4 ms·

In my opinion, this is the most interesting paragraph: >In primates and mice, it’s a different story. Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through

by Kenji 12y ago

In my opinion, this is the most interesting paragraph: >In primates and mice, it’s a different story. Cells from the invading placenta digest their way through the endometrial surface, puncturing the mother’s arteries, swarming inside and remodelling them to suit the foetus. Outside of pregnancy, these arteries are tiny, twisty things spiralling through depths of the uterine wall. The invading placental cells paralyse the vessels so they cannot contract, then pump them full of growth hormones, widening them tenfold to capture more maternal blood. These foetal cells are so invasive that colonies of them often persist in the mother for the rest of her life, having migrated to her liver, brain and other organs. There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras. The whole article sounds so creepy. I never thought you could describe one of the most natural processes in that light.

biomcgary 12y ago
Although the article dramatizes the conflict, the tug-of-war over resources is real, which probably is why the placenta is one of the fastest evolving mammalian organs in terms of morphology and genetics. The conflict probably shapes the rate of preterm birth quite a bit. If you are interested in this topic, my lab is looking to hire a database specialist (postgres) in Nashville.
- perlpimp 12y ago
  facinating
- biomcgary 12y ago
  Sorry to flog a job opening so shamelessly, but I'm a research scientist at Vanderbilt University working on the evolution of human pregnancy with an emphasis on identifying the causes of preterm birth. We are building a database to integrate a large number of experiments with various evolutionary analyses (with a dollop of machine learning on top), which will soon be available online at genestation.org. We're looking to hire a full-time database admin/developer who finds biology interesting, but there is no need for formal training in biology.
keerthiko 12y ago
That paragraph also triggered the thought "Are humans biologically wired only to love through conflict?" As a race, can we never be rid of the need to fight one another? Are we fundamentally designed to do so? This article tugged on my strings in many ways. Philosphically, scientifically, emotionally, artistically. I liked it a lot.
- gretful 12y ago
  Life is a struggle. I'm edging more and more towards life NEEDING a struggle to reach it's potential. The struggle must be balanced, but it is necessary.
Mz 12y ago
There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras. I have a genetic disorder and I have given birth to two children, one who has the same disorder and one who does not. In recent months, I have been speculating a bit about the impact those two pregnancies had on my medical condition. So that little snippet was particularly interesting to me because it suggests that having my second child likely left me with little islands of cells which lack my genetic disorder. I already have reason to believe that my pregnancies made me healthier, if only because of the degree to which throwing up for 8 months forced me to eat differently with my first pregnancy and many of those changes in diet became permanent. But this adds some real science to what has mostly been anecdata up until now.
- biomcgary 12y ago
  A study from 1996 [0] shows that male fetal cells can persist in mother's blood up to 27 years after birth. [0] http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/705.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/705.full.pdf
  - Mz 12y ago
    Thank you. I have two sons. They are 24.5 and 27.
rcthompson 12y ago
Yes, I was not aware of this difference between primates and other mammals. I had always wondered why pregnancy was so much more of an ordeal for humans. I had previously heard the explanation that our giant brain-filled heads can barely fit through the birth canal, which leading to lots of deaths during delivery, and also explains why we are born with overlapping unfused bone plates in our skulls. But obviously that doesn't account for everything else that can go wrong during pregnancy, so it was always a partial explanation at best. Interestingly, though, both explanations trace back to our species' evolution toward having bigger brains.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Genesis 3:16 also explains it as one of the curses on Adam and Eve: "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children..."
- biomcgary 12y ago
  For several decades, the simultaneous evolution of the pelvis to support bipedal locomotion and a larger cranium was the leading hypothesis for the selective constraints on birth timing (known as the obstetrical dilemma). Recently, however, a hypothesis that focuses on metabolism and efficient energy transfer from mother to child through the placenta vs feeding has become popular (the EGG hypothesis. Yes, that is the actual acronym from the literature).
chongli 12y ago
I never thought you could describe one of the most natural processes in that light. Tons of natural processes are creepy as hell. Just check out the life-cycle of the Pepsis Wasp[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsis_wasp#Behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsis_wasp#Behavior
DCKing 12y ago
> I never thought you could describe one of the most natural processes in that light. Nature contains the most disgusting things known to man. Most of nature is pretty disgusting in general, especially when observed from up close. Don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy :) [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- eevilspock 12y ago
  "Disgusting" is subjective. Nature is disgusting from an romanticized anthropocentric perspective, perhaps. The irony is that we owe our and our perspective's existence to nature. Most likely our perspective, having some evolutionary advantage, is a very direct and non-accidental result of the disgusting phenomenon you refer to.
- clord 12y ago
  Although the naturalistic fallacy is real, please remember that the foundations of naturalism have some merit, so it's not a universal fallacy. In fact often-times biasing to 'natural' is the best way to get the right outcome. This article is a great example of my point: Although there is a war going on in the womb that wastes resources, there are some very important side-effects that can only come of that war. The embryo is robustly tested for viability, cancerous growth is averted, and the embryo manages to get more resources. These are difficult goals to achieve any other way. Other examples abound: Our diet is normally a delicate balance between cravings, metabolism requirements, our gut flora's needs, and so many more factors. Probably a war similar to the womb plays out in our gut, and probably with similar tradeoffs and benefits. The only way to duplicate this complicated machine is to let the battle play its course properly. So the question is, how do we do that? One answer is to look to the environment where this system evolved — in other words to adopt a naturalistic view. Interference in these systems leads to the balance being upended, and problems developing. We even see this problem with software! When I worked for a large company doing maintenance on very old compilers, we would not interfere in the code too much for fear of triggering one of these imbalances. I think they arise because architects through the years are at war with each-other to impart their 'wisdom'. The result is a carefully orchestrated dance between enemy code, mediated by testcases. Naturalism captures the idea that we just aren't smart enough to tackle these problems head-on. And even if we were, it might just be cheaper to allow the war to play out instead of duplicating all of its effects. It's only a fallacy because once in a while we are smart enough.
RachelF 12y ago
If you want to read further, there's a whole book on the subject, called "Baby Wars" [1] It explains things like morning sickness, infidelity, postpartum depression, incest and mate selection. Not a pleasant, happy family type read. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Wars-Dynamics-Family-Conflict/dp/0060957972/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Wars-Dynamics-Family-Conflict/dp/...

by Kenji 12y ago

biomcgary 12y ago

Although the article dramatizes the conflict, the tug-of-war over resources is real, which probably is why the placenta is one of the fastest evolving mammalian organs in terms of morphology and genetics. The conflict probably shapes the rate of preterm birth quite a bit. If you are interested in this topic, my lab is looking to hire a database specialist (postgres) in Nashville.

perlpimp 12y ago
facinating
biomcgary 12y ago
Sorry to flog a job opening so shamelessly, but I'm a research scientist at Vanderbilt University working on the evolution of human pregnancy with an emphasis on identifying the causes of preterm birth. We are building a database to integrate a large number of experiments with various evolutionary analyses (with a dollop of machine learning on top), which will soon be available online at genestation.org. We're looking to hire a full-time database admin/developer who finds biology interesting, but there is no need for formal training in biology.

keerthiko 12y ago

That paragraph also triggered the thought "Are humans biologically wired only to love through conflict?" As a race, can we never be rid of the need to fight one another? Are we fundamentally designed to do so? This article tugged on my strings in many ways. Philosphically, scientifically, emotionally, artistically. I liked it a lot.

gretful 12y ago
Life is a struggle. I'm edging more and more towards life NEEDING a struggle to reach it's potential. The struggle must be balanced, but it is necessary.

Mz 12y ago

There’s something they rarely tell you about motherhood: it turns women into genetic chimeras. I have a genetic disorder and I have given birth to two children, one who has the same disorder and one who does not. In recent months, I have been speculating a bit about the impact those two pregnancies had on my medical condition. So that little snippet was particularly interesting to me because it suggests that having my second child likely left me with little islands of cells which lack my genetic disorder. I already have reason to believe that my pregnancies made me healthier, if only because of the degree to which throwing up for 8 months forced me to eat differently with my first pregnancy and many of those changes in diet became permanent. But this adds some real science to what has mostly been anecdata up until now.

biomcgary 12y ago
A study from 1996 [0] shows that male fetal cells can persist in mother's blood up to 27 years after birth. [0] http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/705.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/93/2/705.full.pdf
- Mz 12y ago
  Thank you. I have two sons. They are 24.5 and 27.

rcthompson 12y ago

Yes, I was not aware of this difference between primates and other mammals. I had always wondered why pregnancy was so much more of an ordeal for humans. I had previously heard the explanation that our giant brain-filled heads can barely fit through the birth canal, which leading to lots of deaths during delivery, and also explains why we are born with overlapping unfused bone plates in our skulls. But obviously that doesn't account for everything else that can go wrong during pregnancy, so it was always a partial explanation at best. Interestingly, though, both explanations trace back to our species' evolution toward having bigger brains.

joeclark77 12y ago
Genesis 3:16 also explains it as one of the curses on Adam and Eve: "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children..."
biomcgary 12y ago
For several decades, the simultaneous evolution of the pelvis to support bipedal locomotion and a larger cranium was the leading hypothesis for the selective constraints on birth timing (known as the obstetrical dilemma). Recently, however, a hypothesis that focuses on metabolism and efficient energy transfer from mother to child through the placenta vs feeding has become popular (the EGG hypothesis. Yes, that is the actual acronym from the literature).

chongli 12y ago

I never thought you could describe one of the most natural processes in that light. Tons of natural processes are creepy as hell. Just check out the life-cycle of the Pepsis Wasp[0]. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsis_wasp#Behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsis_wasp#Behavior

DCKing 12y ago

> I never thought you could describe one of the most natural processes in that light. Nature contains the most disgusting things known to man. Most of nature is pretty disgusting in general, especially when observed from up close. Don't fall for the naturalistic fallacy :) [1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

eevilspock 12y ago
"Disgusting" is subjective. Nature is disgusting from an romanticized anthropocentric perspective, perhaps. The irony is that we owe our and our perspective's existence to nature. Most likely our perspective, having some evolutionary advantage, is a very direct and non-accidental result of the disgusting phenomenon you refer to.
clord 12y ago
Although the naturalistic fallacy is real, please remember that the foundations of naturalism have some merit, so it's not a universal fallacy. In fact often-times biasing to 'natural' is the best way to get the right outcome. This article is a great example of my point: Although there is a war going on in the womb that wastes resources, there are some very important side-effects that can only come of that war. The embryo is robustly tested for viability, cancerous growth is averted, and the embryo manages to get more resources. These are difficult goals to achieve any other way. Other examples abound: Our diet is normally a delicate balance between cravings, metabolism requirements, our gut flora's needs, and so many more factors. Probably a war similar to the womb plays out in our gut, and probably with similar tradeoffs and benefits. The only way to duplicate this complicated machine is to let the battle play its course properly. So the question is, how do we do that? One answer is to look to the environment where this system evolved — in other words to adopt a naturalistic view. Interference in these systems leads to the balance being upended, and problems developing. We even see this problem with software! When I worked for a large company doing maintenance on very old compilers, we would not interfere in the code too much for fear of triggering one of these imbalances. I think they arise because architects through the years are at war with each-other to impart their 'wisdom'. The result is a carefully orchestrated dance between enemy code, mediated by testcases. Naturalism captures the idea that we just aren't smart enough to tackle these problems head-on. And even if we were, it might just be cheaper to allow the war to play out instead of duplicating all of its effects. It's only a fallacy because once in a while we are smart enough.

RachelF 12y ago

If you want to read further, there's a whole book on the subject, called "Baby Wars" [1] It explains things like morning sickness, infidelity, postpartum depression, incest and mate selection. Not a pleasant, happy family type read. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Wars-Dynamics-Family-Conflict/dp/0060957972/ref=sr_1_1 http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Wars-Dynamics-Family-Conflict/dp/...