What Does It Take To Be Male?
This is quite an interesting question. Are we "male" because of a genetic presence of a "Y" chromosome? Are we "male" due to a specific phenotype?
Recently, researchers at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu have genetically manipulated mice so that the mouse completely lacks a Y chromosome. This mouse model only contains a single copy of an X chromosome. Typically, this mouse would phenotypically be female; however, by manipulating a gene on another chromosome while increasing the number of copies of a gene on the X chromosome, these researchers have genetically created a male mouse that lacks the Y chromosome but is phenotypically male (1).
To prove the 'maleness' of this mouse, they took the immature sperm from the mouse and fertilized an embryo. This embryo went on to produce offspring. This shows that the Y-less male could procreate through artificial means.
The previous research by this team had shown that there were two genes on the Y chromosome of MICE that are required for a mouse to be "male"--Sry and Eif2s3y. They found a related gene of the former on a different chromosome and then increased the number of copies of the latter allele on the X chromosome. Between their previous findings and the current results, it shows that if the Sry is not present, the progeny would have empty testes. By having both of these genes, the mouse was able to be male...albeit a male that can only produce immature spermatozoa(1,2).
These findings are interesting for a number of reasons. Ethically, it leads to numerous questions as well. I do want to point out that this "male" still is unable to procreate without artificial means since his sperm are immature. Both sides of those arguing over whether or not the Y chromosome is going extinct are using these findings to validate their arguments.
For a more in-depth discussion on this topic, please check out the link below:
Recently, researchers at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu have genetically manipulated mice so that the mouse completely lacks a Y chromosome. This mouse model only contains a single copy of an X chromosome. Typically, this mouse would phenotypically be female; however, by manipulating a gene on another chromosome while increasing the number of copies of a gene on the X chromosome, these researchers have genetically created a male mouse that lacks the Y chromosome but is phenotypically male (1).
 |
| Taken from (3) |
The previous research by this team had shown that there were two genes on the Y chromosome of MICE that are required for a mouse to be "male"--Sry and Eif2s3y. They found a related gene of the former on a different chromosome and then increased the number of copies of the latter allele on the X chromosome. Between their previous findings and the current results, it shows that if the Sry is not present, the progeny would have empty testes. By having both of these genes, the mouse was able to be male...albeit a male that can only produce immature spermatozoa(1,2).
These findings are interesting for a number of reasons. Ethically, it leads to numerous questions as well. I do want to point out that this "male" still is unable to procreate without artificial means since his sperm are immature. Both sides of those arguing over whether or not the Y chromosome is going extinct are using these findings to validate their arguments.
For a more in-depth discussion on this topic, please check out the link below:
References:
- https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mice-can-be-male-without-y-chromosome
- PLoS Genet. 2015 Dec 31;11(12):e1005476. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005476. eCollection 2015
- http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=19255
The information provided through this study will definitely continue to stir up the gender orientation discussions and debates that are constantly brought to light nowadays. This article would seem to provide scientific data that could perhaps support some individuals’ debate on their gender make-up, yet the researchers had to literally manipulate the mouse’s genetic material…therefore, the mouse was not born male without the Y chromosome due to pure chance. It is still quite interesting because one has always been told that the presence of the Y chromosome constitutes a male, yet it is clearly something a bit more specific than the chromosome itself.
ReplyDeleteThis article does point out what would have to happen in order to one to lack a Y chromosome but be phenotypically male. The article makes it clear that for this scenario to actually happen, the mice had to be GENETICALLY altered. With this said, I propose that a male without the presence of a Y chromosome is simply something that has been altered in their genetic makeup, and should not be messed with, or altered further. Furthermore, I can now see that the presence of a Y does not always constitute masculinity.
ReplyDeleteThis article provides some interesting insight as to how genes really do determine how an organism is defined, however it brings up some interesting debates as well. Given that genes on the X chromosome had to be altered for the mice to be male without a chromosome, it makes sense why that can't happen naturally and has to be genetically altered. The Y chromosome, like it stated in the article, is the strong one because it is able to not only produce a male but a fully functional male that can naturally reproduce. Whereas the genetically altered male mice need help artificially to reproduce, they have sperm but they aren't mobile for them to move by natural means. It is definitely an incredible find that that Y chromosome is not the only means for a mouse to be male. I think that this article helps scientists and geneticists understand certain genes on the X and the Y chromosome a little more and how the alteration of a few of them can truly determine the sexual configuration and future of mice. Also as the article mentioned, it may help us understand why certain genes that mice have, other organisms like apes or humans do not.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of information is only going to spur the ethical debate concerning reproduction. I took bioethics two years ago and learned that somatic cells could be reverted and used as pluripotent stem cells for the purpose of same-sex reproduction. Traditionally, it has been understood that the Y chromosome is inherently what makes one male. However, this knowledge seems to further indicate that science is breaking huge barriers in the realm of sexual reproduction, and what it even means to be male. This article is stating that males aren't males simply because of the Y chromosome, but one can phenotypically be male even without a Y chromosome. It seems that a mouse can lack the Y chromosome, but if it possesses enough amounts of Sry and Eif2s3y genes, it will phenotypically develop into a male. In addition, it will even create sperm. I'm sure this technology will be championed by same-sex reproduction advocates who say women + women can produce offspring and the male requirement will be rendered obsolete. This kind of scientific “progress” threatens God's original plan for creation and necessitates ethical discussion. This information brings up a lot of questions of our traditional understanding of gender and maleness.
ReplyDeleteFinding such as this will definitely add fuel to the fire when concerning the ever going gender debate. I find it interesting that they mouse can be a male phenotypically even though it lacks the chromosome that we have come to learn to have a role in gender development. Now that there is a way to procreate by manipulation of immature sperm it will play a role on how we as humans can bring forth life through more artificial means. One must consider if this is ethically sound and if we are crossing the very delicate line of ethics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the findings of this study are quite interesting, it brings to mind an important question - why? The implications of their research may not be obvious at first, but the results point to some exciting conclusions.
ReplyDeleteHaving found several of the genes responsible for male development, many doors have opened for further research. To say the least, it is a step closer to making important discoveries in regards to genetic disorders and cancers specific males.
Ethical dilemmas arise with this type of work, especially when moving into the human domain. Will people begin manipulating the sex of their children in vitro? It seems like an outrageous idea, but so did abortion in the 1950's.
A lot of what I was going to say was written out by Levi (see above), so I'll take a slightly different approach. The first thing that I want to point out is that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). God separated the genders. If "What God has joined together let man not separate" is true, than is the reverse also true? If God has separated genders, is it ethically wrong - but still feasible under free will - for scientists to join what God has separated? Just a thought. Also, God is neither male nor female, because male and female are constructs of his created order, which He is above. He is likened as both a father and strong champion, and a kind, compassionate being who has attributes of motherly love. I think it is safe to say that God created males with some attributes of his nature, and females with others (with considerable overlap, of course). It is as if males and females are subsets of God in mental and emotional spheres, which although the subsets greatly overlap, never fully represent God. Ancient Hebrews had very clear distinctions between males and females, with well-defined gender roles. Throughout scripture, both Old Testament and New, God is very clear in speaking about the genders as separate. Science supports this. Let us not forgot that males and females have a whole gamete (pun intended) of traits that distinguish them from each other: hormones, physical appearance, females have a period, women and men generally think differently, and most notably, external genitalia (among other differences). I think that it is not a question of what is male or female, it is a question of the morality of trying to intentionally confuse the two in an artificial environment. I personally do not advocate such a practice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting article. Apparently only two genes on the Y chromosome are needed for sexual maturity in male mice, Sry and Eif2s3y. The reason that this mouse could only produce immature sperm is because the y chromosome counterpart for Eif2s3y is five times stronger than Eif2s3x (the x chromosome counterpart). This being said, could scientists put five of Eif2s3x into the X chromosome in mice so that the new male mouse could produce mature sperm and reproduce without any help? How would this influence development? It is interesting to think that what determines one's gender might be just a few genes
ReplyDeleteThis could be supportive of the biblical belief that female came from male. It also could be taken very far by feminists and be argued that "women do not need men," now that would be...interesting and a bit annoying. This is obviously an interesting read and experiment. I'm curious to read more about this area of research and to see how far it will go until bioethics puts a stop to it. My peers have said and pointed out some similar points of view as my own and have raised some interesting thoughts in my mind. This was an enjoyable read for me, thank you.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that this was a very interesting article both from a scientific and Christian perspective. It always amazes me how science and biotechnology have advanced at such a rapid pace.
ReplyDeleteWhile I admire all the work that has been done in the field of genetics, I do wonder if maybe this discovery has taken a step too far. As mentioned, it brings into light what defines "male". Is it the presence of a Y chromosome or the actual phenotype of a mice, human, etc? Ethically, this does fuel the gender orientation argument especially if it becomes possible in humans down the road. As a Christian, I believe that God created male and female. To me, this discovery seems to push against that concept by bringing a male mice from a female embryo. I can only wonder what else will happen from here.
For me personally, I don't totally see the relevance of this information in terms of how scientists and pop culture view gender and sexuality. The purpose of a chromosome is to hold genetic material and open up the doorway for protein synthesis through transcription and translation. What difference does it make what chromosome the genetic material is on? If someone has an extra copy of chromosome 21, but that copy is empty and won't affect protein synthesis whatsoever, I don't think any doctor would diagnose the patient with Down Syndrome - they would not have any of the symptoms of someone with trisomy 21. The point of sexual maturation has to do with the genes that we posses and how effective synthesis of proteins from that genetic information results in a specific type of maturation and gender expression. Why would it matter what chromosome the information is coming from? Essentially, these scientists genetically engineered a mouse to be male. By deciding to put the genetic information onto an X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome, what have they really proved?
ReplyDeleteDetermining sex is an issue that is trending in our world right now. This study only provides proof that even though we might try as humans to recreate maleness we are not there yet. The male mouse is only capable of producing immature spermatozoa. From a christian point of view I believe that God has made everything in this world working on a balance. Even though this might me a great achievement to genetics there are many things that could go wrong and many things that we do not understand fully of the effects of the alterations made. This could be the start of redefining gender and there are many ethical issues with that. This type of research can be a controversy in bioethics. I wonder what future aspects can be studied through genetic engineering.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is definitely one that got me thinking. Specifically on the ethical standpoint. With gender changes constantly showing up in the media, one can only imagine how being able to add or delete a chromosome can change gender transformation substantially. If a male wanted to become a woman, he may take hormones and can even go to the extreme of surgery but if it is possible to take out his Y chromosome, which makes him genetically male, would not this officially, make him a woman? My personal opinion is no. There is one very important aspect of a woman that a man can never gain through a gender change and this is the ability to have children. Unless science find a way to insert an artificial womb, which would be very interesting in the strangest way possible, a man can never really become a women and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI see several people have already brought up biblical arguments about what this type of research could mean for those in the LGBT community. However, it is highly unlikely that this research could logically lead someone to the conclusion that they could genetically change their gender. If this research was to be used as means to prove their desire of become something they are not already genetically, then it would be just as beneficial for them to exploit the genetics of frogs and annelids (worms) that are hermaphroditic (things found naturally in nature that can switch their genders. [Remember Jurassic Park? ;)]
ReplyDeleteIt may sound good, especially for the script of a Science Fiction thriller with an ethical dilemma, but the science just doesn't line up. Frogs and worms are completely different, genetically and phenotypically. Likewise, to use this study as a means to prove transgender desires as valid is simply idiotic. Yes, we do share approximately 90% of our DNA with mice and other mammals, but the majority of the genes being used (or not used) in this experiment are not found in humans or other primates; we have our own things that make us special and we are not even sure what half of those genes are. On would have to use a lot of "ifs" to use this research in an argument for transgender human rights.
Secondly, these were not fully developed female mice which they turned into males- they were embryos. We are not talking about gene therapy on fully developed animals (or humans), but a genetically modified mouse embryo- which then developed into a male without the y chromosome. This is not the same as taking a fully grown adult female and making her produce sperm. (As those wishing to be another gender would most likely be.) My background in gene therapy is weak, but I'm almost positive this experiment could not be duplicated on an adult specimen. (For example: they had to add copies of a gene onto the genome simply to produce the immature sperm.) That is reconstructing the genome, not just making the gene more active.
This all has to be done to the embryo, which I would then argue, "Would it truly be considered transgender then?" Because technically all embryos start as female, even with the y chromosome. It isn't until Sry is turned on in the y that a "male" starts to develop. So if it is triggered in the embryo from else where would it not still be a male- and not a transgender male?
Therefore, one could look at this not as a means to perform transgender surgery, but another way by which one could develop into a male - even if it was by a freak genetic accident.
And finally, to address the "evolutionary" aspect of the article. I could consider myself a creationist who believes in "micro"evolution anyways, but for the sake of argument, I would say it is preposterous to think this could lead to the extinction of the "y" chromosome. Though it may not be present in a few rodents anymore, it still is needed in most mammals. "If it aint broke, why fix it?" Evolutionarily speaking, the sperm was immature without the y chromosome, thus showing its need. Also do you realize the MILLIONS of years it would take to lose the need for an entire chromosome? It would probably be easier to produce a male that lactates! (Weird topic, but I heard Richard Dawkins talking about it on a podcast once :P)
And in closing, if it did mean the eventual end to the y chromosome, it would not mean the end of gender. In fact, in some reptiles it simply depends on the temperature. All this study shows is what the chaos theory guy said in Jurassic Park, "Life finds a way!"
I find this article very interesting solely because of the ever growing issue that our society faces today. The most recent event that stands out to me is that of Bruce Jenner's transformation into "Caitlyn". It really raises the question of what does it mean to be male? Does phenotype or genotype way more into the gender of an individual? It is important to not make it seem like one trounces the other. It is an ethical dilemma that truly baffles people in todays day and age. All I know for sure is that it is important that we as a society continue to research and study the x and y chromosomes. Not for transgender purposes but for many other diseases that affect individuals in today's scientific community.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sierra. As soon as I read this article, I thought that this article proves that female came from male. I feel as if this study was known to the Asian countries then they would make it as available as abortion. Wouldn't that still cause procreation problems in Asian countries. I feel as if there would be more riots too.
ReplyDeleteThis article was intriguing in my opinion due to the swirling debate of gender and sexuality in today’s society. Previously in my studies I learned that germ cells were created that later became sperm and egg cells by using human stem cells. As technology advances we have found ways to manipulate cells, catalyze processes in vitro, and ultimately alter ways in which life can be initiated. This article ventures to say that a male does not have to have a Y chromosome to be considered a male, but in part phenotypically be classified as a male. From a faith based stand point, God created man and woman for a purpose. He separated genders. Deuteronomy 23:1 talks about anyone who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may not enter the assembly of the Lord. This concept of removing the Y chromosome in a sense seems to be emasculating the possible embryo before fertilization. We are genetically manipulated something that God intended for man as opposed to woman. It is interrupting a naturally occurring process.
ReplyDeleteIn an experiment such as this we are taking a look at immature spermatozoa. Genetic manipulation allows for the production of an immature sperm cell that has to be artificially placed in order to reproduce. True maleness is the ability to procreate with a female. The Y chromosome is traditionally the identification factor for a male. I think research such as this, however, can be intriguing to those in the LGBT community. It could be viewed as the possible link between why some feel they are born in the wrong body.
I found this article to be quite interesting. The idea central to this experiment seems to be centered on a way to, in some extent, lessen the importance of the Y chromosome. It goes about saying that maleness can be displayed without the interaction of the Y chromosome. Under normal circumstances the Y chromosome is the hallmark feature of being a male. However, in this experiment the scientist were able to manipulate the X chromosome in order to, if only partially,mimic the presence of the Y chromosome. Overall this article seems to send a mixed message as to what the experiments results imply but one thing is for sure and its that in the day and age we live in people will take this and run with it as far as they can. Metaphorically speaking of course.
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be very interesting. In todays age, gender and sexuality has become such a big controversial issue. For example, they just passed a law stating that you can go in either male or female bathroom with what you feel like you deserve you should go. Chromosomal evidence has always stated that you need both X and Y to be a male. I believe that even if you are phenotypically presenting to be a male, I believe that you have you be able to naturally reproduce, and with this information, the "male" can only reproduce artificially.
ReplyDeleteI found this topic quite interesting because it demonstrates that there are other ways to make males. At first, the experiment seems to suggest to me that Y chromosomes are no longer necessary for reproduction, and might soon go into extinction. However, it became clear to me that even the Y-less males needed help to reproduce, and they needed the Y chromosome for full natural reproduction.
ReplyDeleteThis work also shows that genetic code is designed to have redundancies so that organisms can often function normally even if some of their genes don’t work as they should. Although, I am not sure these genetic fail-safes would ever be triggered in nature or whether they’re the same in humans, I hope that this information could someday increase or modify human sperm production to address fertility issues. Also, I hope the successful use of round spermatid injection, a reproductive technology currently considered experimental in humans, might lead to future studies that evaluate its utility for infertile males who want to have children.
What does it take to be a man? Previously if someone asked me that question I would have given a response based upon science and simply say, "Someone with an X and Y chromosome opposed to two X chromosomes". However, now I will instead have to stand there like a deer caught in headlights. Although I was being a bit facetious is my previous sentence the sentiment of confusion is indeed sincere. However, this article has further reaching effects than causing me confusion, it also will have definite weight in the transgender discussions and debates, and raise new issues in regards to LGBT issues. However, aside from this I can also see this research as having a potential for help men with low sperm counts and infertility, as more was come to be understood about those issues indirectly.
ReplyDeleteThe article and topic amuses me. Many discussions in present-day culture are about the different "rights and wrongs" on human sexuality and gender identification. Previously, being a male was dependent up having a y-chromosome and expressing the characteristics of what being a male physically entails. However, does research such as this and changing views in society alter the definition of a male? Is being that of a specific gender based on one's perception of who he or she thinks he or she is? It is interesting to debate whether gender is specified through science (genotype, phenotype, etc.) or through perception and one's awareness. This does open up the possibility to further research. Most genetic disorders are associated with the x-chromosome, however, if there are different disorders and mutations from the y-chromosome this may aid in providing more insight into treatment with omitting portions of the y-chromosome that are inconsequential.
ReplyDeleteSo this is a pretty interesting discovery; however, why is it necessary research if mice can still be "male" without a the presence of a Y chromosomes? Even though I'm sure funding was easily attainable for this project. Again, how is beneficial to man kind? Mice like this would not survive in the wild, and if they did, they would be unable to reproduce naturally. Thus this astounding discovery defeats mice's created design. I feel like funding should have been allotted to other forms of research that could benefit mankind as a whole (i.e. vaccines, medication, crop production).
ReplyDeleteThis research is particularly interesting because it challenges a long held belief in science that in order to be male on must have the Y chromosome. However, given this information, it appears that by altering and increasing the amount of a certain gene, it is possible to create a male mouse that can reproduce. Although, the sperm was immature and the mouse would be incapable of reproducing under normal conditions, nonetheless, this is quite intriguing. the data and research gives the appearance that the Y chromosome has very little effect on being male. We are unable to state indefinitely that it does not have any adverse effects on metal capability and development, but it does show that genetically speaking, the mouse is still male. Im not sure how this is beneficial to humans, but it is fascinating nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating research study because it is trying to break the bonds of what it means to be male and female. We have all been taught since we were little that a male has an X and Y chromosome, and a female has two X chromosomes. This research is trying to redefine this by saying that a male does not need a Y chromosome to be a male. By activating a certain gene scientifically and using a similar gene on the X chromosome, researchers were able to make a "male" mouse that was able to produce immature, tailless sperm. They say by doing this, they have created a male without a Y chromosome. However, there are some problems with this. This "male" mouse can not reproduce naturally. The immature sperm needs to be manually injected into an egg. This means it could never reproduce in the wild. Just to make this immature sperm, it takes five times the amount of genes on the X chromosome compared to the Y chromosome. Why go through this process when you can just let the Y chromosome do what it is supposed to do? These researchers are trying to play God and decide who is male and who is female. Also, they do not know the consequences that making this artificial "male" could have.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a male can be defined without a Y chromosome is an interesting idea. A man is defined as having a Y and X chromosome. Even though the scientists were able to create a "male" mouse without the Y chromosome, the mice were not able to reproduce naturally so I am not sure how accurate this definition can be since it is very unnatural. This process of changing genetics is highly unnecessary will most likely cause later issues in the mice.
ReplyDeleteReading this article does mess with the definition of male that I liked to try and use as an absolute, that the presence of a Y chromosome (in humans) determines whether someone is male or not. I knew that androgen insensitivity could cause someone to look outwardly female, but even then this person would have to be technically male. One question I have is how they they manipulated the Sry-related gene so that it produced the correct Sox9 product, and how closely related this gene is to Sry. Also interesting to consider is how this study would translate to humans. It could be that the genes that make human males "male" are exclusively found on the Y chromosome. The opposite could be true and genes that make define maleness could be enhanced effectively on other chromosomes. It seems as though research into a similar study for humans could be right around the corner.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that a guy having a y chromosome was just partly what makes him “male.” The fact that the mouse is considered male even though it lacks the Y chromosome but is still phenotypically male, is really interesting. It’s weird to me as to why scientists would want to do this experiment but I kind of get that it’s to understand what really makes up a male. The question still stands, “can mice be male without a Y chromosome?” The answer is yes if related genes to Sry and Eif2s3y are increased on the X chromosome of the mouse. However, the male’s sperm was found to be immature and could not procreate without artificial means. This questions the quality of the mouse and it’s male characteristics.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, this study goes to show that a mouse lacking a Y chromosome can still be considered “male” as long as the genes are manipulated.
It's really fascinating how researchers have the ability to perform genetic mutation. This research most likely raised questions pertaining to gender identity and transgenderism in humans. However, this research would not be a good argument for the Y chromosome going extinct, simply because the mice were genetically manipulated by researchers to lack the Y chromosome. They weren't born naturally lacking the Y chromosome.
ReplyDeleteI found this research really interesting. It's fascinating that different organisms have different systems for identifying males and females. For instance, birds have a ZW determination system where females have the ZW and males have ZZ. It is interesting to know that we are still discovering new things about the XY determination system that could possibly be applied in the future and maybe even help with male impotence. I am not really surprised that God factored in a sort of back up system for the genes associated with something as vital as reproduction. He always thinks of everything.
ReplyDelete