Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, May 4, 2007 | Science : Genetics | print version Print | Comments

Document For Motherly X Chromosome, Gender Is Only the Beginning

by Natalie Angier

Reposted from the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/science/01angi.html?ref=science


As May dawns and the mothers among us excitedly anticipate the clever e-cards that we soon will be linking to and the overpriced brunches that we will somehow end up paying for, the following job description may ring a familiar note:

Must be exceptionally stable yet ridiculously responsive to the needs of those around you; must be willing to trail after your loved ones, cleaning up their messes and compensating for their deficiencies and selfishness; must work twice as hard as everybody else; must accept blame for a long list of the world's illnesses; must have a knack for shaping young minds while in no way neglecting the less glamorous tissues below; must have a high tolerance for babble and repetition; and must agree, when asked, to shut up, fade into the background and pretend you don't exist.

As it happens, the above precis refers not only to the noble profession of motherhood to which we all owe our lives and guilt complexes. It is also a decent character sketch of the chromosome that allows a human or any other mammal to become a mother in the first place: the X chromosome.

The X chromosome, like its shorter, stubbier but no less conspicuous counterpart, the Y chromosome, is a so-called sex chromosome, a segment of DNA entrusted with the pivotal task of sex determination. A mammalian embryo outfitted with an X and Y chromosomal set buds into a male, while a mammal bearing a pair of X chromosomes emerges from the maternal berth with birthing options of her own.

Yet the X chromosome does much more than help specify an animal's reproductive plumbing. As scientists who study the chromosome lately have learned, the X is a rich repository of genes vital to brain development and could hold the key to the evolution of our particularly corrugated cortex. Moreover, the X chromosome behaves unlike any of the other chromosomes of the body — unlike little big-man Y, certainly, but also unlike our 22 other pairs of chromosomes, the self-satisfied autosomes that constitute the rest of our genome, of the complete DNA kit packed into every cell that we carry. It is a supple, switchbacking, multitasking gumby doll patch of the genome; and the closer you look, the more Cirque du Soleil it appears.

Although the precise details of its chemical structure and performance are only just emerging, the X chromosome has long been renowned among geneticists, who named it X not because of its shape, as is commonly presumed — the non-sex chromosomes also vaguely resemble an "X" at times during cell division — but because they were baffled by the way it held itself apart from the other chromosomal pairs. "They called it X for unknown," said Mark T. Ross of the X Chromosome Group at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge. (When its much tinier male counterpart was finally detected, researchers simply continued down the alphabet for a name.) Many of the diseases first understood to be hereditary were linked to X's span, for the paradoxical reason that such conditions showed their face most often in those with just a single X to claim: men.

Scientists eventually determined that we inherit two copies of our 23,000 or so genes, one from each parent; and that these genes, these chemical guidelines for how to build and maintain a human, are scattered among the 23 pairs of chromosomes, along with unseemly amounts of apparent chemical babble.

Having two copies of every gene proves especially handy when one of those paired genes is defective, at which point the working version of the gene can step in and specify enough of the essential bodybuilding protein that the baby blooms just fine and may never know its DNA is hemi-flawed. And here is where the Y's petite stature looms large. Because it holds a mere 50ish different genes against its counterpart's 1,100, the vast majority of X-based genes have no potential pinch-hitter on the Y. A boy who inherits from his mother an X chromosome that enfolds a faulty gene for a bloodclotting factor, say, or for a muscle protein or for a color receptor won't find succor in the chromosomal analogue bestowed by Dad. He will be born with hemophilia, or muscular dystrophy, or color-blindness. But, hey, he will be a boy, for male-making is the task to which the Y chromosome is almost exclusively devoted.

In fact, it is to compensate for the monomania of the Y that the X chromosome has become such a mother of a multitasker. Over the 300 million years of evolution, as the Y chromosome has shrugged off more of its generic genetic responsibilities in pursuit of sexual specialization, the X has had to pick up the slack. It, too, has pawned off genes to other chromosomes. But for those genes still in its charge, the X must double their output, to prod each gene to spool out twice the protein of an ordinary gene and thus be the solo equivalent of any twinned genes located on other, nonsexy chromosomes.

Ah, but women, who have two X chromosomes, two copies of those 1,100 genes: What of them? With its usual Seussian sense of playfulness, evolution has opted to zeedo the hoofenanny. In a girl's cells, you don't see two pleasantly active X chromosomes behaving like two ordinary nonsex chromosomes. You see one hyperactive X chromosome, its genes busily pumping out twice the standard issue of protein, just as in a boy's cells; and you see one X chromosome that has been largely though not wholly shut down, said Laura Carrel, a geneticist at Penn State College of Medicine.

Through an elaborate process called X inactivation, the chromosome is blanketed with a duct tape of nucleic acid. In some cells of a woman's body it may be the chromosome from Dad that's muffled, while in other cells the maternal one stays mum.

Every daughter, then, is a walking mosaic of clamorous and quiet chromosomes, of fatherly sermons and maternal advice, while every son has but his mother's voice to guide him. Remember this, fellows: you are all mama's boys.

Comments 1 - 16 of 16 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #37418 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 4, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Hehe, very cute.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

2. Comment #37423 by Absinthius on May 4, 2007 at 12:21 pm

 avatarlovely article

Other Comments by Absinthius

3. Comment #37426 by BaronOchs on May 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

 avatar
"the X is a rich repository of genes vital to brain development and could hold the key to the evolution of our particularly corrugated cortex."


The genes for the brain are on the lady chromosome lol. I always guessed as much . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

4. Comment #37432 by mjwemdee on May 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm

 avatarFascinating. And beautifully told.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

5. Comment #37439 by Aaron SF on May 4, 2007 at 1:00 pm

 avatarThat is so cool.

Other Comments by Aaron SF

6. Comment #37461 by GBile on May 4, 2007 at 1:59 pm

 avatarCertainly this cute article holds more useful information for mankind than 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel combined, not to speak of sura's Jonah 1..109.

Other Comments by GBile

7. Comment #37483 by Nails on May 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm

 avatarthere are still many mysteries to be unfolded in our DNA, and i hope many of them can be told as well as this author has.
Elegant and simple, just enough info to educate and dutifully amusing.
I must check out more of Natalie Angier's articles in the future, I think.

Other Comments by Nails

8. Comment #37510 by Martha on May 4, 2007 at 5:11 pm

 avatarBaron Ochs wrote:- "The genes for the brain are on the lady chromosome lol. I always guessed as much . . ."

And so did I - being a Femme Fatale woman - for as long as I can remember!

Other Comments by Martha

9. Comment #37519 by denoir on May 4, 2007 at 6:00 pm

 avatar
Through an elaborate process called X inactivation, the chromosome is blanketed with a duct tape of nucleic acid. In some cells of a woman's body it may be the chromosome from Dad that's muffled, while in other cells the maternal one stays mum.


Fascinating - I wasn't aware of this before.

The differences between the sexes is generally a very interesting subject. I wonder what kind of balance of terror the genes have come up with to compensate the asymmetric investments in offspring on the phenotype level.

The nominal situation is that the female invests a minimum of 9 months per offspring while the male does no such investment. So in theory he could seek to find as many mates as possible. She on the other hand should want to limit that as it is beneficial for the survival of her child if he invests more time raising it. How are those conflicting interests resolved in the genotype - that contains genes from both parents?

Or perhaps it is solved at the level of the phenotype? The ideal (from a genetic point of view) situation for the male is to have other males raise his children. The worst case scenario for a male is for him to raise another mans child. For the female it isn't of essence who the father is - her genes will always be in her child. Her interest is in getting the male to invest resources in raising the child.

From such a set of strategies a possible solution could be extracted in the form of the male interest being in doing their outermost to prevent other males of impregnating their female companions. The female interest would be in having a male companion that helps raising her child.

That way they are pursuing different optimization paths. If I recall game theory correctly, such an arrangement would allow a stable Nash equilibrium. Of course a dozen or so other arrangements should be possible.

..anyway, just a bit of speculation on my part.

Other Comments by denoir

10. Comment #37534 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 4, 2007 at 6:44 pm

 avatarMy response to the GOP evolution question : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn-ZQBV_FRo

If you like it, please don't forget to rate, and comment. The more activity the higher the video goes the more people see it. Thx:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

11. Comment #37540 by davyB on May 4, 2007 at 8:06 pm

This article is way too cutesy-cutesy for my taste.

Other Comments by davyB

12. Comment #37541 by davyB on May 4, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Everybody look up the word "nominal." Thanks.

Other Comments by davyB

13. Comment #37548 by denoir on May 4, 2007 at 10:05 pm

 avatardavyB:
Everybody look up the word "nominal." Thanks.


I'm guessing you are referring to my post, so I'll explain it to you.

The "nominal value" or the "nominal situation" is equivalent to "unadjusted value" or "initial position or assumption". It's a term used in math and engineering. Economists use it in a similar way - nominal GDP means unadjusted GDP, the raw value.

The sentence
The nominal situation is that the ..

written in a less technical manner would be

At face value the situation is that the..


Other Comments by denoir

14. Comment #37580 by Flagellant on May 5, 2007 at 5:14 am

 avatarThe sexist, self-satisfied nature of this article encourages me to append the following:
Here is my highly subjective report on supermarket checkout behaviour. Firstly women: they seem to be quite efficient at sorting and packing the produce, but the problem comes afterwards, when the bill is presented. If they haven't finished packing, they ignore the bill until the packing is finished. Invariably, this is what they do next: take shoulder bag off shoulder; open main compartment; remove purse; rummage through purse, getting nothing out. Open another compartment in shoulder bag; rummage in there for ages; try another compartment without success; revert to purse; take card or cash out and present it to the cashier. You get the picture?

Not only does such inconsiderate behaviour delay and inconvenience the cashier, it holds up the rest of us. What are the silly moos playing at? Is it a demonstration to the world at large that they don't know where their money is themselves so there's no point in mugging them? Or is it an unconscious expression of contempt for everyone else in the queue? In my mostly feminist moments, I had thought of women as the more considerate sex and that they were better at multi-tasking. Should I reconsider?

Contrast this with male behaviour: produce payment instrument before starting to pack. What's wrong with that? Honestly, the solution evades me. Have I been very unlucky or is this difference in behaviour truly a tertiary sexual characteristic?
I offer this analysis only in the interest of "balance". Popular scientific articles, such as this by Angier, do no favours to their subject matter.

Other Comments by Flagellant

15. Comment #37600 by Nebularry on May 5, 2007 at 10:18 am

For Comment #37483 by Nails. I'm now reading Natalie Angier's book "The Canon" which I think you would find interesting, amusing and abundantly enlightening.

Other Comments by Nebularry

16. Comment #107744 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

well obviously when you put a man and a woman together, by these tendancies that you mentioned, the woman packs the bags, while the man pays. independantly both may cause inconvenience, the woman would hold up the line by not having payed while still loading the cart, the man may hold it up by not having the bags out of the area while others are going, or by not themselves leaving the queue as they load up the bags. together they reach an equilibrium of efficiency.

perhaps also an explanation could be that people do the thing they least like first, a woman may least like organizing the bag but give little mind to paying the bill, while a man may begrudge more the paying of the bill to the organizing of the bag.

but of course thats just advancing your stereotype, to be honest i havent seen this behaviour...i shop at wal-mart...so...the bags are already packed and on a spining thingy, i tend to pack it into the cart as they become available and then pay when they say the cost. then return to packing and leave the queue. but that's just me. mother when she goes shopping and i or one of my brothers are there just tells us to do it and pays....

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com