tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post7113177583016489978..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Autosomal mutation rate from family triosDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19244598683039961742011-06-16T00:14:06.729+03:002011-06-16T00:14:06.729+03:00"Still 92% in one family through the father? ..."Still 92% in one family through the father? What was he 70+?"<br /><br />Background radiation and cosmic rays are greater here in the high country than in Nigeria, but I'd put my money on environmental exposures being due to work related events -- the differences in background levels aren't anywhere near high enough to be clinically significant and create that kind of difference in mutation rates. Work related possibilities include the fact the center of the U.S. uranium mining and processing industry is on the Utah-Colorado border, the Rocky Mountain region was a center of nerve gas and chemical weapon production, and lots of people in the region are military veterans who may have been exposed to Agent Orange during Vietnam or former farmers who may have been exposed to agricultural chemicals.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28822395975268674912011-06-14T06:07:34.505+03:002011-06-14T06:07:34.505+03:00I agree with the importance of environmental facto...I agree with the importance of environmental factors. Also, as I mentioned at Razib's, Utah is high altitude and may in addition have higher levels of water and ground radioactivity than Nigeria.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80855421419589807402011-06-14T01:50:23.762+03:002011-06-14T01:50:23.762+03:00Surprising result. Basically the experiment did n...Surprising result. Basically the experiment did not work. Variable results. Higher in the paternal side in one family lower in another. I agree with Andrew, overall this must balance out as we dont appear to see this in populations.<br /><br />Still 92% in one family through the father? What was he 70+? I am surprised by such a huge difference.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42728229622392934932011-06-13T20:47:58.861+03:002011-06-13T20:47:58.861+03:00The gender differences in germline mutation rates ...The gender differences in germline mutation rates isn't unexpected. Males continually produce new germline cells, women produce their eggs early and as a result their germline cells aren't impacted by subsequent environmental exposures to the same degree.<br /><br />Advanced paternal age is implicated as a major factor in a great many genetic conditions probably through increased mutation rates in older men (something to some extent shown directly), and there is also evidence that germline cell mutations are impacted by environmental exposures of fathers (it is pregnancy and nursing exposures that women are most vulnerable to for environmental impacts). For example, one study from California showed pre-conception pestiside exposure of men, but not women as having an impact on birth defects and abnomalities.<br /><br />This mechanism suggests that male environmental exposure rates and paternal age should be closely scrutinized before one jumps to the conclusion that individuals themselves are inherently more or less mutagenic. Similarities in advanced paternal age affects from one population to another internationally, at least in developed world samples, suggest that between population differences in mutation rates may be modest.Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.com