9 ms·
Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14, linked to Homosexuality
- pazimzadeh 9y ago"We detected several promising regions of multiple SNPs in the 10^−5 to 10^−7p-value range, as seen in the Manhattan plot (Fig. 1), though no SNP reached genome-wide significance (5 × 10^−8)."
- bmsran 9y agoThis is the most important statement in the paper.
- coffeeboy27 9y agoLet's pretend I don't have a PhD and don't know what that statement means though, can I get a summary?
- zmmmmm 9y agoIt means the result could plausibly have occurred just by chance. The odds may be against it being chance, but it is at least plausible.
- brucephillips 9y agoEh, not really. What you said is true of any p value. It's tautological.
- mkl 9y agoThis may help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study They found "support" for associations between homosexuality and some specific genetic code positions, but not strong enough evidence to be very sure of anything ("significance").
- epistasis 9y agoShorter and less accurate than the Wikipedia page: A SNP is a single nucleotide polymorphism, a single letter variation in a genome. This study measured about half a million SNPs for each person. A statistical test is then performed to see how well each SNP site predicts the trait, generating a p-value. If a single such test were being performed, then typical "significant" p-value levels would be 0.05 or 0.01 or 0.001, these are arbitrary but generally accepted. For data from SNPs unassocisted with the trait, p-values come randomly and uniformlay from the range 0 to 1. So with a hundred SNPs unassocisted with the trait, a person would expect about one p-value at <= 0.01. There are many ways to correct for these multiple hypothesis tests. For GWAS, the generally accepted significance levels are 5e-8, which under the rubric of the fancily named but simple Bonferroni correction, would be equivalent to a 0.01 to 0.05 p-value from a single test. These two reported SNPs, when correcting for multiple testing, don't meet the standard definition of significant.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ekianjo 9y agoHow is genome-wide significance estimated?
- Mrtierne 9y agoWait ... I thought it was due to a choice people made? (obviously joking)
- throws990 9y agoCould you please describe the moment you decided your sexuality?
- Afforess 9y agoI suspect that as we come to better understand genetics, we (as a society) are going to be more and more uncomfortable with the findings that we uncover. Physics and mathematics have made it long since clear that the universe is deterministic, that all the answers lie in the genes and atoms and equations we are made up of. The implications of this are dire - our society is built on exactly the opposite foundations; law and order assumes the criminals are acting of free will, education assumes all students are equal, and societal success rests on the notion that all men are equal. None of this is true. All of the implications can be twisted to serve our worst, or our best instincts. Some will take this study to mean Homosexuality is a disease, to be cured. Others will reject it, to say the science is not yet "in", the study needs replications, meta-studies are needed to verify and corroborate it. We should embrace it, and say that it is good we are not a monoculture, embrace mutation and variation. To be human is to be different.
- chongli 9y agoCall me naïve, but I'm optimistic. All of those assumptions you ascribe to society fall under the umbrella of the just world fallacy. The sooner that thing dies, the better.
- ProAm 9y ago> Physics and mathematics have made it long since clear that the universe is deterministic Except none of them have any idea whats really going on...
- peatmoss 9y agoWow, the bioethical implications of potentially identifying the mechanism of sexual orientation are staggering. I wonder if / how long it will be before parents have the technical means—if not the legal right—to alter their child to be gay or straight through gene therapy. Or even simply selectively bring to term one orientation or the other.
- epistasis 9y agoIt's unlikely that we'll find definitive predictors for this trait in the next decade, it will just be associations that predict an increase or decrease in the odds. The really strong predictive associations are also easier to find.
- zer00eyz 9y agoIn reading your comment I was struck by the dilemma that this reality would bring. Those most opposed to homosexuality are those most opposed to terminating pregnancy (mostly). It would create quite a quandary for folks who are inclined to hold these two beliefs.
- r00fus 9y agoCognitive dissonance is alive and well. (edit - spelling)
- yipopov 9y agoWhose cognitive dissonance?
- r00fus 9y agoThose that hold two mutually incompatible ideas. "Taxes are evil" - "Don't take away my medicare". My point is that the choice will be easy for some to ignore their dictates that "abortion is abhorrent" and might choose to abort a "gay baby" because they fear homosexuality more than keeping their ideals.
- mintplant 9y agoSo... what about bi/pansexuality?
- Jedd 9y agoWould a bio expert be able to comment please on how this may fit with observations around increased likelihood of male homosexuality correlated to the number of older male siblings (to the same mother)?
- throws990 9y agoFirst critique that immediately comes to mind is how the 1,077 homosexual men and 1,231 heterosexual men were selected. If Republicans have taught us anything, it's that self-reporting is not an accurate measure. From the paper: "classified men as homosexual based on both their self-reported sexual identity and sexual feelings" Furthermore, how does this study explain sexual fluidity? IE: I liked kissing boys when I was 13 but I married a woman at 25?
- taneq 9y agoNext paper: Two genes in Chromosomes 13 and 14 linked to willingness to participate in scientific studies.
- itronitron 9y agosci-curious
- bonesss 9y agoLUG: Labrat Until Graduation
- MAGZine 9y agoIs this a troll? How do you intend to determine whether or not if someone is of an orientation EXCEPT for asking them? "I'm gay." "Well my 'science test' says that you're not." Nice.
- brucephillips 9y agoThe inability to avoid selection bias doesn't preclude selection bias. Not to say the above comment makes any sense...
- throws990 9y agoMore like: Researcher: "Excuse me sir, are you gay"? Senator Larry Craig: "No I just have a very wide stance in public bathrooms"
- corporateguy5 9y agoImagine a hair test to check if someone is gay on the spot. That's kind of crazy
- epistasis 9y agoBefore anybody jumps to conclusions, these are not definitive findings. They are extremely important findings for those performing active research on the topic, but are not of general interest to those who are not performing research. The next steps will be to see if this holds in other cohorts, and in other populations, etc.
- sigmar 9y agoAgreed. That manhattan plot is... far from conclusive.
- tremendulo 9y agoIndeed. At the present time many or most scientific studies are not reproducible.
- epistasis 9y agoI object tremendously to that characterization, because "reproducible" is a fuzzy word that never gets defined properly. These results are almost certainly "reproducible" in that you could take the same people, regenerate all the measurements again, and get the same results by running the methods described in the paper. These results may not be "reproducible" in the sense that when they do this with a set of 2000 new individuals, they will probably not find the same SNPs at the same significance. Public discussion that conflates these two only serves to discredit science, without improving it or its process. Worse, saying that only only the second sense of "reproducible" is worthy of "science", would severely impede the process of discovery. As long as "reproducible" in the first sense holds, scientists can learn from each other. Scientists also need to be able to communicate with each other before announcing to the world "we've solved it all!" I find that most people (and I'm not including you with this statement, I don't know what you think!) who are bemoaning the lack of "reproducibility" are only interested in that second sense of reproducibility, because they want to open a journal to a random page make broad statements that are widely applicable. Scientists need to be able to talk about things in narrow terms, and specifics, or they will never be able to get to the broad rules that are generally useful.
- throwacide 9y agoI gave my saliva to 23andme two years ago. I’ve been suicidal my whole life. If genetic markers for suicidal tendencies are discovered in the future, can they use my stored sample to assist in such studies?
- md224 9y ago> I’ve been suicidal my whole life. That’s pretty intense. Have you tried medication or therapy? Or anything else?
- throwacide 9y agoThat’s not really important. What is important is that they receive data about the suicidality, because it is inevitable that a large percentage of people like me who are long term suicidal will not have documented it with a medical professional. And, due to privacy laws, it’s difficult to say whether that data if it did exist with a medical professional would make it to 23 and me for them to be able to make such a correlation. I would presume that they may be able to and for or data mine from articles if I were to commit suicide for instance bud
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bflesch 9y agoHey, I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue. As you know, all your feelings are based on the chemistry in your brain. If you want to talk, hmu at beni@strivewire.com
- aaron695 9y agoI wonder if these genes make women more promiscuous (ie more attracted to men) (Yes, it was a plot from a TV show)
- b0rsuk 9y agoMy government will be ecstatic. More and more catholic church makes it to the ruling party. I imagine some other states (China?) would also want to tamper with its population genome.
- thisrod 9y agoDo you know what's happened to China's sex ratio since it became possible to selectively abort female foetuses? If some hormone were found to be associated with men becoming same-sex attracted, the commies would probably put it in the water.
- thisrod 9y agoSo why is this a surprise? The experiments on identical and fraternal twins were done decades ago, and there just isn't any doubt that genes influence sexual orientation. Nor is there any possibility that they determine it: many gay men and lesbians have straight identical twins.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoIt's not a surprise, it's just scientific research.
- thisrod 9y agoSure, but the importance of research is strongly correlated with how surprising it is. That's entropy and information 101.