Studies show that women may "absorb" male DNA from sperm

paddy1990

Male DNA has been found in womens bodies. In their brains, tyroids etc. The mechanisms by which this occur are largely unknown but it was thought to happen during pregnancies. It's been shown that women who have never been pregnant have male DNA. It is known that RNA can cause genome rearrangement, perhaps to incorporate new genes from this sperm. Not a lot of studies have been done on this but we know that most women who are sexually active will have male DNA in their genome.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why men generally don't like women that sleep around. Once a girl has had a mans sperm inside her that sperm can penetrate inside her body and then cause her genome to incorporate it so it's genes now become expressed in her body and essentially her children will express some of these genes. It's circumstantial but pretty strong evidence.





ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23618818

Telegony is a discredited genetic phenomenon that a previous male may influence the characteristics of offspring subsequently borne by the same female to another male. Although its reality was acknowledged by such authorities as Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, it has been met with skepticism <b>because of a lack of understanding of the theoretical basis for telegony. With the discovery of fetal genes in mother's blood, the penetration of somatic cells by sperm, and the ability of RNA to program genome rearrangement, mechanisms might exist for telegony.</b>



ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16084184/


CONCLUSIONS: <b>Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. </b>Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, <b>or sexual intercourse. </b>Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.


jcem.endojournals.org/content/87/7/3315.full

<b>Many of patients with male cell-positive thyroids had no history of earlier male pregnancies at the time of surgery. </b>This did not necessarily exclude the possibility of undetected first trimester pregnancies, because it has been demonstrated that fetal microchimerism can be established in the first month of pregnancy. <b>In addition, the possibility of fetal microchimerism due to sexual intercourse as a result of lymphocytes in semen should be considered.</b>

Standman

paddy1990 wrote: »

Male DNA has been found in womens bodies. In their brains, tyroids etc. The mechanisms by which this occur are largely unknown but it was thought to happen during pregnancies. It's been shown that women who have never been pregnant have male DNA. It is known that RNA can cause genome rearrangement, perhaps to incorporate new genes from this sperm. Not a lot of studies have been done on this but we know that most women who are sexually active will have male DNA in their genome.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why men generally don't like women that sleep around. Once a girl has had a mans sperm inside her that sperm can penetrate inside her body and then cause her genome to incorporate it so it's genes now become expressed in her body and essentially her children will express some of these genes. It's circumstantial but pretty strong evidence.

How could it possibly be one of the reasons men don't like women who sleep around, given that the vast majority of people have never even heard of it?

Pat Mustard

Telegony is a discredited genetic phenomenon

Discredited.

I.E. rubbish.

paddy1990

The Mustard wrote: »

Discredited.

I.E. rubbish.

LOL

paddy1990

Standman wrote: »

How could it possibly be one of the reasons men don't like women who sleep around, given that the vast majority of people have never even heard of it?

Men do feel it and I was pondering reasons why this could be hard wired into men. Evolutionarily, it makes sense for men to have a problem with it.

Penny Tration

paddy1990 wrote: »

LOL

What's so amusing? It's discredited..

Neon_Lights

Does that mean if i blow me load in her she gets more braincells? .... ill be wearing a johnny from now on ... smart women are dangerous

paddy1990

green_screen wrote: »

What's so amusing? It's discredited..

who discredited it?

Czarcasm

paddy1990 wrote: »

Male DNA has been found in womens bodies.

I got as far as the end of that sentence. The rest I'm sorry to say OP but it looks like a terrible copy and paste job of speculation and circumstance with very little scientific hypothesis and research methodology employed. It's a pity, because it could indeed have been interesting reading for the evening

paddy1990

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Does that mean if i blow me load in her she gets more braincells? .... ill be wearing a johnny from now on ... smart women are dangerous

"In conclusion, male Mc is frequent and widely distributed in the human female brain."


I'd say the answer is yes!

Its good to know that the RNA in my sperm was able to get transcribed into DNA in the brains of the girls I've had sex with

paddy1990

Czarcasm wrote: »

I got as far as the end of that sentence. The rest I'm sorry to say OP but it looks like a terrible copy and paste job of speculation and circumstance with very little scientific hypothesis and research methodology employed. It's a pity, because it could indeed have been interesting reading for the evening

I meant male microchimerism and telegony but kept it simple for the non scientific amongst us!

eviltwin

Using science now to shame women who have multiple partners now are we? A bit desperate really.

Standman

paddy1990 wrote: »

Men do feel it and I was pondering reasons why this could be hard wired into men. Evolutionarily, it makes sense for men to have a problem with it.

It doesn't really make sense for men to have a problem with it in relation to evolution as it wouldn't stop a man from producing children with a woman. The woman having another mans DNA in her genes is irrelevant.

paddy1990

eviltwin wrote: »

Using science now to shame women who have multiple partners now are we? A bit desperate really.

LOL

Butthurt much?

I'm just posting interesting topics for guys and girls to consider

paddy1990

Standman wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense for men to have a problem with it in relation to evolution as it wouldn't stop a man from producing children with a woman. The woman having another mans DNA in her genes is irrelevant.

Well the other mans/mens DNA is going to be incorporated into the child.

It's just a theory really. I'm not stating any facts here. It would correspond with the selfish gene theory.

Pawwed Rig

paddy1990 wrote: »

LOL

Butthurt much?

I'm just posting interesting topics for guys and girls to consider

Mod note - You won't be posting at all if you continue with responses like that one.

ancapailldorcha

Sounds like something you'd read in the Daily Mail to be honest.

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sounds like something you'd read in the Daily Mail to be honest.

big difference between scientific articles and the dailymail.

i doubt this stuff will really be studied properly in earnest yet, because i think it's a bit too raw for most people.

but im sure the research will be done in time.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

big difference between scientific articles and the dailymail.

i doubt this stuff will really be studied properly in earnest yet, because i think it's a bit too raw for most people.

but im sure the research will be done in time.

I'm well aware of that.

I'm a researcher and the fact that there's not much research on this screams volumes, especially with such a striking hypothesis. Traces of Y chromosome shown by PCR mean squat to me for 2 reasons:

1. PCR is a very sensitive technique prone to contamination.
2. The presence of Y chromosomal DNA doesn't necessarily mean it's being transcribed, ie used for anything or even that it'll be passed on. It just means that it's there. It's not enough for DNA to just exist in a cell, it takes a multitude of different elements for the cell to actually use it to make proteins.

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm well aware of that.

I'm a researcher and the fact that there's not much research on this screams volumes, especially with such a striking hypothesis. Traces of Y chromosome shown by PCR mean squat to me for 2 reasons:

1. PCR is a very sensitive technique prone to contamination.
2. The presence of Y chromosomal DNA doesn't necessarily mean it's being transcribed, ie used for anything or even that it'll be passed on. It just means that it's there. It's not enough for DNA to just exist in a cell, it takes a multitude of different elements for the cell to actually use it to make proteins.

hehe eh you do realize that fetal microchimerism is extremely well researched, accepted and proven, and there are literally thousands of papers on it and the effects of microchimerism in certain diseases right? you also realize that this dna is expressed and implicated in these diseases, helping some and worsening others?

the question is moving on to telegony and how it occurs. research is being done as its a new area and the amount of circumstantial evidence is heavily mounting up to suggest that indeed women do "absorb" male DNA into their genome as the result of sexual intercourse

which has a lot of interesting implications

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

hehe eh you do realize that fetal microchimerism is extremely well researched, accepted and proven, and there are literally thousands of papers on it and the effects of microchimerism in certain diseases right? you also realize that this dna is expressed and implicated in these diseases, helping some and worsening others?

the question is moving on to telegony and how it occurs. research is being done as its a new area and the amount of circumstantial evidence is heavily mounting up to suggest that indeed women do "absorb" male DNA into their genome as the result of sexual intercourse

which has a lot of interesting implications

How do you know that it's expressed? Have you sources? I've just searched "telegony" on Pubmed and found 7 results. Last time I checked 7 is less than "thousands". Pubmed isn't the be all and end all but I would at least expect several hundred results assuming that there are thousands of studies which seems doubtful to say the least.

That aside, you seem to be set on clinging to this notion for some reason and you've adopted a condescending tone towards anyone here who questions your assertions. Why is that?

dar100

This theory has been around for quite some time, read Carl Jung

ancapailldorcha

dar100 wrote: »

This theory has been around for quite some time, read Carl Jung

I think "notion" would be a better word. What would Carl Jung know genetics?

paddy1990

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How do you know that it's expressed? Have you sources? I've just searched "telegony" on Pubmed and found 7 results. Last time I checked 7 is less than "thousands". Pubmed isn't the be all and end all but I would at least expect several hundred results assuming that there are thousands of studies which seems doubtful to say the least.

That aside, you seem to be set on clinging to this notion for some reason and you've adopted a condescending tone towards anyone here who questions your assertions. Why is that?

well im condescending & antagonistic in retaliation to posts that i feel are that way towards me. Its a good way of knowing im talking to a woman anyway because most guys don't have posting styles like that. but my apologies because to be fair you've been respectful in that last post. well i would say in terms of research that microchimerism certainly would throw up thousands of results as it's quite well researched in humans and even more so in animals. so in terms of the dna being expressed, there is no doubt. in terms of telegony, well it's a recent area but studies on microchimerism lead into and support telegony in many respects, which im sure is self explanatory.

clearly this is a controversial and sensitive area with huge implications for society in general. just look at the people thanking posts and it's clear that they haven't got a clue about the science involved. a few posters earlier were saying "it's discredited" and not even understanding what they were saying because they didn't want to even give it a chance, so naturally the progress in researching it will be slow but already, if you ask me, just off the studies i posted in the OP, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming for me. but as scientists we have to keep every avenue open, as you know.

ancapailldorcha

paddy1990 wrote: »

well im condescending & antagonistic in retaliation to posts that i feel are that way towards me. Its a good way of knowing im talking to a woman anyway because most guys don't have posting styles like that. but my apologies because to be fair you've been respectful in that last post. well i would say in terms of research that microchimerism certainly would throw up thousands of results as it's quite well researched in humans and even more so in animals. so in terms of the dna being expressed, there is no doubt. in terms of telegony, well it's a recent area but studies on microchimerism lead into and support telegony in many respects, which im sure is self explanatory.

clearly this is a controversial and sensitive area with huge implications for society in general. just look at the people thanking posts and it's clear that they haven't got a clue about the science involved. a few posters earlier were saying "it's discredited" and not even understanding what they were saying because they didn't want to even give it a chance, so naturally the progress in researching it will be slow but already, if you ask me, just off the studies i posted in the OP, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming for me. but as scientists we have to keep every avenue open, as you know.

Microchimersim throws up nearly 6,000 results on Pubmed but most of them concern areas such as bone marrow transplantation. Telegony isn't a recent idea at all based on the Pubmed results. The concept could have huge implications for the understanding of many diseases so the fact that little to no research is being conducted on it combined with the fact that it's been discredited makes it obvious that the concept has no real world value and is a dead end in terms of research.

I've been involved in biological research in clinical, academic and industrial settings and I know better than to discard an idea just because it sounds daft. Several ideas that sounded daft at the time turned out to be completely true. However, this idea's been discredited for a reason. Do you honestly believe yourself to be more intelligent than the scientific community at large? You say that "the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming" but I've seen barely anything.

Finally, what's wrong with my posting style? I've simply tried to logically counter your assertions with coutnerpoints.

valor rorghulis

eviltwin wrote: »

Using science now to shame women who have multiple partners now are we? A bit desperate really.

Now that's a dangerous little conclusion you've jumped to.

From the OPs hypothesis that men don't like women that sleep around because they may be passing on genetic information of other males you have presumed he meant to shame said women. I've never read the poster's posts before, but there was absolutely nothing in this post to suggest that's what he was doing.

What's more interesting though, is that your comment suggests that if it were true then it would be acceptable to shame women who sleep around, which of course it wouldn't

There's a terrible misunderstanding out there that evolutionary psychology is some sort of guide on how to live. Its not at all, like Darwin's theory of evolution its more like a history of how we came to be and feel.

Eg, if evolution makes you want to kill your rivals it doesn't make it cool to kill your rivals

“Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

dar100

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think "notion" would be a better word. What would Carl Jung know genetics?

Well, no not really, I think theory describes what I'm pointing to pretty well. After all, a theory is just that, until proved otherwise. But I see what you mean.

I don't imagine Jung would know much about Genetics, although he was a extremely well educated individual, and read a huge amount of other discourses and fields of study.

Perhaps my initial post was somewhat lazy. I was not referring to genetics as such, but to the idea put forward by Jung concerning the Collective Unconscious, and how he suggests that we each have an anima and animus (male-female).

ancapailldorcha

dar100 wrote: »

Well, no not really, I think theory describes what I'm pointing to pretty well. After all, a theory is just that, until proved otherwise. But I see what you mean.

I don't imagine Jung would know much about Genetics, although he was a extremely well educated individual, and read a huge amount of other discourses and fields of study.

Perhaps my initial post was somewhat lazy. I was not referring to genetics as such, but to the idea put forward by Jung concerning the Collective Unconscious, and how he suggests that we each have an anima and animus (male-female).

In science, a theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon which has been test rigorously and repeatedly. I'm familiar with the Anima and Animus concepts. Your post was a bit short and when you suggested reading up on Jung that it would provide me with strong evidence for this telegony notion.

spookymuffin

The idea that men have a biological reason to avoid women who have had many sexual partners is ridiculous. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this is a real biological phenomena and the average woman is carrying small amounts of the DNA of past male partners in her genome. There is no reason that this would make her a less desirable mate because the end result for the father, genetically, is still the same.

A human mother contributes 50% of the genetic information for her future children (excluding mitochondrial DNA) and the father, obviously, contributes the other 50%. This fact does not change if her genome has been "contaminated" by other males. Regardless of whether the mother was a virgin before the sexual contact that lead to conception or if she had had many sexual partners, the father is still passing on 50% of his genetic information.

The insinuation that there's some weird quota of "male" or "female" DNA where the father's genetic input is going to be affected by the mother's sexual past is crazy, and just completely wrong. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the science behind reproduction.

In fact, the only individual who is negatively impacted, when it comes to passing on their genes at least, in this scenario is the woman. Since she is, apparently, contributing less than 50% of the child's genetic makeup.

paddy1990 wrote: »

Well the other mans/mens DNA is going to be incorporated into the child.

It's just a theory really. I'm not stating any facts here. It would correspond with the selfish gene theory.

You know that any woman is, obviously, also carrying her father's DNA? And therefore passing down his genetic information when she reproduces?

You quite clearly do not understand biological reproduction, selfish gene theory or the meaning of the word theory.

Wibbs

spookymuffin wrote: »

The idea that men have a biological reason to avoid women who have had many sexual partners is ridiculous.

Well... why I would have zero confidence in the theory of the this thread, it could be argued that men could have a biological reason to avoid women with many sexual partners. Before contraception and reliable paternity testing the man could never be sure his children are his. The woman always knows. It makes less genetic sense for an individual to expend resources on offspring that aren't his. A woman with 200 sexual partners could be seen as more of a potential "risk" than a woman of 2 or none. Male mate guarding is seen in a fair number of other animals for just this reason. It can go to extremes too, so male lions when they take over a pride will often kill the cubs, in an attempt to end the previous males genetic legacy. Secondly there could be a disease aspect to it too. Women are more exposed to the risk of STD's from a sexual encounter, so the more sexual encounters the more risk to health, which could affect her fertility, so the male monkey brain again may see less as more. There may even be another possible reason. Before contraception a young fertile couple could expect to have a pregnancy happen in the first year of a sexual relationship. Maybe the monkey brain sees a woman who has had years of sexual relationships but no resulting children as possibly infertile. The higher brain knows it's because of contraception, but the monkey brain doesn't.

Now of course culture and our massive brains will offset this, but I would imagine it plays some part.

spookymuffin

Wibbs wrote: »

Well... why I would have zero confidence in the theory of the this thread, it could be argued that men could have a biological reason to avoid women with many sexual partners. Before contraception and reliable paternity testing the man could never be sure his children are his. The woman always knows. It makes less genetic sense for an individual to expend resources on offspring that aren't his. A woman with 200 sexual partners could be seen as more of a potential "risk" than a woman of 2 or none. Male mate guarding is seen in a fair number of other animals for just this reason. It can go to extremes too, so male lions when they take over a pride will often kill the cubs, in an attempt to end the previous males genetic legacy. Secondly there could be a disease aspect to it too. Women are more exposed to the risk of STD's from a sexual encounter, so the more sexual encounters the more risk to health, which could affect her fertility, so the male monkey brain again may see less as more.

Now of course culture and our massive brains will offset this, but I would imagine it plays some part.

These are good points, but other than STD risk, none of them are really reasons to avoid mating with a female who has had many previous sexual partners. Although a lot of them would definitely discourage paternal investment in any offspring produced.