4.1 Review

The XY Gene Hypothesis of Psychosis: Origins and Current Status

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32202

关键词

PRDM9; sapiens; speciation

资金

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. SANE
  3. TJ Crow Psychosis Research Trust
  4. European Community NEST Program through the Biomorph Project
  5. European Community NEST Program through the Paul Broca II Project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sex differences in psychosis and their interaction with laterality (systematic departures from 50:50 left-right symmetry across the antero-posterior neural axis) are reviewed in the context of the X-Y gene hypothesis. Aspects of laterality (handedness/cerebral asymmetry/the torque) predict (1) verbal and non-verbal ability in childhood and across adult life and (2) anatomical, physiological, and linguistic variation relating to psychosis. Neuropsychological and MRI evidence from individuals with sex chromosome aneuploidies indicates that laterality is associated with an X-Y homologous gene pair. Within each mammalian species the complement of such X-Y gene pairs reflects their potential to account for taxon-specific sexual dimorphisms. As a consequence of the mechanism of meiotic suppression of unpaired chromosomes such X-Y gene pairs generate epigenetic variation around a species defining motif that is carried to the zygote with potential to initiate embryonic gene expression in XX or XY format. The Protocadherin11XY (PCDH11XY) gene pair in Xq21.3/Yp11.2 in probable coordination with a gene or genes within PAR2 (the second pseudo-autosomal region) is the prime candidate in relation to cerebral asymmetry and psychosis in Homo sapiens. The lately-described pattern of sequence variation associated with psychosis on the autosomes may reflect a component of the human genome's adjustment to selective pressures generated by the sexually dimorphic mate recognition system. (c) 2013 The Authors. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics Published by John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据