Gay gene

[Greg H.]

To know which genes are mutated in homosexuals= to know how sexual orientation runs biological

This is in my eyes in big step forwards!

 

It's also a big assumption. Correlation is not necessarily causation after all.

[Moontanman]

Look mister Greg H. 23andme wrote they what to know how the biological substrate of sexual orientation is built. Through the GWAS they can see which genes are affected.

 

 

To know which genes are mutated in homosexuals= to know how sexual orientation runs biological

This is in my eyes in big step forwards!

 

 

Why do you say that some gene was mutated to make people homosexual? This implies quite a bit that needs to be supported, not the least of which is the idea that homosexual behavior is the result of a mutation and not just part of the human genome...

[Manfromzurich]

I can say to you: The day when 23andme makes public the GWAS on homosexuality and transexuality is a historical day. This will be the case the next 4 years I guess.

[Moontanman]

I can say to you: The day when 23andme makes public the GWAS on homosexuality and transexuality is a historical day. This will be the case the next 4 years I guess.

 

 

And why would it be a historical day?

[Manfromzurich]

Because a big medical puzzle gets solved after a long time!!!! And it gets proved by science, that the brain is in truth a sexual organ, too.

 

 

Mister Moontanman I say now to you: On this day, they will be a lot of noise in twitter, facebook or in the medias. This is a big developpement!

Edited September 5, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Moontanman]

Because a big medical puzzle gets solved after a long time!!!! And it gets proved by science, that the brain is in truth a sexual organ, too.

 

I thought this was already known to be true, the brain is the most important if not the biggest sexual organ...

 

 

Mister Moontanman I say now to you: On this day, they will be a lot of noise in twitter, facebook or in the medias. This is a big developpement!

 

Again, I doubt your take on genetics has any relevance in this particular case, I don't see gay as a mutation any more than blue eyes are a mutation but I have no doubt the net will be all a twitter over any such revelation if it were to indeed prove to be true... but does that make it important in of it's self? Kim Kardashian barring her ass makes the twitter world light up but it has no real impact on the world as a hole... How would such specific revelation about a "gay gene" affect the world?

[Greg H.]

I thought this was already known to be true, the brain is the most important if not the biggest sexual organ...

 

 

 

 

Again, I doubt your take on genetics has any relevance in this particular case, I don't see gay as a mutation any more than blue eyes are a mutation but I have no doubt the net will be all a twitter over any such revelation if it were to indeed prove to be true... but does that make it important in of it's self? Kim Kardashian barring her ass makes the twitter world light up but it has no real impact on the world as a hole... How would such specific revelation about a "gay gene" affect the world?

 

Well, you'd certainly get the Republican fanatics caught in a rock and hard place situation.

 

"No abortions! Unless the fetus has the gay gene."

[Moontanman]

Well, you'd certainly get the Republican fanatics caught in a rock and hard place situation.

 

"No abortions! Unless the fetus has the gay gene."

 

 

Sadly I think that is the most likely use for the idea of a "gay gene" but I doubt that there is one gene that can be blamed for anyone being gay, human genetics is very complex and one mutation much less one mutation unique to one individual is highly unlikely to be responsible for homosexuality... in fact the idea that homosexuality is anything but an aspect of human sexuality is unlikely...

[dmaiski]

ick homophobic nazi's with actual proof (i know its redundant nazis were homophobic)

 

i really can't see anything beneficial that will result in proof of a gay gene (especially with new rapid sequencing techniques)

(The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.)

 

ant the likelihood they will be wrong (behavioural genetics is easy to screw up) but still publish their results before anyone has confirmed they are actually valid...

 

 

 

i foresee a very big mess arising from all this, with a lot of finger pointing afterwards

 

[jp255]

I multi quoted this not to debate each of the quotes but to show how close and how far off the mark everyone is but still no brass ring...

 

There is a huge elephant in the room, people keep toying with the idea of choice, not a choice, genetic, not genetic, various ways homosexuality can or could be supported by genetics and how it cannot be supported thusly.

 

One of the biggest elephants in the room is our modern definition of sexuality, I'm not talking about a scientific definition but a social definition.

 

We are assuming that the group has always defined homosexuality in the way we do and that homosexuality is somehow an impediment to reproduction....

 

I have my doubts that homosexuality has always been defined as an all or nothing, on off, type of behavior. In fact I am going to assert that homosexual behavior is part of the behaviors of all humans and in the past this was generally assumed to be true.

 

A few hunters off on a long hunt get horny and decide to fellate each other around the camp fire after along hard hunt... homosexuals or just horny guys helping each other out?

 

The dominant male requires that all the males he dominates submit to him sexually when females are not available.... or even when they are... homosexual or just a dominant male getting what is perceived by the group as normal behavior?

 

Females left behind by the males in the cave, alone, lonely, so they have sex with each other while their mates are away... homosexual? Females that have male mates but also have occasional female lovers... homosexual?

 

Men and women in prison, isolated far away from any opposite sexual contact, so they have same sex lovers... homosexual or just sexual?

 

Bonobo Chimps seem to have a handle on the sexuality thing, everyone does everyone else at some point. We humans seem to want to assume or assert that any sexual contact with someone of the same sex labels you as homosexual or even if that is your preferred sexual encounter it somehow magically prevents you from having sex with someone from the opposite sex.

 

I think the main disconnect here is the assumption that heterosexual and homosexual are opposites of each other when in fact they are not. Sexuality comes in many flavors, a spectrum, a rainbow if you will. It's mainly our society that attempts to isolate people whose desires for the same sex are known but on the down low the number is much higher and if homosexuality wasn't demonized by religion I doubt we would see it quite a polarizing behavior as we do now...

 

On the whole the "is it genetic and it is not genetic" there is also the argument that a tendency toward preferring same sex is hormonal and occurred inside the womb due to the fetus being exposed to varying amounts of the mothers hormones during gestation. This could also be a big part of the genetics influence as well, certain genes when exposed to hormonal imbalances in the womb could cause a trend in the direction of sexual preference after puberty. I don't think it's a purely "I've got the gay gene thing at all"...

 

I understand your point, and it is true. Just because someone has acted in a homosexual manner once, does not mean that he falls in the homosexual category, and if he is placed in the heterosexual category then there is a failure to distinguish between those who are exclusively hetero and others that are not. All in all the definitions hetero, homosexual and bisexual are a social attempt to provide labels. In reality sexual orientation is a quantitative trait, as there are varying degrees to which a person is hetero, homosexual or bisexual. This is obvious. Also this is issue is accounted for, in part, in the heritability studies as the individuals are asked to say what their sexual orientation is. The terms heterosexual and homosexual were used in the study, it removes the social behaviour aspect as the individual themselves defines their own orientation, but it is far too early to begin to atempt to account for varying degrees of behaviour.

 

I will say it again. The heritability is known. We know there is both a genetic component to homosexuality and an environmental component!!!. There are limitations to the heritability studies however. 1) there are social pressures/peer pressures that make some people hide/be ashamed of their sexual orientation (proof of this lies within this thread lol) so there could be people in the study which were gay but did not admit it. The confidentiality however should really cure this problem, but some people are weird and probably would still lie. 2) Dmaiski's theorised limitation, that the discordant MZ twin, because he is 100% genetically identical to his homosexual twin, tried being gay and then also found he liked it too. Leading to an increased number between DZ twin, giving an inaccurate heritability. This is valid. I frown upon this argument, can't imagine myself doing something my twin does just because I am genetically identical. Nonetheless I still think that a genetic component is likely from the multiple independent heritability studies that have been carried out, and the meta-analysis. Whether or not you discredit this evidence is due to point 1 or 2 is up to you.

 

Many people are wrongly ignoring the estimated heritability without sound justification. Too many people here are using their own opinions as justification for their ideas on homosexuality. Remove your opinions from the equation and look at the evidence. There are a number of heritability studies, such as the one dmaiski posted. Whether or not it is a choice is much more difficult to answer, I have tried to answer that in the earlier pages. As for whether a gay gene can exist or not, this question also has some difficult aspects to it, but the answer is yes it can, by a few possible mechanisms. 1) genetic hitchiking 2) complex disease type model where gay alleles have low penetrance 3) people forget that some people enjoy both types of behaviour and those of course can reproduce 4) possible positive selection but doubtful.

 

 

 

 

 

[dmaiski]

admittedly studies into Xq28 showed that females with the "gay gene" had higher fecundity so "gay genes" may all be just that, female reproductive genes.

 

males are, genetically, physically, however you really want based on females in most ways. this means female genes to promote reproduction could be active in most males.

 

but there are most likely hundreds of such genes, since they are beneficial for females, and they are probably still active in males (there’s no point in switching them off from an evolutionary perspective if they don’t make people exclusively gay unless they are all on (rare) and they are more beneficial in females then they are detrimental in males)

 

simply put you only need 1 really busy male and a lot of females in a species for reproduction (so other males not being reproductively active could in some ways be a benefit)

 

 

(i am just guessing though)

also these "gay genes" may be responsible for normal behaviour (like not becoming an omnicidal maniac) and emotional stability (hair trigger ranger) so could be needed in males as much as they are in females

 

also what about methylation of genes? even if you have it, if its been methylated its not active, and SRY dose do a lot of fiddling with what is on and what is off in a lot of places

 

 

so, yes there could be "gay genes", yes they could control personality, and yes switching them off could make you spiral into depression, go insane, or start trying to kill people

(you know the fun stuff or behavioural genetics?)

 

 

[Manfromzurich]

I am sure if I would make a video of myself on youtube and you would see me how I look, you woul give me right, that homosexuality is genetic.

 

The SRY gene don't make men to men! Because there are lesbians how look almost like men, but they don't have the SRY gene.

 

Here an exemple of a lesbian who look like a man. Testosteron is not ''directly'' the hormon, which makes a man to a man!

 

 

Do you understand what I mean?

 

@Dmaiski

 

I will do the full genome seqeuncing in 2015.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[jp255]

I am sure if I would make a video of myself on youtube and you would see me how I look, you woul give me right, that homosexuality is genetic.

Well, we already know that you are homosexual (at least you claim to be). If we assume we did not have that knowledge, you think it is not possible for any us to not call you a fag or a gay upon looking at the video? You seem to be very sure that there is one way in which people can and do perceive your sexual orientation. Please explain why this is.

 

but there are most likely hundreds of such genes, since they are beneficial for females, and they are probably still active in males (there's no point in switching them off from an evolutionary perspective if they don't make people exclusively gay unless they are all on (rare) and they are more beneficial in females then they are detrimental in males)

 

You do know of genomic imprinting right? that partly disagrees with what you said there.

Edited September 6, 2012 by jp255

[dmaiski]

SRY is not responsible for hormone production, testosterone is made in women and men

 

SRY is the gene that makes men, men. if you don't have it you will develop feminine characteristics and appear prototypically female even if you have XY karyotype

SRY is a transcription factor and a regulator gene, its products activate other genes that make men manly, and it is very potent there are even XX karyotype males because of it.

 

please read up on stuff before you post

 

You do know of genomic imprinting right? that partly disagrees with what you said there.

 

i do i was just stating the possibilities and they wont all be imprinted, as that will probably cause adverse effects all on their own

(were all based on women just ask any developmental biologist, men are really these weird mutated things that came about by accident)

(i am a man so yes i am allowed to say this, and its true, having half your species reproductively inactive is not beneficial)

 

if men keep some female traits its not really surprising, and they are probably very necessary(otherwise they would be knocked out by the SRY)

 

 

Edited September 6, 2012 by dmaiski

[jp255]

(were all based on women just ask any developmental biologist, men are really these weird mutated things that came about by accident)

(i am a man so yes i am allowed to say this, and its true, having half your species reproductively inactive is not beneficial)

That is quite a statement! How exactly do you know that men being reproductively incapable is not beneficial? I can't remember the exact figure, but around 95%+ (It's a high number) of all extant species reproduce sexually. So if you make a statement that ultimately says "95% of extant species have an opposite sex incapable of reproducing, this is not beneficial", then provide evidence for this at the very least! because the mere fact that sexual reproduction is so abundant suggests that this is beneficial, no?

Edited September 6, 2012 by jp255

[dmaiski]

simple maths, in a species that is asexual the fecundity is 100% for the species (this is beneficial, more reproduction->faster pop growth->high chance of survival)

for a species with 1 male to 10 females its 90%

for a species with 1 male for 1 female (humans are like this ya know...) its 50%

 

these are ofcource optimal conditions, for humans its more like 3% fecundity in real life

(which is from an evolutionary perspective "crap" pardon my French)

 

 

edit:

im going to post a thread on a theory of how men came about

the 95% sexual reproduction value is a result of this

 

edit:

there it is

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68825-in-the-begining-there-was-man/

let the flame wars begin, and make sure to invite some theistic nuts to it

(that was sarcasm, please rational discussion only)

 

 

Edited September 6, 2012 by dmaiski

[Manfromzurich]

Well, we already know that you are homosexual (at least you claim to be). If we assume we did not have that knowledge, you think it is not possible for any us to not call you a fag or a gay upon looking at the video? You seem to be very sure that there is one way in which people can and do perceive your sexual orientation. Please explain why this is.

 

 

 

Correct man!

 

So now the question is, should I do such a video on you tube with the title ''homosexuality is genetic''? Because when you can see how I look, then I aren't able more to say things like ''homosexuality is not caused by a genetic mutation''! Additionally you could see comments done by you tube viewer who write things like '' fag or ''shit looks he gay or such things.

 

 

Please explain why this is? Please explain why this is!!! ARRGGHH! I said there is an error in my DNA I am sure of that!

 

What do you believe which genes could be affected in male homosexuals?

 

 

I have the hypothesis that the AR gene has something to do with this. I mean androgen insensitive syndrom only caused by ca 700 base mutation in the exomes of the AR gene. But the AR gene has much more bases of his exomes sequence! And muscle distrophy is caused only by ca 30 base mutation in the exomes of the AR gene! What's about the rest of the exome bases of the AR gene which aren't related yet with any diseases?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Greg H.]

Additionally you could see comments done by you tube viewer who write things like '' fag or ''shit looks he gay or such things.

 

 

Please explain why this is? Please explain why this is!!! ARRGGHH! I said there is an error in my DNA I am sure of that!

 

Perhaps the simpler answer is that some people are just assholes and the Internet, unfortunately, makes it easier for them to be that way without fear of reprisal for their behavior.

[dmaiski]

 

i would say public opinion is to blame

you have to understand people are stupid on a very fundamental level

 

1 people see patterns (basics of learning)

2 people conform (the reasons there are not 6billion different names for the colour blue)

 

so thus

 

1 a paten is spotted (2 people are gay, and look like that)

2 it is noted and openly accepted

3 gay people conform to the patter by choise (its how they want to be defined)

4 unrelated people that conform to the pattern are believed to be gay

5 produces a complex in unrelated people

6 they conform to being gay unintentionally

 

learning and brain architecture is messy so this can happen, and dose happen a lot in fact

 

(and its not really something that can be fixed, unless you "hack" your own mind (even then results can be varied))

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(the best way to explain this is "if enough people tell you its true, it must be true, if it must be true it becomes truth, but truth dose not represent reality"

 

 

 

 

[Manfromzurich]

Illumina Inc. offers a I-PAD DNA analyzer

 

http://investor.illumina.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121127&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1686310

 

http://hpectechtrends.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/mygenome-ipad-app-from-illumina/

 

That's I will also buy an I-PAD.

[dmaiski]

its the ipad 3 with inbuilt high resolution DNA sequencer!!

weight 270kg

dimensions 0.5m x 1.2m x 1.0m

screen size 12"

requires external power source and chemical package sold separately

power source 3x 12V standard car battery

 

 

no really that app isn’t very useful its just a way to access they’re website and a marketing ploy

 

 

 

 

personal favorite app comercial

 

iPhone Murder Apps from Emma Stone

 

 

[Manfromzurich]

What the bullshit you are talking. Of course it was a useful APP. I am able then to analyze my DNA on road! I go between summer 2014 and summer 2015 in the military. I can earn minimun 21'000 Swiss francs(=$). I asked Illumina Inc. per E-mail how much it would cost and they said individual genome sequencing costs at the moment 9000 Swiss francs(=$) I guess in three years the prize will be much lower! Yeah!

 

 

But at this time I am trying to get in contact with otogenetics. They are offering exome sequencing. This is much cheaper. I had the money for buying it!

 

 

If until tomorrrow they don't answer on my mail, I will phone them tomorrow for request!

 

IT's a question of a few years and I able to prove that I am right!

 

At Greg H.

 

I see you are afraid that I will sequence my DNA.

 

What's the cause that Inah3(SDN-POA) is grown to small in my head???

Edited September 6, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Greg H.]

At Greg H.

 

I see you are afraid that I will sequence my DNA.

 

 

Yet another presumptive conclusion on your part, I'm afraid. You should try this little thing we like to call "gathering evidence" before you make statements like that. You'll look less foolish in the long run.

[dmaiski]

1 why would i be afraid of your genome?

(unless you are a Lovecraftian horror and my brain will simultaneously try to run out my ear, explode, implode and teleport to Mars because of the knowledge)

 

2 to analyse a genome you need a big computer that can do multiple sequence alignments quickly, not some dinky ipad

 

3 i have a lecturer at my uni that will be doing whole genome sequencing at 5000GBP next year

 

4 exome sequencing... make sure they sequence regulatory regions as well, and your possibly looking for a methylation pattern not a SNP

 

 

[Arete]

What the bullshit you are talking. Of course it was a useful APP. I am able then to analyze my DNA on road! I go between summer 2014 and summer 2015 in the military. I can earn minimun 21'000 Swiss francs(=$). I asked Illumina Inc. per E-mail how much it would cost and they said individual genome sequencing costs at the moment 9000 Swiss francs(=$) I guess in three years the prize will be much lower! Yeah!

 

A) If Illumina sequences your genome, you will get short-read sequence data back. This is not an assembled genome, nor can you assemble a genome de novo using short read data. If you're looking for a "gay" gene which is present/absent in individuals displaying a "gay" phenotype (a flawed study in the first place for a variety of reasons), you'd have 9,000 Swiss francs of useless data, at least on its own.

 

B) Assuming you had the expertise and resources to conduct a referenced alignment to the annotated human genome, you could potentially look for a "gay" point mutation/mutations, if you had a particular gene you wished to investigate. At this point, you'd be effectively conducting an association study (i.e. association a phenotype with a particular allele at a particular gene/suite of genes) with a sample size of one (yourself). An association study of "gay" alleles with a sample size of one has zero statistical power and will be useless for any sort of meaningful inference.

 

C) When you sequence a "whole genome" you don't actually sequence the "whole genome". On my study group, we routinely recover 180x average coverage for our raw Illumina HiSeq runs. Due to repetitive genomic regions, quality filtering, paired end alignment failures, etc. Approximately 70% ends up being alignable. Even this is a) a very high average coverage for a eukaryote b) a relatively high alignment rate and we still end up with substantial gaps and large genomic regions for which SNP calling cannot be accurately conducted.

 

Good luck, but you might want to evaluate the bioinformatic challenges in genomic sequencing before you blow your cash.