« Even black-and-white bananas look yellow | Main | Neuroscience 2006: Life without hamburgers is depressing »

Gene mutation turns girls into boys

A genetic switch that produces testes has been found.

The battle of the sexes continues to rage — right down to the level of our genes.

Read the story here.

Posted by Nicola Jones on October 15, 2006 06:00 PM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1307

Comments

i remember hearing something ages ago about a Z chromosome that makes ladyboys. this seems rediculous, but is there any truth in this? where did this rumour come from?

Posted by: martin kilpatrick | October 16, 2006 05:55 PM

I would argue against using the phrase "female-to-male sex reversal" in situations such as this because it is misleading. Reversal implies that the individual was once female, but is now male! Pre-differentiated embryos are neither male nor female. It is unfortunate that this term continues to be used--even by Parma et al.

It is also important for teachers to stop telling their students that the Y chromosome causes maleness. This was true even before this new finding. A GENE on the Y chromosome causes maleness, IF it is functioning normally, and if all the other genes needed for maleness are functioning normally. Femaleness is caused by an absence of the Y-chromosome gene or by having it, or other genes, mutated (and now it appears that the RSPO1 gene must be present and functional). Even high school students are capable of understanding this given that they have a good teacher explaining it carefully. And then students would better understand the relationship between gene, chromosome, and phenotype--the basics of genetics.

-RP

Posted by: Russell | October 16, 2006 07:15 PM

I found this article interesting. I've been a casual studier of intersexuality and the amorphous nature of gender in both identity and physical expression.

We may need as a culture to really finally understand that the outward sexual appearance of a person my not match up with his or her (I suppose I'm using the terms loosely here) sexual identity or genetic profile.

Sex and gender are areas that truly need a lot more looking into, and genetic research like this could lead us to a much fuller understanding of the spectrum of sexual identities in the human race.

Posted by: Janna Fulbright | October 17, 2006 03:11 AM

This is a facinating discovery and since I work on skin Ca and interested in sex there is "food for thought" and new experimental vistas for me!

If anybody on this blog have similar interest we may cooperate?!

Posted by: emanuel yakobson | October 17, 2006 04:48 AM

OK, now I want to know if the new mutation XX males are fertile or not.

[Editor's reply: they're not fertile.]

Posted by: robert g ruegg | October 17, 2006 05:00 AM

Could this explain why some people have trouble conceiving for no apparent reason? I am not sure if DNA tests are routine in such cases. And does anyone know the occurence of such mutations in the general population?

Posted by: Carthika Luxmanan | October 17, 2006 10:10 PM

ok so from what i gather sox9 is the crucial gene. sry turns it on, making a boy, rsop1 turns it off, which makes a girl. but what is its default state? what would happen if a functional sry and rsop1 were both present? or both absent?

also, what about those people u see on the internet with male and female genitalia? whats happening there?

Posted by: marty k | October 20, 2006 05:26 PM

its really fascinating to hear any such kind of thing. This can be possible during the stages of embriyonic development ie the chromosome are becoming distinct. But anyhow it will be great achievement.

Posted by: yogesh | October 31, 2006 06:32 AM

Did someone tried this concept on "Shemale".

Posted by: sanjeev kumar | November 4, 2006 06:37 AM

when having a baby does xx mean its a girl or is it xy for girl or boy

Posted by: michelle gashi | June 3, 2007 05:41 PM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search