Being Promiscuious Good for Immunity System

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,908
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,235
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
Monogamy and the Immune System: Differences in Sexual Behavior Impact Bacteria Hosted and Genes That Control Immunity

ScienceDaily (Aug. 30, 2012) — In the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains two closely related species of mice share a habitat and a genetic lineage, but have very different social lives. The California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) is characterized by a lifetime of monogamy; the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) is sexually promiscuous.


Researchers at the University of California Berkeley recently showed how these differences in sexual behavior impact the bacteria hosted by each species as well as the diversity of the genes that control immunity.
The results were published in the May 2012 edition of PLoS One.

Monogamy is a fairly rare trait in mammals, possessed by only five percent of species :damn:. Rarely do two related, but socially distinguishable, species live side-by-side. This makes these two species of mice interesting subjects for Matthew MacManes, a National Institutes of Health-sponsored post-doctoral fellow at UC Berkeley.

Through a series of analyses, MacManes and researchers from the Lacey Lab examined the differences between these two species on the microscopic and molecular levels. They discovered that the lifestyles of the two mice had a direct impact on the bacterial communities that reside within the female reproductive tract. Furthermore, these differences correlate with enhanced diversifying selection on genes related to immunity against bacterial diseases.

Bacteria live on every part of our bodies and have distinctive ecologies. The first step of MacManes project involved testing the bacterial communities that resided in the vaginas of both species of mice -- the most relevant area for a study about monogamous and promiscuous mating systems.


Next, MacManes performed a genetic analysis on the variety of DNA present, revealing hundreds of different types of bacteria present in each species. He found that the promiscuous deer mouse had twice the bacterial diversity as the monogamous California mouse. Since many bacteria cause sexually transmitted infections (like chlamydia or gonorrhea), he used the diversity of bacteria as a proxy for risk of disease. Results of the study were published in Naturwissenschaften in October 2011.

But this wasn't the end of the exploration.

"The obvious next question was, does the bacterial diversity in the promiscuous mice translate into something about the immune system, or how the immune system functions?" MacManes asked.

MacManes hypothesized that selective pressures caused by generation after generation of bacterial warfare had fortified the genomes of the promiscuous deer mouse against the array of bacteria it hosts.

To find out, he sequenced genes related to immune function of the two mice species and compared each species' versions of one important immunity gene, MHC-DQa. Some forms of genes (alleles) are better at recognizing different pathogens than others. If an individual has only a single common allele, it may only recognize a limited set of bacterial pathogens. In contrast, if an individual has two different alleles it may recognize a more diverse set of bacterial pathogens, and thus be more protected against infection.

Based on a comparison of the two species' genotypes he confirmed that the promiscuous mice had much more diversity in the genes related to their immune system

"The promiscuous mice, by virtue of their sexual system, are in contact with more individuals and are exposed to a lot more bacteria," MacManes said. "They need a more robust immune system to fend off all of the bugs that they're exposed to."


The results, published in PLoS One, match findings in humans and other species with differential mating habits. They show that differences in social behavior can lead to changes in the selection pressures and gene-level evolutionary changes in a species.

Motivated by this result, MacManes began work on a project that looked to understand the genetics of a far more complex behavior -- whether to stay at home with relatives, or to disperse to a new burrow.

Scientists have been sequencing and exploring the genome for more than a decade. For much of this time, studies have been limited to the most common and well-known species: humans, lab-mice, and fruit flies. But in recent years, as the cost of sequencing has dropped and the methods of exploring genomic information have improved, researchers have begun to analyze other less traditional organisms.

MacManes project was one of the first studies to use next-generation gene sequencing and high performance computers to assess the influence of behavior on genes in a non-model species.

"This is a field that people have always been interested in, but the tools hadn't existed yet for people to really understand how complex the mechanisms were," MacManes said.

Next-generation sequencing determines the order of the nucleotide bases in a molecule of DNA by breaking the double helix into short fragments and rapidly analyzing thousands of chunks at a time. Once hundreds of millions of genetic snippets have been read out by a DNA sequencer, they must be assembled into a single genome, or mapped to a reference genome, and compared to other genetic sequences to be useful.

"The sequencing is something that you can do in any molecular biology lab -- that's easy," MacManes said. "But when you try to do an analysis of the data, you get back something like several billion base pairs of data. How to actually analyze the data is the real issue."

As a National Science Foundation (NSF) graduate research fellow, MacManes learned that researchers could access NSF supercomputers through the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) to analyze datasets too big for their university laboratory clusters. Once he had his sequences, MacManes turned to the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin, a lead partner in XSEDE and home to the Ranger supercomputer.

"When we first started using Ranger, it was a breakthrough moment for us," he said. "We had the data set, but we didn't have any way to do anything with it. Ranger was really our first real chance at analyzing this data. "

The alignment and analysis that MacManes accomplished on Ranger in a few weeks would have taken years with his local resources. It organized the data so MacManes could find insights about the relationship between genes and behavior.

"The ability to isolate and compare genetic differences related to social behavior using advanced computing is a fascinating application of emerging technologies," said Jennifer Verodolin, a researcher specializing in social rodents at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center in Durham, North Carolina. "We often see individual and population-level social and mating differences within the same species. While ecological factors are linked to this variation, these sophisticated new tools will now allow us to see the genetic signature of how natural selection has shaped behavior."

Mating systems, and social systems more broadly, are important to basic evolutionary biology, MacManes asserted. "The things an animal does, the way it behaves, and who it interacts with, are important to natural selection. These factors can cause immunogenes to evolve at a much faster rate, or slower in the case of monogamous mice. That connection is important and probably under-recognized."

Monogamy and promiscuity are only one of a variety of social behaviors that are thought to influence gene expression. MacManes' current research involves analyzing gene expression in the hippocampus brain region of tuco tucos (a sort of South American gopher) who live together in social groups and others who live independently. He is hoping to find what differentiates the social animals from the loners and what impact this change in their behavior has on their genetic profile.

"Now that we have these new sequencing technologies, people are going to be really interested in looking at the mechanisms that underlie these behaviors," MacManes said. "How might genes control what we do, and how we behave? We're going to see an explosion in these studies where people start to understand the very basic genetic mechanism for all sorts of behaviors that we know are out there."
Monogamy and the immune system: Differences in sexual behavior impact bacteria hosted and genes that control immunity

:win:
 
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
1,757
Reputation
-210
Daps
815
that shyt is just based on Mice tho

catching aids and stds aren't good for the human immune system b

how do you know that? there are People who are unaffected by those diseases. if they were the only people to have offspring because of natural selection (or the simply had more offspring than those not resistant to the diseases), the next generation of humans would be more robust with regards to the diseases.

-------------------------------------------------
This topic may be just about promoting sex, but the big picture is being lost here.

Many things can and will affect the Gene pool. Not just resource extracting pressures.

Social systems can and probably will affect genes. I think economic political systems can affect the Genome. the neolithic revolution affected the Genome.
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,908
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,235
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
p
that shyt is just based on Mice tho

catching aids and stds aren't good for the human immune system b

:aicmon::comeon: we can't exactly test on humans......

How closely related are mice and humans? How many genes are the same?

Answer provided by Lisa Stubbs of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.

Mice and humans (indeed, most or all mammals including dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, and apes) have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes -- about 3 billion base pairs. This comparable DNA content implies that all mammals contain more or less the same number of genes, and indeed our work and the work of many others have provided evidence to confirm that notion.


I know of only a few cases in which no mouse counterpart can be found for a particular human gene, and for the most part we see essentially a one-to-one correspondence between genes in the two species. The exceptions generally appear to be of a particular type --genes that arise when an existing sequence is duplicated.

Gene duplication occurs frequently in complex genomes; sometimes the duplicated copies degenerate to the point where they no longer are capable of encoding a protein. However, many duplicated genes remain active and over time may change enough to perform a new function. Since gene duplication is an ongoing process, mice may have active duplicates that humans do not possess, and vice versa. These appear to make up a small percentage of the total genes. I believe the number of human genes without a clear mouse counterpart, and vice versa, won't be significantly larger than 1% of the total. Nevertheless, these novel genes may play an important role in determining species-specific traits and functions.

However, the most significant differences between mice and humans are not in the number of genes each carries but in the structure of genes and the activities of their protein products. Gene for gene, we are very similar to mice. What really matters is that subtle changes accumulated in each of the approximately 25,000 genes add together to make quite different organisms. Further, genes and proteins interact in complex ways that multiply the functions of each. In addition, a gene can produce more than one protein product through alternative splicing or post-translational modification; these events do not always occur in an identical way in the two species. A gene can produce more or less protein in different cells at various times in response to developmental or environmental cues, and many proteins can express disparate functions in various biological contexts. Thus, subtle distinctions are multiplied by the more than 30,000 estimated genes.

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.

Put these alterations in the context of known inherited human diseases: a single nucleotide change can lead to inheritance of sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or breast cancer. A single nucleotide difference can alter protein function in such a way that it causes a terrible tissue malfunction. Single nucleotide changes have been linked to hereditary differences in height, brain development, facial structure, pigmentation, and many other striking morphological differences; due to single nucleotide changes, hands can develop structures that look like toes instead of fingers, and a mouse's tail can disappear completely. Single-nucleotide changes in the same genes but in different positions in the coding sequence might do nothing harmful at all. Evolutionary changes are the same as these sequence differences that are linked to person-to-person variation: many of the average 15% nucleotide changes that distinguish humans and mouse genes are neutral; some lead to subtle changes, whereas others are associated with dramatic differences. Add them all together, and they can make quite an impact, as evidenced by the huge range of metabolic, morphological, and behavioral differences we see among organisms.
Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,908
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,235
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
how do you know that? there are People who are unaffected by those diseases. if they were the only people to have offspring because of natural selection (or the simply had more offspring than those not resistant to the diseases), the next generation of humans would be more robust with regards to the diseases.

-------------------------------------------------
This topic may be just about promoting sex, but the big picture is being lost here.

Many things can and will affect the Gene pool. Not just resource extracting pressures.

Social systems can and probably will affect genes. I think economic political systems can affect the Genome. the neolithic revolution affected the Genome.
:snoop:


I was with you up until the bolded part breh........

You should have double majored in sociology or psychology, then became a social science researcher
 

bouncy

Banned
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
5,153
Reputation
1,110
Daps
7,059
Reppin
NULL
:snoop:


I was with you up until the bolded part breh........

You should have double majored in sociology or psychology, then became a social science researcher

He is right because it all comes down to relaxation and stress and what you eat that can either help make you stronger to deal with the stress or weaker and lower your threshold which means you will be more likely to be racist, use drugs, and indulge in anything that will help you feel good even if it hurts you because your body and brain is always under stress from being minor when you're young to stronger as you get older that it is always in survival mode and feels that it has to protect itself from "harm" in any way possible.

Social systems can have major impact on your stress levels for people who are doing good and doing bad. For people doing good it tends to make them weak by not challenging them and having everything given to them with very little mental and physical work to get a big reward so they become glutenous and narcissistic. For people doing bad it causes constant stress and it doesn't provide the knowledge on how to eat properly to make themselves stronger or access to healthy options that are cheap(unless you know how to cook and be creative)which makes them greedy as well as narcissistic because they feel they need to be bigger then what they already are and make up an imaginary world and get everything they can while they can because they are so used to not having that much so when they do get a chance they tend to just think about getting as much as they can and "live life". In fact the teachers in the system really doesn't know how to live properly in every aspect themselves, they just knows a small amount which is why I don't put too much into anything new that is learned. I just use my common sense and try to stay relaxed as possible after doing a strenuous workout so my brain can be efficient and think of all possible ways to accomplish things by studying my environment from watching plants and animals to other people to being introspective about my way of thinking and thought process, good and bad.

It's all about stress and relaxation and using things in your environment to stimulate each response to make you stronger as both of them are needed and one isn't better then the other, they are just different and it's how you use them that determine your outcome and physical and mental exercise as well as herb and food are the guiders.
 

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,908
Reputation
14,208
Daps
190,235
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
He is right because it all comes down to relaxation and stress and what you eat that can either help make you stronger to deal with the stress or weaker and lower your threshold which means you will be more likely to be racist, use drugs, and indulge in anything that will help you feel good even if it hurts you because your body and brain is always under stress from being minor when you're young to stronger as you get older that it is always in survival mode and feels that it has to protect itself from "harm" in any way possible.

Social systems can have major impact on your stress levels for people who are doing good and doing bad. For people doing good it tends to make them weak by not challenging them and having everything given to them with very little mental and physical work to get a big reward so they become glutenous and narcissistic. For people doing bad it causes constant stress and it doesn't provide the knowledge on how to eat properly to make themselves stronger or access to healthy options that are cheap(unless you know how to cook and be creative)which makes them greedy as well as narcissistic because they feel they need to be bigger then what they already are and make up an imaginary world and get everything they can while they can because they are so used to not having that much so when they do get a chance they tend to just think about getting as much as they can and "live life". In fact the teachers in the system really doesn't know how to live properly in every aspect themselves, they just knows a small amount which is why I don't put too much into anything new that is learned. I just use my common sense and try to stay relaxed as possible after doing a strenuous workout so my brain can be efficient and think of all possible ways to accomplish things by studying my environment from watching plants and animals to other people to being introspective about my way of thinking and thought process, good and bad.

It's all about stress and relaxation and using things in your environment to stimulate each response to make you stronger as both of them are needed and one isn't better then the other, they are just different and it's how you use them that determine your outcome and physical and mental exercise as well as herb and food are the guiders.

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you anymore. This is basically my philosophy or outlook on life more or less. I believe diets do play a crucial role on the cognitive ability. I could easily drop studies about numerous chemicals that are in various processed foods which are linked to headaches, making consumers lethargic, and more hungry. It's almost to point where I'm compelled at times to think that people who are "heavier" or overweight are less intelligent. Yeah, I know, that's a horrible outlook on life, but my perception of life seems to be getting there little by little. I view the slimmer people who eat proper diets as enlighten or of a higher intelligence than the run of mill person who goes to McDonald's every day. Of course, there are exceptions to this philosophy. But I tend to take certain people's opinion as a none factor, merely by there appearance, sohh when a conversation, requiring some sort of intelligence or awareness of life, such as pollution(global warming), health care system, space program(nasa), nutrition(different diets ; weight loss / gain) I can already gander they'll be nowhere in the ballpark of even conversing a neutral level......

*sigh*

Yes I do take this studies with a grain and use my best judgment to see if it logically make sense, simply because I believe a lot of scientist are swagless introverted nerds, (stereotype, probably not true, maybe some truth too it.) I believe this "might" have some effects on the results or initial inquiry.

Demonic study.
:childplease:
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2012
Messages
1,659
Reputation
20
Daps
938
Reppin
NULL
how do you know that? there are People who are unaffected by those diseases. if they were the only people to have offspring because of natural selection (or the simply had more offspring than those not resistant to the diseases), the next generation of humans would be more robust with regards to the diseases.

-------------------------------------------------
This topic may be just about promoting sex, but the big picture is being lost here.

Many things can and will affect the Gene pool. Not just resource extracting pressures.

Social systems can and probably will affect genes. I think economic political systems can affect the Genome. the neolithic revolution affected the Genome.

So the tiny percent that are immune will survive and everyone else will die. Genius. :rudy:
 

Mr Uncle Leroy

All Star
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
10,364
Reputation
-170
Daps
4,625
LOL

if the mice are not getting sex, they wont have std bacteria, and no need to have to build immunity to std bacteria
 

Black Hans

Follow Jesus. Be Beautiful
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
7,499
Reputation
-1,226
Daps
18,644
Reppin
John 14:6
Exactly. I mean chlamydia does wonders for the immunity system. Ask Al Capone.
 
Top