Wednesday, June 18, 2008

If there are "gay genes," why don't they die out?

A new paper in the journal Public Library of Science ONE offers a possible solution to the "Darwinian paradox" posed by genetic models of homosexuality. I write about the paper in a news story today for Science's online news service, ScienceNOW. The link is free for 30 days, then requires a paying sub, so here is the text below. The journal is public access, however, so you can read the paper as well (good luck with the math!)

"Gay Genes" May Be Good for Women

By Michael Balter
ScienceNOW Daily News
18 June 2008

As gay couples race to the altar in California this week, scientists may have found an answer to the so-called gay paradox. Studies suggest that homosexuality is at least partly genetic. And although homosexuals have far fewer children than heterosexuals, so-called gay genes apparently survive in the population. A new study bolsters support for an intriguing idea: These same genes may increase fertility in women.

Despite some tantalizing leads over the past 2 decades, researchers have yet to isolate any genes directly linked to homosexuality. Nevertheless, a number of studies have shown that male homosexuals have more gay male relatives on their maternal lines than on their paternal lines, leading some scientists to suggest that gay genes might be found on the X chromosome. And in 2004, a team led by evolutionary psychologist Andrea Camperio Ciani of the University of Padua in Italy reported that women related to gay men had more children than women related to heterosexual men. The differences were striking: The mothers of gay men, for example, had an average of 2.7 children, compared with 2.3 children for the mothers of heterosexual men. A similar trend held for maternal aunts.

In new work, reported online this week in PLoS ONE, Camperio Ciani and his colleagues used mathematical modeling to see what kinds of genetic scenarios could explain these results. The team looked at more than two dozen possibilities, such as the number of "gay genes" (one or two), how much of a reproductive advantage the genes provided, and whether the genes were located on the X chromosome or other, nonsex (autosomal) chromosomes. The model that best explained the data consisted of two "gay genes," with at least one on the X chromosome. These genes increased the fertility of women but decreased it in men--a phenomenon previously studied in insects and mammals called "sexual antagonism."

Camperio Ciani's team suggests that these gay genes may actually increase how attracted both men and women are to men rather than making gay men more "feminine," as some researchers had earlier proposed. Although this is bad for male fertility, it is good for female fertility and allows such genes to survive at low but stable rates in a population, the authors say.

Dean Hamer, a behavioral geneticist at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, who pioneered the search for gay genes, calls the study "an elegant mathematical analysis." He adds that the team has come up with a "simple solution" to the Darwinian paradox posed by homosexuality: "What is a 'gay gene' in a man is a 'superstraight gene' in a woman," he says.

Photo: Erin Siegal/Reuters

1 comment:

Anne Gilbert said...

I don't think scientists are ever going to find any "gay genes". That is, there will never be any genes found that directly link the bearers to eventual homosexuality. However, I also think that there are (probably) both genetic and environmental influences here, that affect the eventual sexual orientation. Some of these influlences --- genetic or environmental --- may well make some men more attractive to women. However not all of that sobset of menmen is going to be attracted to women, due to this combination of genetic and environmental influences. Finally, I think we are only just beginning to understand what the dynamics of sexual orientation may be. Those who look at it "biologically" may tend to think that the "genetic" is the answer. Maybe they're right. But at present, we just don't know how to disentangle the two.
Anne G