About 6% of all angiosperms are dioecious. This separation of sexual function to male and female individuals, and the fundamentally different patterns of reproductive resource allocation that follows that separation, are thought to have important ecological and evolutionary consequences for plant enemy interactions.  I have studied whether intersexual differences in susceptibility to natural enemies can be explained by intersexual differences in resource allocation. In cases when sexual dimorphic traits form the target resource of a particular enemy I expected the enemy to select the best resource. The study system is the perennial dioecious herb, Silene dioica (Caryophyllaceae) and three of its specialist natural enemies, two insect herbivores the fly Delia criniventris (Anthomyiidae) and the twirler moth Caryocolum viscariella (Gelechiidae) and one systemic anther smut fungus Microbotryum violaceum. All three share the same food recourse, the floral stems, of their host plant. I studied the interaction on nine islands in a rising Bothinan archipelago over seven consecutive years. Both herbivores attacked female plants more than male plants (D. criniventris, 32.8% females, 30.7% males; C. viscariella, 4% females, 2% males). This attack pattern was consistent over years and islands and also correlated with a number of sexually dimorphic traits suggesting that females offer the better resource. Herbivore attack had no effect on plant survival but a significant effect on re-flowering the following year. Non-attacked females had an estimated mean re-flowering rate of 30.2%, and non-attacked males of 31%. Herbivore-attacked females had an estimated re-flowering rate of 46% compared with 38.4% for males. Females showed a stronger compensatory response to attack and tended to re-flower more often than males. Attack rates differed markedly in the different stages of primary succession. They were consistently higher in the youngest zone and decreased in parallel to progressing succession. This zonal pattern of decreasing attack rates correlated with several plant attributes, a decrease in plant size and nitrogen content, and an increased content of secondary compounds, but not to host plant density. We failed to come up with a simple explanation for the spatial structure with chronic high attack rates in the younger zones. However, the consistent patterns in attack rate suggest that a suite of abiotic and biotic factors interact and reinforce the strength and direction of selection. In general females were more frequently diseased by the anther smut Microbotryum violaceum than males with two exceptions. Disease frequencies were male biased on islands with low disease levels and in one of the seven study years. The change in disease frequencies from male to female bias confirm earlier studies suggesting that the relative contribution of the two components of infection risk, disease encounter and per contact infection probability can vary with population disease level. The change in the proportions of diseased males and females that was observed in one of the study years, followed a year of extreme weather conditions (prolonged drought). Both sexes showed a similar decline in flowering but diseased females decreased more than diseased males. This difference in response can be explained if considering that disease is more resource demanding in females than in males. Except for resources needed for mycelial growth and spore production, in females resources are also needed to restructure their sex expression and produce anthers. My study shows (i) that in dioecious species traits that are sexually dimorphic are of great importance for understanding the outcome of interactions with natural enemies, (ii) that the strengths and directions of enemy-host plant interactions are strongly shaped by both biotic and abiotic conditions.

La déficience intellectuelle (DI) et les troubles du spectre autistique (ASD) sont deux troubles neurodéveloppementaux (NDD) présentant de nombreux chevauchements génétiques et phénotypiques ainsi qu’un biais de sexe important, avec plus de garçons atteints (1,4x plus pour la DI et 4x plus pour l'ASD). Au sein de notre laboratoire, le taux de diagnostic des patients souffrant de DI et/ou d’ASD est significativement plus élevé chez les filles que chez les garçons. De façon surprenante, nous n’avons pas observé de différence significative entre filles et garçons au niveau de la proportion de mutations pathogènes sur le chromosome X (5,3% versus 7,6%), confirmant ainsi que les mutations causales totalement pénétrantes sur ce chromosome ne peuvent pas expliquer la totalité de l’excès de garçons atteints de DI ou d'ASD. Nous avons donc choisi d’étudier une autre des hypothèses, plus environnementale, qui pourrait rendre le cerveau masculin plus susceptible au développement de NDD : le rôle des androgènes au cours du développement du cerveau. J'ai étudié l’effet de ces hormones masculines dans des précurseurs neuronaux humains (hNSCs) et observé que les androgènes augmentent la prolifération des hNSCs et les protègent contre la mort cellulaire en conditions stressantes. J'ai également mis en évidence que les androgènes, via leur récepteur (le récepteur aux androgènes), régulent une centaine de gènes dans les hNSCs avec, parmi eux, un enrichissement en gènes connus pour être différentiellement exprimés chez les individus avec ASD (dont NRCAM et FAM107A). La régulation de ces gènes par les androgènes pendant le développement du cerveau pourrait ainsi participer à la sensibilité accrue du cerveau masculin, exposé à d'autres facteurs génétiques et environnementaux, à développer une NDD. / Intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are two common neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) with many genetic and phenotypic overlaps. Another common feature is the existence of a gender bias, very strong for ASD (4 males for 1 female) and notable for ID (1.4:1). In our team, the diagnostic yield of patients affected by ID with or wihout ASD is significantly higher in girls than in boys. Surprisingly, we did not observe a significant difference between girls and boys in the proportion of pathogenic mutations on the X chromosome (5.3% versus 7.6%), confirming that rare and fully penetrant mutations on this chromosome can not explain the totality this male bias observed in ID and ASD. We have therefore chosen to study another hypothesis, more environmental, which could make the male brain more susceptible to develop NDD: the role of androgens during brain development. I studied the effect of these male hormones in human neuronal precursors (hNSCs) and observed that androgens increase the proliferation of hNSCs and protect them against cell death under stressful conditions. I also showed that androgens, via their receptor (the androgen receptor), regulate a hundred genes in hNSCs with, among them, an enrichment of genes known to be differentially expressed in individuals with ASD (e.g NRCAM and FAM107A). The regulation of these genes by androgens during brain development could thus contribute to the increased sensitivity of the male brain, exposed to other genetic and environmental factors, to develop an NDD.

Le biais de sélection par rapport au sexe (ou biais de sexe) représente une différence systématique des proportions d’hommes et de femmes entre un échantillon de participants et leur population, ce qui peut miner la validité d’une étude. La recherche sur le stress humain est susceptible au biais de sexe étant donné la présence de facteurs y étant généralement associés, principalement les protocoles invasifs – contenant des éléments douloureux, inconfortables ou menaçants pour les participants. La présente étude a vérifié si les proportions d’hommes et de femmes des études sur le stress varient selon 1) le niveau d’invasion d’une étude en stress (invasif ou non invasif) et selon 2) des facteurs exploratoires (p. ex. pays, méthode de recrutement). Deux domaines hors stress possédant des protocoles invasifs (douleur expérimentale) et non invasifs (mémoire) ont été utilisés comme domaines contrôles. Dans cette enquête transversale de la littérature, les proportions d’hommes et de femmes ont été recueillies dans 324 études contenant des protocoles invasifs ou non invasifs, représentant un total de 23 611 participants, dont 42,18 % d’hommes. La représentativité des sexes a varié selon le niveau d’invasion dans les domaines du stress et hors stress, les hommes davantage représentés dans les études invasives que dans les études non invasives. Les résultats indiquent que les facteurs exploratoires analysés peuvent tous être associés au sexe. Cette étude a identifié la présence de facteurs pouvant provoquer un biais de sexe en recherche sur le stress humain, ouvrant la voie aux recherches souhaitant approfondir la généralisation des résultats. / Sex selection bias (or sex bias) refers to a systematic difference in the proportions of men and women between a sample of participants and their population, which may undermine the validity of a study. Human stress research is vulnerable to sex bias, given the presence of factors typically associated with it, primarily invasive protocols — containing painful, uncomfortable, or threatening elements for participants. The present study has verified whether the proportions of men and women in stress studies differ by 1) the invasiveness of a study (invasive or non-invasive) and by 2) exploratory factors (e.g. country, recruitment method). Two non-stress domains with invasive (experimental pain) and non-invasive (memory) protocols were used as control domains. In a cross-sectional survey of the literature, the proportions of men and women were collected from 324 studies containing invasive or non-invasive protocols, representing a total of 23 611 participants, 42,18 % of whom were men. Sex representativeness differed across invasiveness levels in both the stress and non-stress domains with men being more represented in invasive than in non-invasive studies. Results indicate that the exploratory factors analyzed may all be associated with sex. This study identified the presence of factors that may cause sex bias in human stress research, opening the door to research wishing to further investigate the generalizability of results.