wang , S. , C. Veller , F. Sun , A. Ruiz-Herrera , Y. Shang , et al. , 2019 Per-nucleus crossover covariation and implications for evolution . Cell 177 : 326 – 338.e16 . OpenUrl PubMed ↵ Wang , Z. , B. Shen , J. Jiang , J. Li , and L. Ma , 2016 Effect of sex, age and genetics on crossover interference in cattle . Sci. Rep . 6 : 37698 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed ↵ Zhang , L. , Z. Liang , J. Hutchinson , and N. Kleckner , 2014 Crossover patterning by the beam-film model: analysis and implications . PLoS Genet . 10 : e1004042 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted October 20, 2025. Download PDF Supplementary Material Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice Andrew P Morgan bioRxiv 2025.08.10.669551; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.10.669551 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Sex differences in crossover interference in house mice Andrew P Morgan bioRxiv 2025.08.10.669551; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.10.669551 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Genetics Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7621) Biochemistry (17645) Bioengineering (13867) Bioinformatics (41872) Biophysics (21416) Cancer Biology (18549) Cell Biology (25443) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13360) Ecology (19866) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24289) Genetics (15587) Genomics (22470) Immunology (17706) Microbiology (40314) Molecular Biology (17142) Neuroscience (88456) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2826) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4815) Physiology (7634) Plant Biology (15111) Scientific Communication and Education (2042) Synthetic Biology (4285) Systems Biology (9812) Zoology (2268)