science

14689 readers

64 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

m3t00@lemmy.world

laverabe@lemmy.world

DeadPand@midwest.social

Joleee@lemmy.world

Scientists found a major clue why 4 of 5 autoimmune patients are women (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 9 months ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, and nothing in what I wrote implies that.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How so? This is how I see it:

The summary is that the molecule involved in deactivation of one of the X chromosomes has side effects that lead to autoimmune problems.

Ok, so the X chromosomes are a collection of genes. So, genes.

Most men don’t have a second X chromosome that needs deactivation.

From this, it follows that "XX folks" have twice as many X chromosomes as XY folks.

Since chromosomes are genes, then "XX folks" have twice as many (genes) as "XY folks."

So, "the genes (that need deactivation) are on the X chromosomes (all of their genes, actually), so XX folks have twice as many (X chromosomes, derived from the fact that most men don't have a second X chromosome) as XY's."

So:

The genes are on the X chromosome, so XX folks have twice as many as XYs.

You can't tell me that nothing in what you wrote implies the above at least a little bit.

But don't take me too seriously. I'm just half-joking. Your explanation is definitely better, so I appreciate it.

[–] Kethal@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn't take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That's tautological.

The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn't necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.

Nope. That's not my claim.

The article seems to imply that women have more chances of autoimmune diseases because they have more genes that could be affected by the side effects of that molecule. Did I get it wrong?

And again, don't take me too seriously, but I am curious now.