Close

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    8080

    Default MHC difference exactly predicts female faithfulness

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    http://www.newscientisttech.com/arti...ine-news_rss20

    A very

    interesting finding:
    The fraction of MHC genes shared directly correlated to the woman's number of

    adulterous partners – if the man and woman had 50% of the MHC genes in common, the women had a 50% chance of

    cheating with another man, on average.
    And this:
    “We’re fairly certain that all of this

    revolves around scent,” she adds. “Now all we have to do is track down the specific chemical cocktail responsible

    for all the behaviours we are seeing.”

  2. #2
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    Good catch xvs. I waited to receive and read my reprint of the actual

    article before commenting.

    In the journal article, the authors conclude that "MHC sharing negatively predicts

    women’s sexual responsivity to and sexual satisfaction with partners." More sharing correlates with greater

    attraction to other men, especially when the women are most fertile. "These effects may be mediated by

    scent..."

    The fertility-scent link suggests that estradiol may enhance the ability to detect and

    differentiate among MHC/HLA -related pheromones that are shed in skin cells. These skin-cell pheromones are

    processed by the main olfactory system, again, with no human VNO

    involvement.

    JVK

  3. #3
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    8080

    Default

    You rightly make the point that the

    VNO is not responsible for pheromone actions in humans, but this doesn't mean that the receptors found in the VNO

    are not pheromone receptors.

    The experiments I'm aware of (unfortulately I don't have the citations handy)

    which explain what's going on with the VNO in humans are the following, which were cited by Dr. Ivanka Savik in a

    lecture I attended last year:

    - In the first experiment, the VNO was blocked in a number of subjects, and

    they still showed pheromone responses when exposed to pheromones (I think via the PET scans she usually

    uses).

    - In the second experiment, the olfactory epithelium (where the receptors are) was blocked but the VNO

    was left unblocked. No pheromone responses were shown during pheromone exposure.

    - In the third experiment,

    people who had natural blockage of the olfactory epithelium and so suffered from anosmia (lack of ability to smell)

    were tested. They also exhibited no pheromone response during exposure.

    The conclusion was that pheromone

    responses have migrated in humans from the VNO to the olfactory epithelium.

    In a related series of

    experiements, it was shown that RNA encoding pheromone receptor molecules was found in human olfactory epithelial

    cells. I believe this was determined through annealing with primate or other mammalian pheromone receptor RNA

    obtained from VNOs of those animals.

    These experiments showed that the pheromone receptors were being

    produced by the human epithelial cells, as could have been expected from the previously mentioned findings.



    What was NOT tested to my knowledge was whether human VNO cells still ALSO produce pheromone receptors.



    It's been determined with good assurance from the first set of experiments that the VNO is no longer

    functioning in humans and that its functions have been taken over by the olfactory epithelium, but it's not known

    whether the human VNO has stopped producing the pheromone receptors or not.

    So it is possible (although

    certainly not proven) that human VNO receptor affinity COULD be indicative of pheromonal activity.

    What's

    lacking is a study which determines whether the same pheromone receptors now present in the human olfactory

    epithelium are still present in the human VNO.

  4. #4
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Perhaps it was stated somehwere

    and I missed it but which pheromones did they use for the experiments? I do not claim to know if the VNO works or

    not but think that if it does it could be specific to a certain set of pheromones. It should be eliminated, if

    possible.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Phero Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    215
    Rep Power
    7244

    Default

    I would like to know if MHC

    differences are correlated at all with racial differences. Presumably it is true because racial differences came

    about due to geographical differences and people from different geographical regions tend to have different

    immunities as they have to deal with different climates, plants and food.

  6. #6
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default No nerve cells, no receptors, no human VNO

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    It's been determined with good assurance from the first set of experiments that the VNO

    is no longer functioning in humans and that its functions have been taken over by the olfactory epithelium, but

    it's not known whether the human VNO has stopped producing the pheromone receptors or

    not.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

    "In humans... all structures except the vomeronasal duct

    undergo regression... Histochemically, it is lined with a remarkable pseudostratified epithelium, the nature and

    significance of which are still unclear."

    From what I've heard at conference presentations and from what

    I've read in the "proof" copy of the paper cited above, there appears to be no reason to look further for human VNO

    receptors. If, as indicated by the abstract excerpts, all that's left of the human VNO is a duct containing

    "pseudostratified epithelium" (e.g., without nerve cells that might contain receptors that could allow signal

    transduction to the CNS), it becomes even harder to imagine why anyone would continue to propose that there are any

    human pheromones that function via the human VNO.

    Belgareth, I think that this is a "wrap" so far as any

    human VNO debate is concerned. Any evidence not already reviewed by these and many other highly esteemed authorities

    would have to re-establish its presence as something other than a vestigial duct, somehow innervate it with nerve

    cells, and find genes that code for the pheromone receptors on the nerve cells.




    JVK

  7. #7
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    I'm not debating, I am asking

    questions for my own knowledge. You didn't answer the question other than telling me why it shouldn't be done.

    That's fine as far as it goes but I like to check assumptions, that what I was taught was good science.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger4
    I would like to know

    if MHC differences are correlated at all with racial differences.
    But it's not politically correct

    to discuss racial differences, let alone their possible biological basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger4
    Presumably it is

    true because racial differences came about due to geographical differences and people from different geographical

    regions tend to have different immunities as they have to deal with different climates, plants and

    food.
    On the other hand, it's hard to argue against this "logic."

    JVK
    .com

  9. #9
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I'm not debating,

    I am asking questions for my own knowledge. You didn't answer the question other than telling me why it shouldn't

    be done. That's fine as far as it goes but I like to check assumptions, that what I was taught was good

    science.
    I know that you're not debating the issues. And I'm only using the existing literature to

    answer questions on why no further research is being done. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that there is

    now a rather obvious "dead end" to any career effort spent trying to find things that others repeatedly have shown

    do not exist.

    Granted, when I first began looking for information on human pheromones in the early 80's, I

    was repeatedly told they didn't exist. The difference between then and now is that few people had bothered to look

    for evidence that human pheromones do exist.

    But there is also a difference between the early 90's and now

    with regard to evidence for the human VNO. Initial reports said it existed, but those reports inspired others to

    look for evidence that it exists. They've looked, and can't find any evidence that it exists, either in the

    genetics (no genes that code for receptors), in the neuroanatomy (no tissue containing nerve cells), or in the

    neuroendocrinology (no hormone response generated).

    For most researchers, "three strikes and you're out"

    would be the metaphorical reason not to bother further checking their assumptions that there is no human VNO. It is

    also "good science" to know when to get out of the "game." We still produce pheromones and we still respond to them

    with changes in hormones and behavior. But for most olfactory researchers, the VNO game is

    over.

    JVK

  10. #10
    Phero Enthusiast platinumfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    341
    Rep Power
    7534

    Default

    This is very interesting

    stuff I wish there was a way to visually measure this on each on each woman that walks by.It would save alot of

    trouble and money.

    I am good at reading people and can tell by the womans eyes if they are permiscuous even

    if they are in a committed relationship.Most have this "Im innocent" look in their eyes but are really messing

    around and just devious....I dated one but now I can see that look in other women and just sympathize with the guy

    she is pretending to have feelings for.Then there are some who just constantly have that look of sex in their

    eyes.

  11. #11
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    8080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Perhaps it was stated

    somehwere and I missed it but which pheromones did they use for the experiments?
    androstadienone was

    used in Savik's experiments.

    JVK:

    I don't think you can rule out VNO affinity as being predictive

    of pheromone effect, even if the neural connection between the VNO and the brain is no longer present, and even if

    it's been proven that (for some pheromones at least), the olfactory epithelium is what's active.

    The

    reasons for this are:
    • Berliner et al found all these different binding affinities in the VNO. So

      SOMETHING was binding these compounds. That something is very likely a receptor.
    • The affinities were sexually

      dimorphic. More evidence.
    • The compounds which were preferentially bound to male VNO were female pheromones

      and vice versa.
    • One of the greatest affinities they found was androstandienone in females, and sure enough,

      androstadienone turns out to have pheromone properties in tests on females. It also has pheromone properties in

      homosexual but not heterosexual males, as shown in Savik's experments.


    So to say that the human

    VNO has no receptors is just not something borne out by the evidence. It has receptors, but they don't seem to be

    conveying any information to the brain.

    What we don't know is how well correlated VNO affinities are to

    pheromone activity. And that's all we can say about it.

  12. #12
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    Thanks, XVS. That answered my

    question.

    JVK,

    Perhaps biological research is different fom the areas I am trained in, or my wife for that

    matter. In both cases we were taught to cross all the T's and dot all the I's before any research can be called

    complete. That means checking all the assumptions. Examples of situations where it wasn't done can be seen most

    dramatically in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and the two destroyed space shuttles. Admittedly, lives are not at stake

    when it comes to pheromone research so it may be different there. However, failing to check those things would have

    resulted in some red ink from any of my professors in college. In my professional life it is often the difference

    between a two hour job and a twelve hour job. Failure to check assumptions has cost me a lot over the years.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  13. #13
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Thanks, XVS. That

    answered my question.

    JVK,

    Perhaps biological research is different fom the areas I am trained in...

    Failure to check assumptions has cost me a lot over the years.
    xvs,
    Prefacing human VNO-related

    findings with "Berliner et al found" incorporates the assumption that these findings, which have never been

    replicated, are accurate and portrayed accurately.

    Belgareth,
    When others assert that what "Berliner et

    al found" is highly unlikely for many different reasons, it starts to come down to who you believe. The human VNO

    approach is the least consistent with the data from studies I've read.

    When the human VNO approach is

    "mixed" into the data set, as xvs does when Savic's work (with no human VNO delivery system) is added, the issues

    involved--and the assumptions that go with them--become a tangled mess.

    I thought that-- 1) No genes that

    code for receptors; 2) no tissue containing nerve cells; 3) no hormone response generated --would help to untangle

    the mess. I don't know any other way to address the issues. There are at least 3 reasons not to include Berliner's

    human VNO approach in the conceptualization of human pheromones, and no good reason to include it (for example,

    replicated results might be a good reason). Since the majority of olfactory researchers I know do not incorporate

    the human VNO approach, I'm willing to go with the assumption that, collectively, we know enough to proceed--as

    Savic and many others have done--to forget about the human VNO, and find out more about what human pheromones do.



    JVK

  14. #14
    Phero Enthusiast Icehawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Where its warm
    Posts
    346
    Rep Power
    7193

    Default

    Ok so am I the only one here who

    sees potential for a pre marriage screening and divorce use?

  15. #15
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icehawk
    Ok so am I the only

    one here who sees potential for a pre marriage screening and divorce use?
    You may be. The fertility

    clinic work-ups, or paternal genetic testing only come after-the-fact. All are related to the MHC, i.e., the Human

    Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) locus of genes; its genetic influence on pheromones, and pheromone-associated human sexual

    behavior.

    JVK

  16. #16
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    8080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    xvs,
    When the human

    VNO approach is "mixed" into the data set, as xvs does when Savic's work (with no human VNO delivery system) is

    added, the issues involved--and the assumptions that go with them--become a tangled mess.

    I thought that-- 1)

    No genes that code for receptors
    JVK:

    You're confusing a few things here.

    I've

    never suggested that using human VNO affinity is known to be a reasonable approach.

    In fact, I've stated

    twice in this very thread that it hasn't been shown to be valid.

    On the other hand, it also can't be ruled

    out UNTIL we verify that the genes are not being expressed there and there are no receptors.

    Has that been

    shown? I haven't seen that research. If you know of such a paper, please cite it so I can read it.

    The

    point I was making is simply that there is some evidence, in Berliner's work, that he is finding something by

    researching VNO affinity. The choices are:

    a) He was finding out something useful.

    This explains why

    androstadienone had the highest affinity in males but not females in his experiments and why it was found to

    actually be a pheromone.

    b) He was getting random results that had nothing to do with actual

    pheromone/receptor affinity.

    In this case, it's pure dumb luck that androstadienone showed up as having the

    highest affinity in males but not females, and it's also random chance that produced the sexual dimorphism he

    found.

    c) He fabricated the results.

    This would mean that it was known in advance that

    androstadienone was a pheromone. Was it? Do you have any citation that shows this was the case?

    I am trying

    to be logical about the information that we do have, and I am hoping for a response which actually and specifically

    addresses the issues I'm raising, rather than a dismissal.

    Once again, I'm NOT saying that VNO affinity is

    proof of anything, but that there appears to be evidence that something is going on there, EVEN THOUGH there's no

    evidence that the VNO produces any brain responses in humans.

  17. #17
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    JVK:
    I've never

    suggested that using human VNO affinity is known to be a reasonable approach.

    In fact, I've stated twice in

    this very thread that it hasn't been shown to be valid.
    I didn't go back far enough to catch your

    drift, sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    On the other hand, it also can't be ruled out UNTIL we verify that the genes

    are not being expressed there and there are no receptors.

    Has that been shown? I haven't seen that

    research. If you know of such a paper, please cite it so I can read it.
    I can recall only something

    vague about pseudogenes--and they may have had nothing to do with human VNO receptors, though I've managed my

    memory to think that this connection was made. Peter Mombaerts, perhaps or Richard Axel--I tried to find a

    reference, but if the article is more than a few years old I don't always have a .pdf or print

    copy.

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    The point I was making is simply that there is some evidence, in Berliner's work, that

    he is finding something by researching VNO affinity.
    My partial point was that work from his group

    has not been replicated and it is not likely to be. If ever it is, it will deserve more thorough

    review.

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    The choices are:

    a) He was finding out something useful.

    This explains

    why androstadienone had the highest affinity in males but not females in his experiments and why it was found to

    actually be a pheromone.

    b) He was getting random results that had nothing to do with actual

    pheromone/receptor affinity.

    In this case, it's pure dumb luck that androstadienone showed up as having the

    highest affinity in males but not females, and it's also random chance that produced the sexual dimorphism he

    found.

    c) He fabricated the results.

    This would mean that it was known in advance that

    androstadienone was a pheromone. Was it? Do you have any citation that shows this was the case?
    Option d. in a multiple choice format could well be "all of the above." However, something not yet

    given much consideration is that androstadienone (and its sexually dimorphic VNO affinity) might be part of a

    sequence of events that allows it to interact with responses to other parts of a pheromonal chain link fence. I'm

    reluctant to speculate much further on this, because people are already plagerizing what I say here for their own

    commercial interests, but you and a few others may see it coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    I am trying to be logical

    about the information that we do have, and I am hoping for a response which actually and specifically addresses the

    issues I'm raising, rather than a dismissal.
    I don't mean to be dismissive; I recognize and value

    your logic. But we have differences in our logic. Mine says to use a mammalian model--for all its worth. And it's

    worth a lot more if we ignore the unlikely human VNO--at least for now, until more human VNO research is done, if

    ever, which I doubt. And, to me, unpublished, anonymous, or unreplicatable research doesn't

    count.

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    Once again, I'm NOT saying that VNO affinity is proof of anything, but that there

    appears to be evidence that something is going on there, EVEN THOUGH there's no evidence that the VNO produces any

    brain responses in humans.
    What I'm trying to say is that because there's no evidence that the

    human VNO produces any brain responses--yet there is evidence androstadienone does (despite human non-VNO delivery)

    produce brain responses, focus should now be on these brain responses and how they are linked to behavior.



    There has been too much focus on a non-existent (or perhaps just non-functional) organ (or vestigial pits)

    for too long--and this focus is largely due to product marketing claims that are still being made. Savic, Lundstrom,

    Laska, Sobel, and many others have moved on--and this is a good reason for you and I to move on also. These

    researchers are not promoting any products. So even though I have commercial interests, it should be obvious that my

    research interests go with the flow. I'm interested in what you will say once you read my forthcoming review (and I

    hope you will do so--as it details much more than I could ever write here).

    JVK

  18. #18
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    599
    Rep Power
    8080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jvkohl
    I'm interested in what

    you will say once you read my forthcoming review (and I hope you will do so--as it details much more than I could

    ever write here).
    Your last review was great, so I'm looking forward to this one.

    When will

    it be out?

  19. #19
    Banned User jvkohl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Northern Georgia
    Posts
    1,127
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xvs
    Your last review was

    great, so I'm looking forward to this one.

    When will it be out?
    The journal article is cover

    date is 2006 but not yet available--sometime soon is all I know.

    Here's the URL (which includes the

    abstract):
    http://www.haworthpress.com/store/To...20Issue%3A%204

    see: The Mind's Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience,

    and Male Sexual Preferences Page Range: 313 - 369
    James V. Kohl

    As indicated by the page count (compared

    to my Neuroendocrinology Letters review), it is much more inclusive/extensive.

    JVK

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MHC difference exactly predicts female faithfulness
    By xvs in forum Pheromone Research
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2007, 04:57 AM
  2. female pheromones for sweet dreams.
    By luxveritas in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-15-2006, 08:29 AM
  3. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-18-2004, 09:02 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2004, 09:28 PM
  5. Female to Female Attraction
    By collinsville in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-10-2003, 12:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •