Review the two research articles examining disease and well-being
1) the association between genetic variation and obesity
2) the association between genetic variation and pair-bonding behaviors
Please choose one of the following and comment:
1) the association between genetic variation and obesity
2) the association between genetic variation and pair-bonding behaviors
Please choose one of the following and comment:
1. You can share the new, 'surprising' information you learned
2. Ask a question that needs additional clarification,
3. Share a news link relevant to the discussion.
4. Reply to another student's comment.
I was extremely surprised to find out that studies are being done that associates pair-bonding with different alleles and increased susceptibility for offspring for certain mutations. I find it fascinating that something as variable as the way you communicate with your partner could significantly alter your offspring so significantly. Now that these factors are being studied I feel as though scientists can open a lot of controversial but interesting doors to explain different diseases and phenomena with regards to human behavior and mutations. I believe that people may reject many of the associations at first since they do seem so different from typical scientific studies of human DNA. With time, I believe a lot of insightful information can be found and examined further, these studies seem both extremely interesting and promising.
ReplyDeleteI think that genetic variation in pair-bonding activity is extremely interesting. Humans are social creatures, and bonding with other humans is necessary to our physical and mental survival. I found the study by Walum et al. to be very thought provoking. I had never heard of ARP (arginine vasopressin), and its effects on proneness for monogamous behavior in males before. This new research has the potential to change the way we think about pair-bonding behavior, but I think there is also potential for this information to be taken out of context, as was seen in the news clip we watched in class today. Newscasters named the gene the “monogamy gene”, and were interviewing people to see if they would want to get their boyfriend or fiancé tested to see if they possessed this gene. I agree with the psychotherapist that was interviewed on the subject, who said that just because you have the gene does not mean you will cheat, and just because you do not have the gene does not mean that you won’t. It is extremely important for the public to understand the uses and meaning behind these genetic breakthroughs, so that they are able to interpret the information correctly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rebecca. I think there is such a difference with what media reports and what is actually being researched in the scientific community, and how easily taken out of context. I think with something as personal as pair-bonding, there are a great deal of outside factors that can influence whether or not having ARP affects whether or not a partner will cheat. I would be interested to see a large cohort conducted where people who vary in those alleles are studied over time in order to determine if they are statistically more likely to cheat on their partner.
DeleteIn addition, the obesity article links an association with certain genetics that can make a person more susceptible to obesity. Although both of these topics are intriguing, as I read them I can't help but to wonder if these associations are true, what is the goal of this type of research? What do genomic and genetic counselors/researchers hope to use this information for? As some others have commented in their posts, once people learn that their might be genetics to "blame" for their obesity or lack of pair-bonding, they may be less likely to believe that lifestyle can influence or override those genetics. It's possible that they might even feel that they can't change their fate.
As we read more of these types of studies, I'm interested to learn what types of positive aspects these researchers will use this type of information for. I'm interested to know how people would react if they found out that they have these susceptibilities, and if they would change their lifestyle for the better or for the worse. Is the ultimate goal, for example with obesity, to find a genetic susceptibility so we can perform a type of gene therapy or minimize the effects of it?
The association between genetic variability and obesity is interesting. The past couple of years there has been new research on this coming out, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. Once people can attribute a problem to genetics, it's almost like they have something to fall back on and push the blame off themselves. I truly believe in a holistic person, and I think genetics can have an impact, but lifestyle can have more of an impact. If there are these predispositions and genes for obesity, I'm sure there are people in other parts of the world that have them, but for some reason the "American" diet and lifestyle takes over. I also think that connecting obesity with genetics would cause big changes in healthcare. If it's connected to genetics, people could try and lobby that problems caused by obesity (heart troubles, example) should be covered in full because of genetics, this would cause a big movement of money, and I'm not quite sure if our economy is prepared for that right now. This reminded me of an article I just read here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/18/fried-food-genetic-obesity/6566407/
This article links fried food to obesity, and says that it can be worse for people who are predisposed. But my real question is, why are people even eating fried food in the first place? This brings me back to the western diet. To combat the obesity problem, we need sweeping social and environmental changes because realistically, I'm not sure how well genetic approaches could succeed.
I also agree
DeleteI also agree with you Amanda. I think that finding a link between obesity and genetics could have negative impacts from a public health standpoint. If a "treatment" were made available for obesity after a link to obesity were discovered, it could cause people to forego a healthy lifestyle for an easier treatment of obesity. This would shift healthcare from an emphasis on prevention to an emphasis on treatment, the opposite direction that that should be moving in. Practicing a healthy lifestyle would improve the health of our country, and help the country financially.
DeleteI found both the article and our class discussion of the role of genetics in pair-bonding in males. While the study was surprising to read about at first, I don't feel that it's so far-fetched. Since the human species evolved, males have always had the biological goal to reproduce as much as possible, where as women are more selective because they carry the child. Because of this, males would have faired better from an evolutionary standpoint if they were less monogamous. Finding a gene that connects to this evolutionarily beneficial behavior really does make sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't believe this gene is end all, be all of pair bonding in humans. As the woman from the video we watched in class today said, this gene-behavior association is just that--an association. Carrying this specific allele doesn't mean that you're destined to never truly bond with a partner, just as not having this allele doesn't mean you're in the clear. Rather, it's a combination of genetic and environment factors throughout your life that impact your behavior and personality.
This topic really piqued my interest and I hope to learn more about this in the future as genomic research advances.
I completely agree with what Lindsey has already covered regarding the topic of genetics and pair-bonding behavior. One topic that may have been misconstrued in the news report in class was the fact that this genotype is a polymorphism and not a mutation. The fact that this is a polymorphism makes it seem more commonplace, therefore offering assistance in counteracting the deterministic misconceptions surrounding genetic variations. In addition, although the study proves convincing, I think we must also acknowledge the study population: Swedish, Caucasian adults born between 1944 and 1971. The limited scope of the study population does raise some questions, as does the way these results were misconstrued on that newscast. I found it very odd that the researchers decided to use rodents rather than a more closely related animal such as a primate. So, I found a similar study implemented in 2013 that researched the same genotype in chimps, and "the overall results [of that study suggested...] that the AVPR1A gene influences the sensitivity in perception of socio-communicative cues by male but not female chimpanzees," which basically mirrors that of those in our research paper. I guess I just found it interesting that the results of our assigned reading haven't been completed forgotten and to this day scientists continue to try to build upon this puzzling genomic discovery
DeleteArticle: http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140120/srep03774/full/srep03774.html
The relationship between genetic variation and obesity is easy to understand, yet difficult to apply to your own life. A person can be genetically predisposed to be obese, but that sounds like a sorry excuse because genetics can only go so far when it comes to being healthy and how one can control their life. Sure, one can have the genes that is more sensitive towards obesity, but our actions is what ultimately switches those genes on or off. It just seems like a justification or designated scapegoat if someone is obese. It doesn't make sense for only people who are genetically predisposed to be obese to watch what they eat; everyone should be doing that already. It is interesting that there is an obesity gene, if you will, but that doesn't determine anything. Your actions and some controllable environmental factors can trigger the gene to be expressed or not.
ReplyDeleteI think Samantha makes some good points in her post. We know obesity has to do with a mixture of socio-behavioral, environmental, and genetic factors and I do agree that at times people can use genetics as an excuse for certain behaviors for example this can happen with alcoholics. It is important to recognize that genetics do play a role in weight but our choices and behaviors also do too and can overcome our genetics. I do believe the same applies to the finding of a pair bonding gene - we should not let men use this as an excuse to be unfaithful but also know having that this gene is not an absolute predictor that the male will be a cheater.
DeleteI think the association between pair-bonding and genetic variability is very interesting. I was surprised after reading the article, and finding out that pair-bonding behavior in males can be linked to a particular allele of a gene. It seems far-fetched though, to think about this as a monogamy gene, as they were calling it on the Today Show, because that makes it seem like only this gene alone is responsible for monogamous men. It is easy for someone who doesn't understand genomics to think this means that if men don't have this gene, they will be unfaithful in relationships and if men do have it, they are going to be faithful - without taking into account the effect of environmental factors, choice, etc. It is still really intriguing though. Even things we don't think of as being genetic per se may be very well linked to our DNA.
ReplyDeleteI am particularly interested in the link between the pair-bonding gene allele and autism. People with autism spectrum disorders have impaired social skills and do not bond in the same way that individuals without autism do, so it would make sense to be due to a mutation somewhere in the genome. I know that autism is a very complex disorder whose etiology is not well known, so it would be interesting to find out what other genes play a role in autism, and how methods we've learned about in the past already such as gene therapy could play a role in treatment of the disorder.
I agree with what Samantha, Lauren, and Kendra said above. I agree that your genetics is not the only factor that determines your risk for obesity. There are many other factors that play a part in obesity. I read this article from the LA times that talks about the genetic predisposition to obesity and what it means. It said that Boston University and Harvard University conducted a study on consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and found that those who consumed these beverages AND were genetically predisposed to obesity gained more weight than those who were not genetically predisposed. However, this article does go on to say that just because you're not genetically predisposed does not mean that unhealthy behaviors will not affect you and you will not become obese. The article goes on to say that people who eat fried foods are less likely to take care of their health in other areas and therefore are more likely to engage in other unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, alcohol, little or no exercise, etc. I think that there are many factors that contribute to the risk of obesity. I think genetic factors do play a role in making people more susceptible to obesity, but I think many other factors play a role as well in making someone more susceptible to obesity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-fried-food-obesity-genes-20140318,0,5446348.story
I think that the article by Clement et. al. regarding a genetic variation being linked to obesity has enormous public health implications, both positive and negative.
ReplyDeleteThe obesity epidemic in the United States is one of the biggest health concerns today. Now that more of the common communicable diseases are being eradicated globally, there has been a big push to increase our health in terms of noncommunicable diseases. Finding a link between genetics and obesity could open many doors to possible treatment options, helping to eventually significantly reduce the prevalence of not only obesity, but also of the associated diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and heart disease.
While all of that is a plus for the public health initiative on obesity, I think that it could also cause public health problems, as Amanda touched upon. If there is a genetic link to obesity, it could cause people to blame their genes for their poor health. This could in turn cause them to lead less healthy lifestyles because they believe that their genes are the only factors at play in regards to their health rather than the behavioral and environmental factors that also affect health. In addition, if a link between obesity and genes is discovered, I think that possible treatment options that would become available would put an unnecessary focus on a treatment approach to healthcare rather than on a prevention approach that would improve health outcomes and be better for the nation's economy.
I find it fascinating that there is an evident link between pair-bonding tendencies in men to the presence of specific alleles, as discussed by Walum, et. al. This study, and similar future studies, could help in improving our knowledge of autism spectrum disorders, and possibly help in the treatment of severe autism.
ReplyDeleteHowever I think that the video we watched in class about this subject raised some good points. Although an association between genes and men's pair-bonding abilities has been discovered, that does not mean that the fate of those carrying or not carrying the allele for this gene is predetermined. As with any facet of our health, this is determined by a combination of our genes, our environment, and our behaviors, among other things. I think that this data could be easily misinterpreted as certain men not being able to form healthy, monogamous relationships with others. This in fact would not be completely determined by our genes, as nothing is. I will be interested to see what other research comes out in the future about this.
I agree with Juliana, the information regarding pair bonding tendencies was fascinating and I do think that the information could be pertinent to our understanding of autism and to treatment and possible prevention of autism. This is especially important because of the growing rates of autism in the US, which could be linked to the fact that the spectrum of autism has broadened or possible overdiagnoses.
DeleteI also agree that it is important to understand that genetics are not an exact blue print of your life. We should stress in educating people that genetics are a small part of a much more complex and nuanced system that determines our health. There needs to be an understanding of this so people do not feel "doomed" to have unhealthy relationships or feel as if every aspect of their life is set in stone.
I found the Clement et al. article about genetic variability and obesity very surprising. Growing up I always believed obesity was a result of an inactive and unhealthy lifestyle, however, within recent years I always heard there is a genetic link, but never researched it on my own time. After reading this article, it makes sense that obesity has a genetic link as most things do; however there are more factors other than genetics that affect obesity, such as the external environment, access to fruits and vegetables, etc. Although this study shows there is an association, it is not exactly a cause and effect relationship, as there are preventative interventions that can take place. Although one may have a predisposition to obesity, they can control their diet, exercise regimen, and overall quality of their lifestyle to prevent it from getting worse. Exercise and a healthy diet may not completely overcome the effects of genes, but it is a great start to reducing obesity and hopefully, change/hinder future offspring predisposition of having obesity.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised at the correlation genetics may potentially have with obesity and pair-bonding behaviors (as well as many other conditions). It's interesting how having certain genes can make you "more prone" to certain conditions. However, I believe that life-style and environmental factors play a larger role in an individual's chances of developing obesity and having certain pair-bonding behaviors. Sure studies have shown that there is may be a positive correlation but that doesn't necessarily mean that the affected individual will definitely be obese or have martial problems. Like, if a person has an "obese" gene, they can counter it by having a healthy diet and exercising. As for people with "pair-bonding behavior" issues, I think it's up in the air and all based on personal preference, possibly how that individual is raised with emphasis on faithfulness or how attached they are to their the significant other. Having a gene that makes you more susceptible to a condition compared to other people isn't an excuse to lay back and let negative things occur; if anything it should be empowering for individuals to take action to counteract their susceptible state.
ReplyDeleteWhat we read about and discussed in class about pair bonding was not completely new to me. I had actually discussed the role of vasopressin receptors and pair bonding in voles in BI 107 or 108 (I can't quite remember which!); however, I had not heard it discussed in relation to humans. I think it is an interesting area of study and am interested in seeing what more studies will learn from it. However I think the most surprising thing I learned was how misleading the media is when it comes to genomics/genetics and the medical field in general. Watching the Today Show clip and hearing the host discuss it as if it was a gene that programmed you to cheat was ridiculous and what was even more ridiculous was asking whether or not women would get their partner tested for the "cheating" gene before they got married. The doctors on the show tried to correct him and explain it was simply associated with less pair bonding rather than a cause of cheating but was somewhat ignored by the host and by that point the viewers were already told this gene caused you to cheat. I think the media is very important but can very easily twist ideas to make a better story, especially when it comes to science. The Today Show promoted the idea single genes often have one result which as we're learning is not true; gene's often interact with each other and the environment and are associated with a variety of results. This show demonstrates how much the public needs to be educated about genomics/genetics so common misconceptions like this "cheating" gene are not perpetuated by the media.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article on pair bonding and genetic variation was interesting. I also thought it was interesting that the association between AVPR1A polymorphism and human pair-bonding was found only in males. Why does vasopressin affect the behaviors of male more?
ReplyDeleteResearchers finding that the 334 allele is over-transmitted in subjects with autism was a great achievement also.
However, I believe that while there might be some influence on pair bonding from your genes, it’s mostly who you are and your personality that affects pair bonding. This reason is why I thought the Today Show video clip greatly exaggerated the effects of AVPR1A polymorphism. There was only an association found, but the Today Show, and the media in general, find it more beneficial to sensationalize things and try to stir up controversy. It’s laughable that they actually went around and asked women if they would want their significant other to get tested for the polymorphism. As it was pointed out in class, association doesn’t mean causation.
I've never really thought about how your genetic makeup can affect something like weight. I've only related genetics to cancer most of the time, and I have a bias that genetics really only affect us in terms of diseases like cancer; not weight. But after being in this class and learning so much about genetics, I am somewhat more convinced on how much genetics can affect our lives; something like our weight. The Clément article was interesting and made me think about just how much genetics can affect us. I recently found an article (link below) and also tweeted about a "fat gene" scientists found called the IRX3 that is "highly expressed in an area of the brain that regulates feeding behaviour," thus leading to obesity. (Owens). (Previously, it was thought that a mutation in the gene FTO was associated with obesity). This gene in addition to external factors we learned in class, such as, environmental and social factors, can enhance or exacerbate the gene. However, although it is really hard, considering the challenges, struggles, and stress people go through their daily, it's important to keep in mind that we should not be blaming our 'genes' for being overweight, but take actions for what we can change. And I know many students have already mentioned this, such as eating properly (portioning) and exercise, but this just shows how important these are and how much we should emphasize this because it is one of the main contenders that affect our lives and something we can control.
ReplyDeleteThe association between genetic variation and pair-bonding was also an interesting article. It again highlights how much our genes can determine "who we are" and in this case, our personality and actions. It was an interesting read to see how the association with the allele and human pair-bonding behaviour can affect, esp. in men, someone's marital status and if someone will cheat. However, as mentioned earlier by Rebecca, I also agree with the psychotherapist that was interviewed, that just because someone has it doesn't mean they will cheat, and just because someone doesn't have it doesn't mean they won't cheat.
These are all important information findings that everyone should keep in mind.
http://www.nature.com/news/new-contender-for-fat-gene-found-1.14863
The relationship between genetic variation and pair-bonding behaviors was very interesting to me when I first read it. It is understandable that males in many species have always had the desire to reproduce more offsprings while the female bare the offsprings. This could possibly be the explanation for the genes that are responsible for the pair-bonding and other social aspects. The study about arginnine vasopressin surprised me because I never knew that there was a gene that is responsible for the desire to seek other partners. I feel like this is a bad concept in many ways. First, the male can just blame his actions on the genes and use it as an excuse by claiming that it is ok for him to cheat because he has this gene. This will cause more males to cheat without consequences because they believe it is the inevitable and that it is within their genes. Another negative aspect of this is that just because a person has this gene, it does not mean that the person will cheat. If gene mapping becomes more easily available, a woman can test and find that their significant other has this gene and will judge him before getting to know him. This will result in the woman avoiding any potential long-term relationship with the man. Maybe he would’ve been a great person and would not cheat on her but just because of the discovery of this gene, there might be some discrimination. This is why it is very important to fully understand these genes before we can inform to the public. This will prevent people from jumping into conclusion by blaming this gene for being unfaithful. I believe that it is not as black and white as it seems to be and there are a lot of areas we have yet to understand.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic variation and pair bonding article was very informative and not so surprising since I have previously read about the prairie vole and and monogamy studies. I do think that the genes are significant however I also know that environment matters along with the will of a human being apart from their genes. I believe in human free will and decision making so even though the genes are a contributing factor there are many example of people who have overcome the effect of genes bad and good. People can overcome disorders and accomplish incredible tasks and achievements as well as people who have great genes can end up being people who have trouble in relationships and goals they want to accomplish. Sometimes disadvantage is the best advantage because those people take their destiny into their own hands to prove that it is not solely genetics that defines a human person. Nevertheless I love reading about studies like this with pair bonding because it gives a different perspective on how human dating/pair behavior cohesively works.
ReplyDeleteFunny thought, Leila! I don't know who would consent to that! :)
ReplyDeleteLike others above, I have also read about pair bonding studies done with prairie voles in my biology classes. I think it is interesting that there is a gene associated with pair bonding and as the video from class called it, the "monogamy gene." It is certainly interesting to read about, but I don't think that anybody should think that this one gene explicitly predicts if somebody will cheat in relationships or not. Like with any other gene that we have studied in this class, BRCA1 and 2, obesity, etc., there are so many other contributing factors than just one single gene. There are environmental factors, lifestyle and behavior choices, and in this case, maybe even social factors. As we talked about in class, I think if somebody is tested for this gene and the result is positive, it essentially gives them an excuse to cheat in their relationship, because they can say that it's not their fault, it's in their genes. This should not be the case. Although studies show that this gene might predispose somebody to being unsuccessful with pair bonding, it doesn't mean it isn't possible. There are many factors that go into pair-bonding as there is with breast cancer, obesity, and many other diseases and disorders. For something like pair-bonding, we cannot rely solely on genetics to give us the answer.
ReplyDeleteI'm very interested in the relationship between genetics and obesity, and I am always looking to find more information about how strongly or weakly the two are. I found an article from a while back that I found very interesting. It focuses on a study done at the Boston Children's Hospital that found overweight rats all tended to have this specific genetic mutation. When they looked in obese humans, they found the same genetic mutation. "In the mouse study, the research team determined that mutations in the Mrap2 gene led the animals to eat less initially but still gain about twice as much weight as they normally would. While their appetites returned, these mice continued to gain weight despite being fed the same number of calories as a group of control animals." Another effect of the mutated gene that was discovered is that it made people crave more foods high in fat content - also likely contributing to obesity. I found the two extremes very interesting. Not only did this mutation make bodies gain weight faster that other people taking in the same food, but it also made people crave less healthy food. Perhaps as we discover more, we'll be able to find some sort of intervention to continue to combat the obesity epidemic. http://healthland.time.com/2013/07/19/news-genes-idd-in-obesity-how-much-of-weight-is-genetic/
ReplyDeleteI think the Clement et al. article effectively acknowledges that the beta3-adrenergic receptor mutation that they isolated as contributing to obesity isn't a main determinant of obesity; however it is contributor to the other social, behavioral, physical and environmental factors that influence a person's risk of obesity. The conclusion of this article wasn't too surprising to me, because it reminded me of the case study of Swedish families during a famine from the Ghost in Your Genes movie we watched earlier this semester. The ancestors who had lived through a famine had genes adapted to efficiently process calories. This epigenetic change was then passed down to offspring and offspring's offspring who lived at a time when food security was not a problem. During a time of famine, this epigenetic change worked in the individual's favor, however without a famine this epigenetic change in the gene actually made these relatives at more risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
ReplyDeleteBecause obesity is largely influenced by environmental, behavioral and social factors - knowing that you or your child may have a slight genetic predisposition to obesity is so important. Some people may become obese at a young age and in that case knowing you have the receptor mutation won't change much for you. As many others said, someone might just use their genetic predisposition as an excuse to why they are obese. However I think if parents can see that their children will have this predisposition or for people who could become obese later in life, knowing your risk can help an individual be more in charge of their fate by controlling some of the factors that lead to obesity.
I found this article (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/whos-daddy-owl-monkeys-know-sure/) very interesting and relevant to the discussion of how genetics affects pair-bonding. Apparently, only 3 to 5% of the known 5,000 mammal species form lifelong pair bonds. But of these 150 to 250 species exhibiting social monogamy, only 4 exhibit genetic monogamy - the forgoing of any copulations with mates that aren't their "true" mates. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania were curious about whether the socially monogamous owl monkey was also genetically monogamous. An extensive study spanning 18 years found that owl monkeys are genetically monogamous, making them the only primate and 5th mammalian species to exhibit this type of behavior. Researchers felt this type of monogamy explained why male owl monkeys are so affectionate toward their offspring. Males are sure of their offspring's parentage and express their certainty be caring for their young. While this research can't really be applied to humans, as we are not strictly a socially or sexually monogamous species, I think humans who want to start families are much less likely to exhibit infidelity than humans who don't want to start families. Therefore, I would recommend to women or men worried about their partners stepping outside their relationship to find out relatively soon if their partners are interested in having children.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little skeptical (actually very skeptical!) about the genetic link to pair bonding behaviors with both read about and discussed in class. I think something as complex as affection, intimacy, and fidelity are complex behaviors that go above basic gene function, and have a lot to do with neural pathways formed over a lifetime. Not to say that there isn't a gene that might predispose you to behaviors that would make you a better partner. I'm actually a little taken aback, as the issue seems to have only social connotations and not scientific ones--forgive me if this gets convoluted, but I guess I'm trying to point out that if this study had come out in a society where monogamy wasn't the norm, would it even be worth mentioning? And is this study perhaps taking it too far--it's almost too personal for me. Something pertaining to your health of course I understand the need to study the genetic markers of a disease, but when it comes to personality traits that are labeled "good" or "bad" by society? It just seems silly.
ReplyDeleteI found the article about vasopressin and pair-bonding very fascinating. I remember learning about vasopressin as the antidiuretic hormone in physiology, and it's effects on water retention and blood pressure, but I was surprised to see it described in this article as hormone similar to oxytocin. When I think of genetics I usually think of physical characteristics, or being prone to a certain disease, but I don't usually think of genetics and behavior. However, it makes sense when you think about it. Genes code for the neurotransmitters and hormones in your brain that influence how you feel, and act. I think with more genomics research, we will be able to understand the cause of almost all psychological disorders.
ReplyDeleteI think the results of this study (despite being done on voles instead of humans) are very valid, and make sense compared to what I've learned in psychology and biology classes. From an evolutionary standpoint men want to procreate as much as possible, where woman are more likely to want a monogamous relationship because they have to carry the baby for 9 months and need someone to protect and provide for them, so it's logical for men to have a gene that is linked with non-monogamous behavior. Also a major characteristic of autism disorder is social impairment and lower empathizing capabilities, so it makes sense that autism would be linked with a gene that is associated with that kind of behavior. This gene could also partially explain why autism is 4 times as likely in boys than girls.
Because of the similarity between vassopressin and oxytocin, I did a little research and also found there is a gene that codes for oxytocin receptors, and mutations in these receptors have been associated with certain behaviors, specifically "maladaptive social traits such as aggressive behavior" (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2012.00776.x/abstract;jsessionid=A98C3BF1EE5BA243F46A92623605FC59.f02t02)
I found the genetic counselor’s lecture today to be very interesting and a little surprising. It was interesting to get an idea of what the job of being a genetic counselor entails. The speakers brought up several ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) that genetic counselors face. One ethical challenge that struck me was the issue of having more than one ‘patient.’ For example, the counselor may have to speak with an entire family, even if there is only one person actually being tested. Finding out a family member has an increased risk of getting a certain disease can be difficult, not only for that person, but for their family. This made me realize the importance of genetic counselors not only being knowledgeable about genetic testing, but the important of their counseling. One of the speakers mentioned that they were required to take several courses on counseling and how to deal with patients. I found this interesting because many doctors, for example, may be experts in their field, but are far from experts in communicating sensitive information to their patients. I feel that many other health professionals could benefit by taking classes on counseling and communication to help them learn how to relay delicate and important information to their patients, as genetic counselors do.
ReplyDeleteI agree with other classmates that the article about pair bonding was extremely interesting but also could be taken in the wrong way by some people. Calling it the "monogamy gene" makes it seem like people could use it as an excuse for cheating or for breaking up a relationship when it is just a genetic variation that may have an association with pair bonding. However, Patrick's comment about the possibility of this discovery helping those with autism in the future makes me hopeful for the future research being done about the AVPR1A gene. The article makes a great case for pair bonding but I think more research will be helpful to know more about the amount of impact the gene actually has in humans. There will be plenty of controversy while this research is occurring but the results that could come from it could be extremely important to our knowledge of relationships.
ReplyDeleteI found the life course perspective article to be very interesting. In class, when we compared the life course perspective to prenatal care, I was surprised to see that while prenatal care is an essential part of infant health, a much more comprehensive approach is needed in order to improve infant outcomes. It was particularly interesting to see that in order to decrease the disparity between birth outcomes across races, the external factors need to be assessed using the life course perspective. A common intervention for improving birth outcomes in African American communities is by providing better access to prenatal care. However, based on the genomic data, this is not sufficient. The external factors, such as socioeconomic status, education, employment, racism, and the accompanying stress that these cause, are having epigenetic effects on their health and the health of their fetuses. Particularly surprising was the data showing that as a result of these strong epigenetic factors, wealthy African Americans (who, presumably, would have access to prenatal care and job safety) still have worse health outcomes than white runaways. In order to truly address the disparity issues, we need to address the major contributing risk factor: the cycle of racism causing poor birth outcomes. Providing increased access to prenatal care is unquestionably important; however, a more comprehensive examination of the lifespan determinants of health, with special attention at epigenetic factors, will lead to sustainable improvements in birth outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThe study on the beta3-adrenergic receptor was an interesting read. The conclusion of the study, that the presence of a mutation in the gene for the beta3-adrenergic receptor can contribute to weight gain, is an important reinforcement of public health's concern for obesity. Just as another student mentioned, the main risk factors for obesity are a person's built environment and health habits. This study, if anything, serves as a reinforcement of that fact and as a motivation for public health experts to continue working toward reducing obesity rates through healthier built environments and encouragement of healthier lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteThe fear I have with genetic studies is that there is a tendency to take one study and believe that it applies to all people, regardless of the study's methodology. It is important to understand that this beta3-adrenergic receptor study is just one study, and so it is not necessarily applicable to all people. For example, this study was conducted among French people, who might be different from people in other parts of the world in terms of lifestyle habits. This potential difference could confound the results and ultimately lead to a conclusion that isn't necessarily applicable to the global population as a whole. To determine whether these study results are valid externally, people should look for other similar studies conducted on different groups of people. If such studies exist, there is greater evidence that the study results can be generalized to a larger population of people.
I was surprised by the second article, examining genes and pair bonding. I knew that the human genome contained many of the codes for our behavior but I would have never thought of pair bonding as something that could be explained by our genes. However, I feel that this article in particular really stresses the idea of nature versus nurture. Men who are predisposed to have negative pair bonding behaviors may overcome this predisposition and have happy unions with their partners. Conversely, men without this genetic predisposition may have negative unions with their partners. Men who have negative relationship histories may use this gene as an excuse for their behavior, while men who do not have this gene may feel pressured to stay in an unhappy relationship because it is what they are "supposed" to do.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I don't believe that this specific genetic variation is one that we should use as a marker for men's pair bonding behavior. In this case, I believe that a person's environment will dictate their behavior, not necessarily their genetic makeup.
I was surprised to learn that obesity has a genetic link. Traditionally, American youth are told that obesity was due to poor diet and lack of physical activity. What worries me is the possibility that some people may use this reason as a sort of excuse and not attempt weight loss. Obviously there are other factors that play into developing obesity, be it social, environmental, and lifestyle choices. Interventions -- educational nutrition classes, exercise plans -- can definitely help stave off obesity and maintain physical health.
ReplyDeleteI found both articles very interesting in how they linked genetics back to obesity and pair-bonding behaviors. I found the article on obesity to be particularly interesting because I was never fully aware of the fact that there is a gene for obesity. I can definitely see the link and how it may have an impact, however I do not believe that the epidemic as a whole can be based around people having the particular gene for obesity. I'm sure it does make one more prone to becoming obese, but there are definitely lifestyle and environmental factors that should be considered when looking closely at the epidemic. The US has the highest obesity rate as compared to any other country in the world and this is definitely not just because some people have the obesity gene. The portions are larger here, there is more access to unhealthy food and physical activity standards aren't met by a majority of Americans. These are all contributing factors to obesity that have nothing to do with whether the obesity gene is present in one's genome or not. In order to take charge on the obesity epidemic, changes need to be made in terms of the lifestyle choices and environmental factors that Americans are exposed to before genetics can be considered the root cause of obesity.
ReplyDeleteThe two articles on genetic variation associations did get me thinking quite a lot. After reading many of the blog posts, you see just how many genetic variation associations have been found in addition to those associated with pair-bonding and obesity (and BRCA 1/2 that we've learned about, etc). However, I think that when we find these associations, we think it is the "end all be all", while many times it isn't. Environment can greatly influence our genetic associations. One article I found that was interesting is that a polymorphism in the CHIT1 gene is associated with the risk of atopy. Atopy is a predisposition toward having hypersensitive allergic reactions. While the article is full of fairly confusing scientific terms, I did notice that environment was mentioned very little, though atopy is associated with allergic reactions to things in the environment, environment should be considered very important. In the discussion of this research article, one brief, yet important, bit about the environment is mentioned: "We hypothesize that CHIT1 mutations become relevant only when individuals are in special situations, such as in the presence of high levels of fungi or states of immune compromise." Thus, you may be more likely to have an allergic reaction due to this genetic mutation, but only if you are placed in a particular environment. This rings true to me for both obesity and pair-bonding. Environment does have a role to play in both areas. For example, maybe if there was greater obesity prevention at a young age (changing the environment) there would be decreased rates of obesity. Or maybe if somebody with the pair-bonding allele would not be as greatly affected if they were in a particular kind of positive environment, with little stress. Obviously it is very important to understand genetic associations and see that we can be at greater risk because of them. However, we can keep such risk at bay by working on what we can change, our environment.
ReplyDeleteLink to research study mentioned: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1081120613002044
Reading the two research papers, I was really amazed by the impact of genes on obesity. I always thought that the causes were more closely related to lifestyles but these articles have made me think otherwise.
ReplyDeleteSince these genes can be identified early, intervention is possible for those who might be at risk of being obese. This can lead to better diet and exercise plans for children as well as some adults. Carrying a gene variant that predisposes a child to obesity does not necessarily mean he or she will develop the condition, but it might be able to explain why among children who eat same diet and have similar lifestyles, there are those who tend to be heavier.
While looking up more articles about these genes, I've found that this discovery can provide many opportunities for physicians and pediatricians to evaluate their treatment and care for people who are carriers of the OLFM4 and HOXB5 genes. For example, scientists are looking at mechanisms that can turn off the expression of these genes, hence, minimize future risks of the disease.
I found the pair-bonding article particularly interesting. At first, I thought that the relation between the experiment on the prairie voles and the experiment on the humans would be very different. I thought that the human pair-bonding gene influence would be much more complex than that of the voles, but it was actually strikingly similar. What I found most surprising about the article is that in humans, the presence of the 334 allele was most effective on men. Men with this allele are less bonded to their partners and are more likely to commit infidelity, whereas there is no significant difference in women who carried the allele. I believe this should be further researched, and I would be interested to see if the presence or absence of these alleles is evolutionary, or if they can decode other human social behaviors. I also found an article that highlights the study to make it known to the general public.
ReplyDeletehttp://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/09/03/gene.associated.with.pair.bonding.animals.has.similar.effects.human.males
I recall learning about pair-bonding and the role of vassopressin in prairie voles in a biology class. Similar to Chloe, I also think the finding that men with a 334 allele are more likely to commit infidelity is very intersting and deserves further research. I am also curious if there are any other genes found to be related to pair-bonding in humans.
DeleteEnvironmental and behavioral factors can influence the way genes are expressed. This epigenetic perspective is one that makes perfect sense. However, with a disease like obesity genes to not condemn a person to living with obesity and it's consequences. Instead, these genes only dictate how fast an individual gains weight. These genes determine the rate at which someone with the "obesity" genes and a normal individual gain fat while eating high fat foods. There's no garuntee that every single person born with these genes will develop obesity. As was mentioned before, this is due to outside factors.
ReplyDeleteFrom a public health perspective, this means that the obesity epidemic in America is due to more than genes. It is due to how we treat our bodies and the convenience of horrible food that surround us.
This article explains a lot about some of the specific polygenetic variants and epigenetic contributions to obesity also. If you have time, you should check it out! What's really cool is that it talk about FAT DISTRIBUTION as it relates to genetics as well. It's so interesting, omg.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3213306/
I really enjoyed yesterdays guest speakers. Yes, we've been learning lot about genetic counseling and all of that but hearing about it first had from someone who is our age and living through the career path was very inspiring. What interested me the most was the various types of fields that genetic counselors could go into weather it be prenatal, cancer patients, pediatrics or adult. An aspect that really interested me was the pediatrics clinic and how genetics counselors meet with children and diagnose if they are on the autism spectrum.
ReplyDeleteIf there was any more information on genetic counseling i would be really appreciate for someone to reply with some. Thanks!
This is scary lol
ReplyDeleteI have to say that although I find both articles very interesting, that I think it's troubling from a public health or social standpoint. Especially when the media calls genes the "monogamy gene" or "fat gene." Being able to assign a specific behavior to a gene allows people to remove the blame from themselves in regards to obesity or cheating. In this way, I think that the research is shooting itself in the foot-- where it seeks to inform people, it is actually enabling ignorance and bad behavior. Although some people will use this information correctly, many others will default onto their genes for their bad behavior or will say that because they don't have the gene, they don't have to be proactive in their lifestyles. Essentially, I think that the research and media's interpretation of it does more bad than good. Although the information found is interesting, I don't think it helps our efforts in public health.
ReplyDeleteI found both the article on pair-bonding and the article on obesity and genetics interesting, however I thought the obesity article was more surprising. I've always had an idea about obesity and the possibility of genetic predisposition, however I didn't think about the implications of genetic mutation and the likelihood of obesity development. I found an article on The New York Times that also discusses this association between obesity and genetics. I found it interesting that this article mentioned instances where twins who were raised separated maintained similar body weights. I had thought that lifestyle would have more of an impact on body weight than genetics, but it seems that genetics could have much more of an impact than I initially thought.
ReplyDeletearticle: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/health/overweight-maybe-you-really-can-blame-your-metabolism.html?_r=0
I had read a study in a previous science class about a link between genetics and pair bonding in animals, and I was surprised to find that they had found a possible gene association for pair bonding in humans. In a society that is primarily monogamous, it's interesting to see that we might actually be genetically wired to want to be with one partner. As many people have pointed out before me, however, having a gene doesn't explain or excuse any behavior--association doesn't mean causation. The media's representation of the "cheating gene" is problematic and grossly oversimplifies the actual gene and what the gene-pair bonding association really is. There's obviously a strong argument for environmental factors being the overarching reason why someone might be a cheater or not, and having the gene might not change that.
ReplyDeleteThe findings from the article on pair-bonding really surprised me. It taught me to take numbers with a grain salt. Even though the results showed significance between a mutated gene and behavioral issue, it cannot be conclusive because the small amount of subjects. This is important because people should be aware of looking deeper into research articles before immediately believing anything that's published. I think pair-bonding behavior is an interesting topic that should be further researched. I hope that more studies are being done to find if there are any possible genes that can lead to issues in pair-bonding behavior. Many would argue that nurture takes a strong precedence over nature when it comes to human behavior and personality. Perhaps, advanced research can prove that maybe we should look elsewhere for answers.
ReplyDeleteI actually found the article on obesity pretty interesting as it related obesity and its reasons to genetics. One would normally think the genes determine only physical traits of a person. So, does this mean that some people are actually unluckily born to have diabetes regardless of what they do once they are born? I guess this really goes back to nature vs. nurture argument. Staying on the topic, what does this mean to genetic engineering? Does this mean when genetic engineering advances later in the future, we can actually eradicate obesity? That may some problems, but that might actually end up creating a list of issues such as not needing any insulin shots (at least for diabetes)
ReplyDeleteReading the article that linked obesity with genetics was interesting. However, like many of the other students have stated, genes may play a role in the development of a person, but it's the decisions that the same person makes that will direct and guide them on how to live. Just because one is genetically predisposed to becoming obese doesn't mean they have to live like they're already afflicted with obesity. It only means that there is a higher chance of developing obesity. There are ways and lifestyle changes that could be made that would reduce the overall risk of obtaining obesity, such as regular exercise activity and eating healthy. Tying it with the first couple of lectures: This "fat gene" can be eliminated. The video we watched earlier in the semester, stating that the decisions and interactions our ancestors made, as well as the environment they lived in, would have an impact on future generations to come. By becoming proactive now about being healthy, a person can lower the chance of obesity occurring in the next generations. It may sound all theory now, but it's better to make those lifestyle changes now before it's too late.
ReplyDeleteI found the article regarding the pair bonding to be extremely interesting. Directly related to the pair bonding article, was an article written by NPR that I found. NPR discusses how science is amazing in the fact that we can make a correlation between genes in animals and genes in humans and how we behave socially. Limitations were also discussed about the research. I believe that it is important for this discussion to be had and continued so that people understand that genetic variation is not the only determining factor of social behavior.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94199631
While I think the information provided by the pair bonding article provided some insight on how pairing works, I think that there are too many other factors to consider when you dealing with pair bonding. While this gene may provide one aspect of how pair bonding works thats just it , it is one factor. While an association with the gene can be seen, there is no causation, which one person may not get if they watched those new segments. There are too many other confounding factors to what may cause marital problems or if a person is monogamous or not. I think that is an issue with this study. It makes it seem like it you have this gene you are going to have issues with relationships, which might not be the case at all. It depends on environmental factors, such as what kind of environment you grew into, what your beliefs are, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me about this is as mentioned before how the media relayed this information to the public. They called it the cheating gene, but that isn't what it is necessarily. I think that this study is an example on how new media can twist the results and what was found to make it more entertaining for people. I can't help but wonder what are the effects of this? After seeing that news segment, how many people became worried about their relationship and if their partner had the gene.