New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

The Male Sex Chromosome Isn’t Shrinking

It may be small, but the Y chromosome is here to stay

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Y chromosome is the runt of our 46-chromosome litter. Despite its well-known role—determining whether a mammal will be male—it pales in comparison to the other chromosomes, especially its partner, X. Indeed, 200 million to 300 million years ago Y shared roughly 600 genes with X. Today they share only 19. Those losses, some geneticists noted in 2002, indicated Y was actually rotting away. Give it another 10 million years, they said, and Y would be extinct. Others then wondered whether males would go with it.

But Y has stopped shedding those genes, according to recent research, and, in fact, has been stable for the past 25 million years, says David Page, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an author of the study, which appeared in Nature. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) Page and his colleagues found that although Y was much skimpier in more recently evolved species, the attrition had stopped millions of years ago.

That stability may come from a core of about 12 genes that have nothing to do with sex and are instead responsible for vital cellular functions in the heart, blood, lungs and other tissues. “These are powerful players in the central command room of cells,” and natural selection would favor their survival, Page says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


One proponent of the rotting Y idea is not convinced. The past several million years may simply be a lull, says Jennifer Graves, a geneticist at the Australian National University. She notes that at least two rodent groups have managed to dispense with it altogether. The new research suggests, however, that Y will remain at its current, if slight, size.

Josh Fischman was formerly senior editor for special projects at Scientific American and covered medicine, biology and science policy. He has written and edited about science and health for Discover, ScienceEarth and U.S. News & World Report. Follow Fischman on Bluesky @jfischman.bsky.social

More by Josh Fischman
Scientific American Magazine Vol 311 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Here to Stay” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 311 No. 1 (), p. 27
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0714-27

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe