Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

X Chromosome May Leave a Mark On Male Fertility

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the guiding-hand dept.

Science 124

sciencehabit writes "Behind every great man, the saying goes, there's a great woman. And behind every sperm, there may be an X chromosome gene. In humans, the Y chromosome makes men, men, or so researchers have thought: It contains genes that are responsible for sex determination, male development, and male fertility. But now a team has discovered that X—'the female chromosome'—could also play a significant role in maleness. It contains scores of genes that are active only in tissue destined to become sperm. The finding shakes up our ideas about how sex chromosomes influence gender and also suggests that at least some parts of the X chromosome are playing an unexpectedly dynamic role in evolution."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (-1, Troll)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44353341)

The neo-feminists will not stand for it! This has to be another male-dominated science propaganda finding and must be a lie!

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353551)

Women are XX. Men are XY. Any high schooler, or an American college student could have old you there is an "X" in men.

So now the liberals will go off to say that part of every may is gay. Oh joy. As if that is what defines a "man". Surprise: Chuck Norris, John Wayne, Charlton Heston were all XY.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44353787)

What about fully functional XX men, except that one gene that allows sperm to swim, but otherwise normal?

Many Y genes have gotten trans-scripted onto the X over time and the Y may just disappear leaving us with everyone being XX.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44356931)

See Klinefelter's syndrome for why that seems unlikely to happen.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

jamiesan (715069) | about a year ago | (#44353789)

X men don't have to be gay.... they have to be Super! Thanks for asking!

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354221)

Superheroes can't be gay!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTKSgf4NX_4 [youtube.com]

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#44353593)

The neo-feminists will not stand for it! This has to be another male-dominated science propaganda finding and must be a lie!

Marilyn Manjaw sides with you.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353645)

You misunderestimated the significance of the finding. The fe(e) in female chromosomes responsible for controlling the ability of 'certain tissues' in both the male and female, presumably until the each has met some prerequisite for reproduction, like 'getting in touch with your 'inner feminine side' (as an alternative to aggression?). Maybe this will explain the success of the 'sneaky' less-than-dominant males who may not rule the harem but pass their genes on down the line none-the-less. Could it be that this is the key to unlocking the code that allows men to employ cooperative, empathetic strategies to achieve success thus explaining the emergence of game theory from the example of men cooperating for the affection of women in bars?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44356845)

Could it be that this is the key to unlocking the code that allows men to employ cooperative, empathetic strategies to achieve success thus explaining the emergence of game theory from the example of men cooperating for the affection of women in bars?

No. It's about sperm production.

With 5% of the human genome residing on this chromosome, it isn't a surprise.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353749)

The neo-feminists will not stand for it! This has to be another male-dominated science propaganda finding and must be a lie!

A great of example of distorting (or, more accurately, completely fabricating) a feminist argument to the point of ridiculousness so that it's easier to discredit all of feminism. No feminist would ever make a stupid argument like this, so who the heck thinks this quote is actually informative?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#44353965)

Some of those feminists make even stupider arguments. It's perfectly alright for women to cooperatively solve problems together, but add a man to the equation, and the solution becomes "sexist".

If a gang of women need to pass through a door that is difficult to open, the strongest woman present will probably pull the door open, and the least strong women in the gang will duck through as quickly as possible. If a man and a feminist need to pass through that door, if the man opens and holds the door for the feminist, he is sexist. We have basically the same solution to the same problem, but the sexist feminist refuses to acknowledge that the solution is the CORRECT solution.

MOST WOMEN will just accept this trivial act of consideration with a nod of gratitude, or a word of thanks, and go on about their business. SOME FEMINISTS will want to kick the man in the balls for being sexist.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44354127)

Yeah, and SOME black women are welfare queens. What's your point?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year ago | (#44354555)

Like welfare queens, femnazis ruin it for all of us.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#44354667)

Sounds to me like you might be a racist. Black women? Welfare queens? What is YOUR point?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44355023)

That I, like you, should have used sarcasm tags?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#44355061)

Heh - maybe you're right there. Point taken.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year ago | (#44355463)

You're okay, for a cracker.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (0)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354927)

Really? I though feminist were more concerned about domestic violence, education access and maternal mortality rates.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355587)

>> domestic violence
SIGNIFICANTLY more males than females are assaulted and killed in society every day.
Perhaps not by their partner, but overall in society.

>> education access
Girls have been outperforming boys in school for many years now.
Also for many years, many more girls have been going into higher education than boys.

>> maternal mortality
Don't even get me started on government health spending.
Women live longer than men, but significantly more is spent on female-specific health issues.

No, what most (not all, but most) feminists do is perpetuate the notion of victimhood amongst females, and most women swallow this hook, line and sinker.
But if you do the research -- I mean actually look at the numbers -- you'll see that males cop it far worse than females.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#44354105)

No feminist would ever make a stupid argument like this...

...And that sounds a lot like No True Scotsman.

Sadly, I've personally heard actual feminists make equally-stupid arguments. One particular instance I recall was discrediting a physical-fitness study because it separated male and female participants. The study's conclusion had nothing to do with gender differences, but segregating the samples eliminated a variable. That didn't matter to the opposing extremist, though. She argued that since the male and female results were separated, each group was therefore subject to different biases, and the whole study should be rejected because it was "clearly" just a piece of propaganda to further the myth that men are physically superior to women.

Of course, in the actual study, there were a good many outliers that overlapped. Speaking of outliers, there are also extremists on all sides of an argument, even the ones with supposed moral high ground. Such extremists should be ignored as an anomaly, and the real science can go on uninterrupted.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#44356877)

No feminist would ever make a stupid argument like this...

...And that sounds a lot like No True Scotsman.

So No True Scotsman burns Straw Man?

Where do Lizard and Spock fit in?

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#44357185)

A perfect sig.

Re:There is _female_ in male? Sacrilege! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355517)

For anyone interested, here are a couple of valuable Men's Rights Twitter feeds to follow:

https://twitter.com/mensrightsrdt [twitter.com]
Which links largely to this Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights/ [reddit.com]

And https://twitter.com/manwomanmyth [twitter.com]

Some of the information these guys post is truly shocking.

So we are part... (0)

etash (1907284) | about a year ago | (#44353345)

...women! Excellent news for crossdressers. Bad news for religious fundamentalists of the middle east *wink* *wink*.

Re:So we are part... (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44353547)

No, it's just bad science journalism. The X chromosome is, for the most part, just another part of the genome; it contains all sorts of random junk, like blood clotting factors and parts of the receptors in our eyes that let us see colour. Any disease you've ever heard of that's "X-linked" or more common in men than women is either affected or effected, directly or indirectly, by the X chromosome. It is of no significance or note whatsoever that it contains stuff that's only activated in the male body.

If you want something weird and sex-linked to rant insanely about, however, there's always the mystery of digit ratio [wikipedia.org] .

Re:So we are part... (2)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354829)

It's significant from a health and evolutionary perspective. X inactivation in women makes expression of these genes mosaic which can prevent disease as well as cause some interesting immune responses. A gene can be beneficial in a pair but fatal solo which creates an interesting evolutionary tradeoff. If a woman can't have sons, is that a significant evolutionary disadvantage?

Re:So we are part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355747)

Jurassic Park proven! If all the men in the world died out, nature will find a way.

3.5 Billion years of hacks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353347)

This is what happens when you have 3.5 Billion years of hacks. Legacy code, no overall architecture and absolute chaos.

Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

etash (1907284) | about a year ago | (#44353373)

Agreed! But this time let's make it a truly intelligent* design, shall we?

*no appendix for example.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353629)

I think it's reserved for release notes and other version-specific information. You might want to leave that in.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354373)

In theory, the appendix should evolve itself away at some point, if it's really that useless and the gut bacteria that lives in it can very well live in the rest of the gut.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (2)

kaliann (1316559) | about a year ago | (#44354967)

The appendix may not be as useless as we once thought.
Recent investigations have suggested that the appendix acts as a kind of "wildlife preserve" for our gut microbes. Throughout much of our evolutionary history (and much of the modern world) massive diarrhea has been a disease with two distinct issues: the likelihood of death from dehydration, and the disruption of intestinal flora in the survivors. A rapid recolonization with "good bugs" would have helped keep survivors from the kinds of recurring and chronic conditions that can result from microbial imbalance.

Testing of this hypothesis has shown that individuals with an appendix are four times less likely to have recurrences of C. diff infections compared to those without: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21699818 [nih.gov]

However, the way the recurrent laryngeal nerve runs around major thoracic vessels before ending up in the larynx is preposterous. That totally needs a redesign. Also, can I request a functional nictitating membrane? Those things are sweet!

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353569)

So what you're saying is Microsoft created humanity?

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44353751)

Are you really running Windows XY in your brain?

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

jamiesan (715069) | about a year ago | (#44353937)

Wouldn't this be too easily confused with X Windows? Trademark infringement?

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354493)

If only we can send different application windows to other brains wirelessly...

Wait, isn't that telepathy?

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (5, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#44353699)

The Y chromosome used to just be a variant of the X chromosome, with only a few genes different; they were the same size. Over time, careless maintenance staff decided the backups were redundant and stopped keeping them. Thus something like 5% of men have one or more factory defects—most commonly colour-deficient vision, which some backward engineer decided was a feature [straightdope.com] , not a bug, and went to great lengths to distribute bad copies to other users.

On the plus side, we recently found out that the genome actually does have some [wikipedia.org] documentation—well, more like debugger symbols—so it's getting easier to figure out where the important binaries are located. Unfortunately in the process we also discovered that what appeared to be severe filesystem fragmentation is actually rotational performance optimization, and most of the rest of the disk is actually a messy broth of shell scripts [wikipedia.org] , not merely unallocated space as we assumed [wikipedia.org] .

The sad thing is that even if we did redesign everything, it would probably be way worse than the existing codebase, particularly since we only have a tiny portion of the actual spec, which you can imagine was never exactly written down.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

AdamStarks (2634757) | about a year ago | (#44354589)

Can you explain that again, but with more car analogies?

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

ildon (413912) | about a year ago | (#44354833)

This is what happens when you use genetic algorithms [slashdot.org] to design your code. It's a lot faster and more efficient, but no one knows how the hell (or even why) it works, and you end up with a bunch of garbage code that probably does nothing, but heaven help you if you try to remove it.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

ProzacPatient (915544) | about a year ago | (#44353955)

It should have a consistent interface on phones and tablets as well.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

Alsee (515537) | about a year ago | (#44354423)

Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.

Humans designed by committee might have cupholders for ears and camel humps, but even a committee wouldn't do anything as asinine as running a sewer line out through the middle of male&female sex bits.

-

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44354939)

Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.

Humans designed by committee might have cupholders for ears and camel humps, but even a committee wouldn't do anything as asinine as running a sewer line out through the middle of male&female sex bits.

-

Actually, only males have the sewer line run out through their actual sex bits. With females, the uterus and fallopian tubes are totally separate from the ureter. For the male, it makes a lot of sense actually. Why build two hoses when you can have one with a valve to select what comes out of it. Kind of like the hose on the gas pump at the filing station. One hose supplying different fluids as the situation warrants.

As any engineering student will tell you, the purpose of engineering isn't to build the strongest structure or the biggest structure. It is just the opposite, it is to build the most minimalist structure that will get the job done.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355115)

Plus, it's not so much sewage as it is grey water. If I had sewage coming out of my urethra, I'd be pretty scared.

Re:3.5 Billion years of hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355297)

Let's start over and redesign humans from the ground up.

Humans designed by committee might have cupholders for ears and camel humps, but even a committee wouldn't do anything as asinine as running a sewer line out through the middle of male&female sex bits.

-

Actually, only males have the sewer line run out through their actual sex bits. With females, the uterus and fallopian tubes are totally separate from the ureter. For the male, it makes a lot of sense actually. Why build two hoses when you can have one with a valve to select what comes out of it. Kind of like the hose on the gas pump at the filing station. One hose supplying different fluids as the situation warrants.

As any engineering student will tell you, the purpose of engineering isn't to build the strongest structure or the biggest structure. It is just the opposite, it is to build the most minimalist structure that will get the job done.

Well, we now know what your problem is.

Who wrote this mess? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353351)

And where's the documentation?

Re:Who wrote this mess? (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#44353425)

An infinite number of monkeys and a ruthless unit testing process. As for documentation, there's lots of people working on it, but some of them think they should be able to hold exclusive rights to their documentation.

Re:Who wrote this mess? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year ago | (#44353613)

It's open source with unclear licensing, it's got no comments whatsoever and there's more dead code than you can shake a stick at. Sounds like your average SourceForge project then :)

Re:Who wrote this mess? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44354019)

"Source code is the ultimate documentation".

Re:Who wrote this mess? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44354639)

"The finding shakes up our ideas about how sex chromosomes influence gender and also suggests that at least some parts of the X chromosome are playing an unexpectedly dynamic role in evolution."

Huh? What? Shakes up WHOSE ideas? Certainly not mine.

YY babies don't tend to go very far (not XYY, just YY).

Seriously... I don't see how this perfectly obvious stuff "shakes up" much of anything.

Re:Who wrote this mess? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#44354995)

"The finding shakes up our ideas about how sex chromosomes influence gender and also suggests that at least some parts of the X chromosome are playing an unexpectedly dynamic role in evolution."

Huh? What? Shakes up WHOSE ideas? Certainly not mine.

YY babies don't tend to go very far (not XYY, just YY).

Seriously... I don't see how this perfectly obvious stuff "shakes up" much of anything.

Well, if they just reported the findings without adding hyperbole, nobody would read their article. For example take these two hypothetical titles: "Research sheds new light into inter-relationship between X and Y chromosomes." and "X Chromosome findings change how we will forever view gender." Which one do you thing will garner more page hits and readers?

Re:Who wrote this mess? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44356049)

I don't doubt that they might have had reasons to write it that way... but that doesn't do any more to impress me. The uncalled-for sensationalism actually ends up giving me a negative impression.

Not that surprising at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353385)

If the X genes were the same as mice, then all the girls would not be human. And some HAVE to be active during the creation of sperm - after all, half the sperm have an X, the other half have the Y.

Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44353407)

The y chromosome doesn't code many genes at all, and this has been known for a long time. It's main function is turning specific genes off. Anatomy of all sorts, including gender characteristics is coded across all 24 chromosomes. The y just suppresses the female parts.

If I learn something over a decade ago in a high school class, it shouldn't be "science news."

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

Teresita (982888) | about a year ago | (#44353435)

The Y chromosome is a li'l runt and they think it won't even be there anymore in a hunnert thousand years or so.

Y chromosome is likely to stick around. (5, Informative)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44353889)

The Y chromosome is a li'l runt and they think it won't even be there anymore in a hunnert thousand years or so.

I don't think there's anyone who takes this seriously any more. There were some people suggesting that if genes are lost at a linear rate off the Y chromosome, it should disappear in another 10 million years. However, chimpanzees and humans show no difference in the number of genes on the Y chromosome since we diverged 6-7 million years ago, and we've both only lost one gene since we diverged from the rhesus macaque 25 mya. Given that sequencing of the platypus genome puts the common mammalian Y chromosome at a max of age of 166 mya, this suggests the linear model is just wrong.

The Wikipedia has good article on this from which I drew my numbers, if you're interested in more.

Re:Y chromosome is likely to stick around. (1)

Common Joe (2807741) | about a year ago | (#44355101)

Yeah... I heard this a few decades ago in grade school and I thought "WTF? Just about every organism on earth has two genders including things like plants. How can they say that the Y chromosome is going away?"

Unfortunately, my WTF moments concerning these "scientific conclusions" haven't stopped. It's only gotten more frequent as I've matured. At least the poles haven't flipped like my "WTF sensor" for politics. I only go "WTF!?" when I hear something that actually makes sense in politics because I'm so used to hearing something ridiculous.

Re:Y chromosome is likely to stick around. (3, Interesting)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44355545)

Yeah... I heard this a few decades ago in grade school and I thought "WTF? Just about every organism on earth has two genders including things like plants. How can they say that the Y chromosome is going away?"

To be fair, the Y-chromosome isn't the only way of determining gender, and the Y-chromosome of non-mammalian species has no common ancestor to those of mammals (they all degenerated long after splitting off).

Some species use the number of X chromosomes. Reptiles and avians use ZW chromosomes, where the "female chromosome" is the shorter, degenerate one. Ants and bees are just kind of weird. [wikipedia.org] The platypus has something like 10 sex chromosomes and lacks the SRY gene, so we have no idea how it really works AFAIK, and platyfish (unrelated) have some sort of weird W/X/Y system.

Single gender in plants is relatively rare, and I have no idea how it works.

Unfortunately, my WTF moments concerning these "scientific conclusions" haven't stopped. It's only gotten more frequent as I've matured.

I think that's more of a problem with bad science journalism than bad science, though.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year ago | (#44356513)

If you look at all the chromosomes though, there are a lot of "runts". The size of the chromosome doesn't matter as long as they can hold a few genes that are vital.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353553)

the Y chromosome makes men, men,...

We all know that Football - American Football - and Rugby make men. So do guns and Water Polo ( Water Polo makes Rugby players look like the fags they are. LaCross?! - Rich boy homos!) .

The more guns you have, the more man you are.

I mean really, the biologists need to examine how many gun toting Water Polo players there are.

Fucking Homos!

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1, Flamebait)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#44353575)

The y just suppresses the female parts.

So the suppression of females by the Y Chromosome is natural, and this is what evolution has intended and achieved, and the general oppression of the women in the society is just a natural extension of what is going on in cellular level. So all the male chauvinistic pigs can now breath a sigh of relief, "we can't help it. we are born this way".

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44353823)

It just means men are females that have been suppressed. We're the victims here!

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354903)

Oppression of women is as natural and greed and cruelty, and just as avoidable.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#44353595)

Actually, it does both: Turn genes on, and turn genes off.

Take for instance, "TDF Males".

(TDF == Testis Determining Factor, and is encoded by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome)

This single gene is sometimes translocated to the X chromosome in a rare mishap of cellular meiosis during gamete production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome [wikipedia.org]

Since this is just a single gene out of the many on the Y chromosome, resulting phenotypical male offspring are infertile, and the "androgenization" of the offspring is incomplete, often showing signs of feminine features.

The Y chromosome contains more than just SRY, and does quite a bit more. Specifically, it contains genes for sperm specific cellular features, like the AZF1 gene,
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AZF1 ), without which you can't produce sperm cells.

Given the limited real-estate of the Y chromosome, and it's structural fragility (See the "shrinking Y chromosome" theory, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Shrinking_theory [wikipedia.org] ), it makes LOADS of evolutionary sense to offload as much vital genetic data off of it as possible, and onto more stably recombining chromosomes as is possible.

The real thing here, is that "most of being male, is present in the female genotype". Most, but not all.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about a year ago | (#44353791)

The Y chromosome contains more than just SRY, and does quite a bit more.

SRSLY?

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about a year ago | (#44354387)

Look, I didn't name it that ok?

Want a truly silly name? Look up "sonic hedgehog gene".

For realz.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354987)

I wish I could vote up on this account. This is such a fascinating topic.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353657)

Which species has 24 chromosomes?

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44353745)

The human species has:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,X, and Y.

How many do you count?

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353663)

The y chromosome doesn't code many genes at all, and this has been known for a long time. It's main function is turning specific genes off. Anatomy of all sorts, including gender characteristics is coded across all 24 chromosomes. The y just suppresses the female parts. If I learn something over a decade ago in a high school class, it shouldn't be "science news."

Yeah, it's very poorly written. The news here is that there are far more genes active only in males on the X chromosome than expected. This is important when studying how evolution happens. The science writer largely misses this exciting result focuses, as you say, on something that's been known for decades.

The previous science article about accurately measuring sea level in the past has the same stupidity when written up by others.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

Doc_Gamesh (1154103) | about a year ago | (#44354039)

Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Re:Moronic writer. Old news with new data. (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year ago | (#44354343)

The Y chromosome has degenerated because it is only present in males. Therefore it does not benefit from crossover. Therefore a bad mutation on it is passed down to all generations of males from that point on. This makes it a very poor place to put useful genes, and it is gradually becoming nothing more than a device to determine gender.

Go4t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353455)

Behind every great man... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44353481)

Behind every great man, the saying goes, there's a great woman

Behing every failed man, there is a failed woman.

Re:Behind every great man... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353617)

Behind every running man, there is a woman with an axe.

Re:Behind every great man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353973)

Hence why we (USA) have the Second Amendment.

Re:Behind every great man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354001)

If that were true then (mens) Olympic marathons would be a lot more exciting to watch.

Re:Behind every great man... (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about a year ago | (#44356851)

Behind every serial killer, there is a woman who created him.

Re:Behind every great man... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355409)

Behind every great man, the saying goes, there's a great woman

Behing every failed man, there is a failed woman.

Definition of a successful man: one that makes more money than his wife can spend.

Definition of an unsuccessful man: one who made less money than his ex-wife spent.

Bottom line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353529)

Science still have a long way to go in decoding natures mysteries. It wasn't that long ago that it was reported that the Y chromosome used ECC, compression, and was encrypted with AES.

Y is X Mutated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353559)

I thought this was implied when it was determined that the Y chromosome is a mutated X chromosome. The same reason dudes have nipples, yeah?

frist 5tOp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353573)

th3 system clean

well, uh, not surprising (2)

goffster (1104287) | about a year ago | (#44353601)

Otherwise there would be very little genetic diversity between father and
son regarding fertility, and we know that to be false.

My Three Options (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353643)

"...the Y chromosome makes men, men, or so researchers have thought..."

Two of my choices are the same thing, and the third is a short phrase. Interesting.

Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353647)

I guess I always assumed that the Y determined sex, not that everything about maleness was encoded on it --- a signal rather than a guidebook.

X-X, X-Y, Y-Y (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44353821)

Women, X-X. Men, X-Y. Chuck Norris, Y-Y.

There is no chick in Chuck Norris.

Re:X-X, X-Y, Y-Y (1)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354865)

He'd truly have to never get hurt, he'd be unable to clot and would bleed out from a paper cut.

Re:X-X, X-Y, Y-Y (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44356433)

Chuck Norris can't get a paper cut. Only Chuck Norris can cut Chuck Norris.

Women (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year ago | (#44353951)

Can't live with em, can't live without em.

Consider for a moment (2)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44354621)

That the basic body plan is female to start with. I mean why else would men have nipples too?

And look at differences in the reproductive organs of men and women. Testes and Ovaries - just small deviations create each, and of course location.

Re:Consider for a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44354745)

That the basic body plan is female to start with. I mean why else would men have nipples too?

Because they're fun, perhaps?

Re:Consider for a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355205)

Not all men have sensitive nipples. Whenever women try to play with my nipples I'm like, "I'm sorry honey, but you've been watching too much porn."

Re:Consider for a moment (1)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354853)

Pacifiers. Although, men do actually lactate, they just can't produce very much.

Re:Consider for a moment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44355271)

If you drink a ton of Mt. Dew every day and never exercise, it's easier than you think ;)

Re:Consider for a moment (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44355901)

Funniest thing I ever saw - my nephew. He was just 4 or 5 months old. He was in my SO's lap. Now the SO is male. The nephew tried suckling on his uncle. Too funny.

Re:Consider for a moment (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#44356185)

He was in my SO's lap. Now the SO is male.

What was he before?

Re:Consider for a moment (1)

adolf (21054) | about a year ago | (#44356369)

Just X.

Old news (1)

Linnsey Miller (2993021) | about a year ago | (#44354719)

This is nothing new. The Y-Chromosome is too small to actually code for anything, and no one ever thought that it could contain more than a handful of genes. The Y is just a set of GOTOs pointing to the X.

You didn't finish it... (4, Funny)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about a year ago | (#44355031)

You didn't finish that saying. Time to burn some karma.

"Behind every great man, the saying goes, there's a great woman.

And behind every great woman, there's a man. Staring at her ass.

Re:You didn't finish it... (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year ago | (#44357231)

Her donkey? [grin]

Isaac Asimov predicted this (1)

Llamalarity (806413) | about a year ago | (#44355987)

Actually not, but he did write this pun filled song - to the tune of "Home on the Range,"

Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

More if you search for it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?