K
kirill89_2
Guest
Да, я знаю, это старое исследование Дика Свааба. Его уже давно прокоменнтировали. Дело в том, что они приняли за гомолог SDN-POA у мышей не INAH-3, а INAH-1! А INAH-1 ничем не отличается у мужчин и женщин. Гомолог SDN-POA у людей - это INAH-3.
Вот комментарии Левэя из книги.
For the sake of completeness, and to clear up some confusion that has developed in the literature, I should mention that Dick Swaab’s group reported in 1985 on a different hypothalamic cell
group, now generally known as INAH1, which they claimed was larger in men than in women.They named the cell group “SDN-POA,” described it as “analogous” to the rat’s SDN-POA,
and performed a number of subsequent studies of its structure and development. They also reported failing to find any difference between the size of INAH1/“SDN-POA” in gay and
straight men, and used this finding to reject the idea that the hypothalamus of gay men develops in a sex-atypical fashion.Since that time, however, three other laboratories have failed
to confirm the basic sex difference in INAH1. Thus, the reliability of Swaab and Fliers’ 1985 observation, the merits of any theoretical conclusions based on it, and the appropriateness of the name “SDN-POA” in reference to INAH1, are open to serious question.
Правда Левэй отметил, что Дик Свааб продолжает упорно считать именно INAH-1 гомологом SDN-POA у мышей.
Вот комментарии Левэя из книги.
For the sake of completeness, and to clear up some confusion that has developed in the literature, I should mention that Dick Swaab’s group reported in 1985 on a different hypothalamic cell
group, now generally known as INAH1, which they claimed was larger in men than in women.They named the cell group “SDN-POA,” described it as “analogous” to the rat’s SDN-POA,
and performed a number of subsequent studies of its structure and development. They also reported failing to find any difference between the size of INAH1/“SDN-POA” in gay and
straight men, and used this finding to reject the idea that the hypothalamus of gay men develops in a sex-atypical fashion.Since that time, however, three other laboratories have failed
to confirm the basic sex difference in INAH1. Thus, the reliability of Swaab and Fliers’ 1985 observation, the merits of any theoretical conclusions based on it, and the appropriateness of the name “SDN-POA” in reference to INAH1, are open to serious question.
Правда Левэй отметил, что Дик Свааб продолжает упорно считать именно INAH-1 гомологом SDN-POA у мышей.
Последнее редактирование:
писал:
