bottle...open, genies...everywhere

[andrewducker]

Over here there's a New Scientist article on a Swedish study of 552 people, their marital state, and gene RS3 334.

RS3 334 is linked with vasopressin receptors.  These have been linked to monogamy (prairie voles are monogamous, meadow voles are polygynous -  meadow voles genetically modified to have vasopressin receptor genes become monogamous).

To quote from the article:

They found that variation in a section of the gene called RS3 334 was linked to how men bond with their partners. Men can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section, and the higher the number of copies, the worse men scored on a measure of pair bonding.

Not only that, men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis.

[Poll #1252958]

Comments

[andrewducker]

Of course, you can tacitly test for pair-bonding by looking at someone's history, and seeing if they actually stay with you long-term.

But wouldn't a short cut just be more efficient? :->

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

It'd be more efficient, but less effective, I think. Given that this is only one of any number of genetic, social, and psychological features that are going to affect your chances, looking at their history might well be a better proxy for future success than whether they carry a particular allele or not.

Also: The study shows an effect that, while statistically significant, is not necessarily (er, not clinically) socially significant.

85% of men without any 334 variants had no "marital crisis or threat of divorce during the last year". With one copy of the allele this drops to 84%; for the 41 individuals tested who had two copies, this drops to 66%.

So, a big drop, but given this was a small sample, it's not something I'd be dumping an otherwise good partner over.

[andrewducker]

Oh absolutely. I'm actually more interested in the social affect of this kind of finding and the way people react to this(see my more recent post).

I am fascinated that we have a gene->behaviour link, but as you say it's not terribly significant between the 0/1 variant carriers, and even with 2 copies it's only an 18% change.

I do find it interesting that 15% of people have a marital crisis in any given year...

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Yes; I think the questions about biological determinism are important and interesting; I'd just prefer to be cautious with the interpretation of individual studies like this.

I wonder how they defined a marital crisis? Apparently something based on The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

Huh. I'm tempted to post a link to your poll over at bipolypagangeek; while it would skew your data, it's possible that it would also generate some interesting conversation.

Do you have an opinion one way or t'other?

[andrewducker]

Go for it :->

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the effect on women is?

[andrewducker]

Oxytocin (very similar and related) seems to have the same effect on women - forming pair bonds and the like - both in relationships and with newborns.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

yes, i think i have heard that, and it accords with my experience that my bonding with my newborn babies was as overwhelming and life-defining as falling in love with h twenty years ago

[zz]

so does that mean if you had someone pathologically clingy in a relationship, or stalkerish outwith, you could dose them up with something to suppress oxytocin to "fix it"? :D

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

Oxytocin is a love chemical, not an asshole chemical. Stalking and clinging has not so much to do with pair bonding.

Anxiolytics are a much better bet.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Surprised you skipped this bit of the story:

"It is thought that the gene, which was carried by 40% of the men, may affect the way the brain uses vasopressin.

The same gene has been linked with autism - a condition characterised by problems with social interaction. "

oddly my frienmd Judith mailed me it last night :-P

[andrewducker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin#Actions_of_oxytocin_within_the_brain

mentions the autism bit - oxytocin has been shown to reduce repetitive behaviours and increase interpretations of emotions.

[sageautumn.livejournal.com]

First thought: OH! So it is genetic... I so have an out!

Second thought: Crap, if I were a guy. Which I'm not.

Third thought: Does this mean I'm a guy??

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, they only studied males (budget and logistical constraints often mean a restriction in sample variety is necessary to get statistical power). So it may be the same in females, or not; lack of data.

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

oop, no, I lie. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0803081105.full.pdf+html
looks like they did the genotyping on males and females.

[andrewducker]

It's a tendency only, you're not just your genes :-p

[sageautumn.livejournal.com]

Says you!

Don't take away my perfect out that I can't even use because I'm female, damnit.

[seph-hazard.livejournal.com]

I'm poly and intend to stay that way so who cares, really? I'd be interested in getting myself tested, uh, because it's cool. A bit like why I'd go 'ooooh do me do me!' if someone was offering free pointless MRIs, or something. It's cool.

[andrewducker]

Which is exactly why I got an MRI :->

ETA: Of course, if you'er the kind of person who doesn't want monogamy, there's probably a reason for that too!

[overlord-mordax.livejournal.com]

I second this reaction.

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

Thirded!

[sneakingyoda.livejournal.com]

Just a small point in wording.

The first question is "want my partner tested." and the second is worded "would be interested." I wish very much that the first question were worded "I would be interested in my partners test results." Or something to that order. Because to me, Want is more of a demand. And truth be told, I wouldn't demand it of my partner. I -want- my partner to be tested for various diseases. I would be -interested- in continuing further with genetics if this were proven.

And I answered that I would, but only because I myself would be interested in such things for myself.

This assumes however, that we live in a world where this gene being linked was just assured as any other proven medical fact, and wasn't so early in research or understanding. Also I would probably be more interested in knowing such things, if knowing meant preventing or that there were options that could be taken. Or just knowledge in general.

I'm guessing I feel this way because I was left on the verge of my marriage, do to issues of cheating.

OH! Also, -genetic modification- no. No no no. Nutritional supplements or treatment, if treatment were desired? Yes.

It is a tricky thing though, if lack of loyalty is a symptom. Because, is it really? Or is that just something in our genetics that helps to perpetuated healthy gene disbursement.

I guess it's all how you look at it.

[andrewducker]

The wording was deliberate. I wanted to know how many people would make testing a condition of a relationship. And I wanted to know how many people are intrigued by the things that make themselves up.

I'm intrigued as why you'd want to take pills that contain artifical-X rather than change your body so it produces natural-X. Squeamishness?

[sneakingyoda.livejournal.com]

Because when you change your body to produce natural-X, your changing it for you, and your children, and your grandchildren. When you knock that domino over, can you take it back?

And what if later on down the road, we needed Y in the first place.

All gone.

Also, I would be more interested in "natural" replacement of Y through supplements, not "artificial" replacement of Y. Though the difference in such things is... hard for me to define.

I guess I look at it in terms of how people deal with other genetic problems. Like iron deficiency.

So, yep, I'm terribly squeamish with messing with our programming, and more interested in filtering it's effects depending on what we desire in our lives.

[andrewducker]

Actually, I'm not sure you are changing it for your children - I have a vague rememberance that the editing tools don't affect the genes already in your eggs/sperm waiting to be passed on.

I do understand the squeamishness. And I wonder how much of it is social conditioning and will change when it becomes more common.

[sneakingyoda.livejournal.com]

I find it disturbing within myself that I would want to.

So, I think it will.

Eventually.

I also tend to think people won't be honest with you about this question because they personally wouldn't believe that they would want such a thing. It just isn't a nice thing to want or demand of anyone. Opens the door to a world of hurt. A different sort of hurt. I don't think anyone wants a world of "Brave New World", "Big Brother", or "GATTACA". But secretly, or obviously, human nature might eventually produce that sort of outcome.

We're all just plain belly sneetches looking for our stars.

But only some of the sneetches have stars upon thars.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

I disagree that people are not being honest when they say they don't want it. There is a general fear of the "what if" with regards to changing genetics. I think this is sensible while we are at the level we are at currently. I don't think it is social conditioning so much as a general understanding that any changes come with a risk at the moment. WHEN those risks are ironed out, it will become more of a moral/social argument.

[sneakingyoda.livejournal.com]

I honestly, and sincerely, hope your right.

[zz]

in theory i'd be happy to have the information, without making it a condition of any stage of the relationship, but i wonder if it would then affect how interpreted the person's actions forever after, reducing my enjoyment of the relationship through overthinking rather than blissful ignorance..

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

Depends how it's done - if you're doing it to a particular tissue (like lung tissue for cystic fibrosis gene therapy) then this is the case; I'm pretty sure the technology doesn't exist to do it over the whole body, so as this is a thought-experiment we can posit it working either way.

Your sperms are not preformed like eggs are, BTW - they're continually produced, with a lifespan of (IIRC) a couple of months.

[andrewducker]

I dunno how they did it, but the PDF above says "More recently, a novel adeno-associated viral vector has been employed to deliver the V1a
receptor gene to male mice, male prairie voles as well as to
males of the promiscuous meadow voles."

I have no idea if that's whole body - but it's definitely in-situ modification.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Is there a reference for the adenovirus vector research, and can you tell me what it is? I don't seem to be able to read the original paper.

[andrewducker]

How odd, it's just a PDF.

Lim M. M., Wang Z., Olazábal D. E., Ren X., Terwilliger E. F. and
Young L. J. 2004 Enhanced partner preference in a promiscuous
species by manipulating the expression of a single gene.
Nature 429, 754–757.

Knowing your background, I'd be terribly intrigued to hear your take on things.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

Oh, I was looking in the wrong PDF - I thought it was in the PNAS RS3 334 paper, but it's in that review of vole monogamy. For some reason I can't access PNAS even though I really should be able to.

Anyway, looks like they injected a viral vector into the vole brains, containing the V1a receptor gene under the control of a promoter specific to neurons, so they only injected it into a specific area of the brain, and it would only be active in the neurons. Not whole-body, and probably going to work better in a vole-sized animal than a person-sized animal. To get whole-body modification, you'd need to get the gene into the germline and stably integrated so it passed to everything in the body.

[andrewducker]

Thanks - that's fascinating!

[aineotter.livejournal.com]

Odd. I'm not monogamous, but I pair bond fairly intensely; just with more than one person. What would they do with that?

[andrewducker]

More investigation, one would hope :->

[dianthus.livejournal.com]

Testing would probably be more useful earlier in life. At nearly 40, history tells a good enough (and perhaps better) story. If I was intending to have children, I might want to have testing done, but I've already got a handful of other genetic issues that seem much more important.

[yalovetz]

I am amused that wherever I have seen this story on lj people have phrased it in terms of a "monogamy gene" or "gene linked to monogamy" or similar. Whereas on the television news last night the headline was "Cheating gene found!"

[andrewducker]

Technically, they're more accurate - as more copies of this gene seem to increase the chances of relationship problems.