Article on axillary bacteria

[CptKipling]

http://www.jidonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/

5/413 (\"http://www.jidonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/5/413\")

[DrSmellThis]

very interesting, thanks!

[CptKipling]

I

also found this (adrostenone/androstenol binding protiens in

boars):

http:/

/www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.02901.x/enhancedabs (\"http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.02901.x/enhancedabs\")

But I don\'t think it

deserves its own thread because it isn\'t very usefull, but it does have some purdy pictures in the PDF

[CptKipling]

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the importance of bacteria induced conversions of steriods present on

skin.

As far as I can see, there are three options:

a) The compounds secreted onto our skin act as

pheromones. Any bacterial action only serves to render these compounds inactive.

b) Steroids secreted onto our

skin only become pheromonally active after being converted by bacteria.

c) Some combination of

both.


Discuss...

[oscar]

CK,

Interestingly the very SAME abstract (as the \"binding protein\" abstract above) in Pub-Med has it as

\"AndrosteROL and Androstenone\" (at least in the

title):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&l

ist_uids=12027882 (\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&li

st_uids=12027882\")

How could someone be that careless in a research archive?

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Oscar /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There seems to be a lot of confusion over the

importance of bacteria induced conversions of steriods present on skin.

As far as I can see, there are three

options:

a) The compounds secreted onto our skin act as pheromones. Any bacterial action only serves to

render these compounds inactive.

b) Steroids secreted onto our skin only become pheromonally active after

being converted by bacteria.

c) Some combination of both.


Discuss...

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Captin,

From my readings, it seems as if most of these things

hit our skin as odorless compounds and then convert into pheromones by way of bacteria conversion. The only article

I have off the top of my head is the one I recently have been looking at, Kohl\'s

NEL (\"http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm\") :

It is still unknown how many different

pheromones are produced in human axillae, but some of them have been investigated in recent years. Most studies

focused on the 16-androstenes, metabolites of the characteristically male sexual hormones, the androgens, which are

secreted by the apocrine glands. Dorfman [47] assumes that the 16-androstenes develop with the metabolism of

testosterone. Two of these androstenes, the alcohol 5-androst-16en-3ol (androstenol) and the ketone

5a-androst-16en-3-one (androstenone) have odorous characteristics that bear a similarity to the smell of male

axillae. Androstenol has a musk-like scent, while androstenone smells urinous. It is important to note that the

odors arise only via the activity of microorganisms [48]. Among these microorganisms are the aerobic bacteria

Corynebacterium ssp., which transform the odorless precursors androstadienol and androstadienone, into the odorous

5a-androstenone [49]. If the axillae are treated with antibacterial detergents, the production of androstenone

decreases significantly [50].
Male axillary sweat contains approximately five times more androstenone than female

sweat [51]. This sex difference can be explained by sexually dimorphic levels of blood androgens, and by sex

differences in the colonization of microorganisms. For example, Jackman and Noble [52] investigated the axillary

bacteria of 163 male and 122 female subjects and were able to show that in most men the axillae were dominated by

the bacteria Corynebacteria ssp., whereas in women they found the bacteria Micrococcaceae. Other putative human

pheromones, whether secreted primarily in the axillae, or in other areas, can be expected to be identified upon the

examination of sexually dimorphic adrenal hormone metabolites, and with the identification of other sexually

dimorphic microorganism colonization.

[CptKipling]

Oscar,

I found both of these while digging around for some info on -rol aswell. I was surprised at the number of

bogus phero sites erroneously offering products containing androsterol.


Bjf,

Good article, and the abstract

you posted makes a lot of sense. However, I would be curious no know why - from an evolutionary point of view - the

precurser compounds are not active. I suspect we are dealing with a very complex picture, as we \"know\" that -nol

converts to -none on our skin, and both of these are active.

[Friendly1]

I

will personally shoot the first person who says, \"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny\".

Ouch. Good thing I\'m

a bad shot.

[DrSmellThis]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Oscar,

I found both of these while digging

around for some info on -rol aswell. I was surprised at the number of bogus phero sites erroneously offering

products containing androsterol.


Bjf,

Good article, and the abstract you posted makes a lot of sense.

However, I would be curious no know why - from an evolutionary point of view - the precurser compounds are not

active. I suspect we are dealing with a very complex picture, as we \"know\" that -nol converts to -none on our

skin, and both of these are active.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

What makes you think they are

inactive -- being odorless?

[bjf]

Cpting,

Here\'s my perspective on all this. Pheromones were not pheromones in the beggining. They were

just converted odorless metabolites on lizards or monkey or whoevers skin.

They weren\'t initially there to

send any siginals per say, but species began to make an association between there presence and the internal biology

of the \"wearer.\"

So in order to judge potential mates, species developed the ability to recognize the

molecular strucure of these compounds, and our sexuality may have even developed further out of all

this.

Bottom line is, there is no reason, I don\'t think, to believe that the odorless metabolites would

act the same way as a pheromone. They are precursers because bacteria hasn\'t gotten to them, and bacteria

hasn\'t gotten to them yet because they are hidden from oxygen and the outside world, etc. If they are shielded

from the airwaves, then they are much harder or actually impossible to smell, for a human at least.

If they

are not detectable (ie the molecules can\'t get to our noses), how would anyone or anythign develop the ability to

recognize them?

[jvkohl]

Pheromones exert their effects on the hormones of others whether or not we smell them. It\'s our conscious

perception of odor that confuses the pheromone picture. Other animals are not conscious of their hormone response to

pheromones, but we are--so we think that we must smell something before we respond. But just like other mammals we

respond hormonally and the hormone changes prompt changes in behavior. Behavior that is rewarded (an orgasm, for

example) will be repeated--it is then that conscious associations are made. Androstenol prompts the hormone change

in women, androsterone may be consciously (or not) associated with the reward mechanism. The reason you must watch

out for androstenone is because it smells like urine, and is therefore unlikely to be positively associated when it

is consciously detected. Since no information suggests that androstenone elicits a hormone response in women,

it\'s not in SOE.

Lots of confusion in academia over errors in spelling. A few years ago I went to a conference

presentation that was supposed to be on androsterone; it was on androstenone. In the German language these two

chemicals are often confused--and as some of you have seen--the confusion spreads rapidly.

I\'ll be out riding

Georgia/Florida and attending the AChemS conference in Sarasota, so will miss any other posts for a few (7-10) days.

[CptKipling]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Oscar,

I found both of these while digging around for some info on -rol

aswell. I was surprised at the number of bogus phero sites erroneously offering products containing

androsterol.


Bjf,

Good article, and the abstract you posted makes a lot of sense. However, I would be

curious no know why - from an evolutionary point of view - the precurser compounds are not active. I suspect we are

dealing with a very complex picture, as we \"know\" that -nol converts to -none on our skin, and both of these are

active.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

What makes you think they are inactive -- being odorless?



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

When I say inactive I mean that they do not elicit a responce. I

was not stating that the precurser molecules were inactive, I was questioning assumptions that implied that they are

inactive.

My thinking was that if these particles become airborn, and are an indication of hormone levels etc.,

why wouldn\'t they elicit a responce? Why would we only be effected by the bacterial-action metabolites?

[CptKipling]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Cpting,

Here\'s my perspective on all this.

Pheromones were not pheromones in the beggining. They were just converted odorless metabolites on lizards or monkey

or whoevers skin.

They weren\'t initially there to send any siginals per say, but species began to make an

association between there presence and the internal biology of the \"wearer.\"

So in order to judge potential

mates, species developed the ability to recognize the molecular strucure of these compounds, and our sexuality may

have even developed further out of all this.

Bottom line is, there is no reason, I don\'t think, to believe

that the odorless metabolites would act the same way as a pheromone. They are precursers because bacteria hasn\'t

gotten to them, and bacteria hasn\'t gotten to them yet because they are hidden from oxygen and the outside world,

etc. If they are shielded from the airwaves, then they are much harder or actually impossible to smell, for a human

at least.

If they are not detectable (ie the molecules can\'t get to our noses), how would anyone or anythign

develop the ability to recognize them?



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

The only problem with

that is that the precurser compounds are exposed to the air, and certain quantites must become airborn.


There

was a product that consisted of DHEA, I forget the name of it but you were supposed to apply it and you would get

results after a period of time. irrc it wasn\'t saying DHEA was a pheromone, but that applying it created an

increased amount of its metabolites, which were pheromones.

I can\'t remember if people liked the product or

not, but the theory seems ok (the sex hormones are derived from DHEA). People on here have taken (orally) varying

amounts of DHEA and reported results.

Could -rone (very similar to DHEA) create the same results perhaps...?

[bjf]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />


The only problem with that is that the

precurser compounds are exposed to the air, and certain quantites must become airborn.


<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

My only guess on this is that the compounds are quickly converted

into the pheromones, and that the amount airborne wasn\'t abundant enough for nature to develop a biological

response to it. Probably using the actual pheromones was just more efficient, and so that what developed the

strongest and lasted the longest as a means of playing a role in sexuality and human behavior. Just a guess of

course.

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
There was a product that consisted

of DHEA, I forget the name of it but you were supposed to apply it and you would get results after a period of time.

irrc it wasn\'t saying DHEA was a pheromone, but that applying it created an increased amount of its metabolites,

which were pheromones.

I can\'t remember if people liked the product or not, but the theory seems ok (the

sex hormones are derived from DHEA). People on here have taken (orally) varying amounts of DHEA and reported

results.


<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

I know what product you are talkign about, it was

supposed to take eight weeks of applying on your skin to work, right?

IIRC, the theory did seem sound. Hell,

it might have worked, but the signature was just a lot more natural, so the results were less noticable. Also,

probably hard to keep up with applying something everyday for that long.

Just found link:


archives (\"http://www.server2.love-scent.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=UBB4&amp;Number=16519&amp;page=&amp

;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1\")

</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
Could -rone (very similar to DHEA) create the same results perhaps...?



<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Rone is a wierd one. Of course, JVK\'s position on it seems

to be that it makes -Nol better, due to conditioning (Nol is paired with rone in males, but then again, so is

none).

I don\'t think rone breaks down into the things that dhea does. Dhea converts to testosterone,

right? or goes to Androstenedione and then testosterone? Anyway, the DHEA thing is ultimately a means of producing

more T in your system, because T is what is responsible for producing the metabolites of most of the pheromones we

know about.

As for -rone, that is quite different then DHEA. It is defined as \"a chemical by-product

created during the breakdown of androgens, or derived from progesterone, that also exerts minor masculinising

effects, but with one-seventh the intensity of testosterone. It is found in approximately equal amounts in the

plasma and urine of both males and females.\"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen (\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen\")

Understand the

DHEA theory, not sure how you think -rone could work to produce more pheromones though, since it isn\'t a hormone

precurser or a hormone. I guess you are thinking that it can metabolize into something else though that gets

converted into something completely different then -rone on the skin.

Interesting thought, it may be

responsible for another pheromone or pheromones if -rone doesn\'t stay stable.

Since we don\'t know

what\'s in the new product or wagg, who knows, maybe we are already using one of its metabolites.