Different noses for different mice and men Review by Andreas Keller (2012). Excerpt: "We are only just beginning to understand the causes and consequences of the unusual genetic and functional variability of large chemosensory receptor gene repertoires in different species.

My comment: I have detailed the causes and the consequences across species from microbes to man. Only by modeling the common molecular biology can cause and effect be understood, so I modeled it!

Personal receptor repertoires: olfaction as a model (reviewed): Excerpt: "...the effective size of the functional human OR repertoire is much higher than the number of intact loci, implying considerable enhancement of the potential of human smell perception diversity.

My comment: Of course the effective size and its genetically predisposed variability is much higher than was claimed, and it is precisely the size required for our species survival as is the effective size of the olfactory receptor repertoire that is required for the survival of other species. If this calibration of the precision did not continue to occur in each species, extinction would occur (as it does when species cannot locate sufficient nutrient chemicals that support pheromone controlled reproduction).

Genomic variation in the vomeronasal receptor gene repertoires of inbred mice (reviewed) Excerpt: "We describe complex patterns of non-random sequence variation that indicate these receptors are under divergent selective pressures that correlate with proposed ligand, phylogeny, chromosomal clustering, and protein domain."

My comment: What they are saying is that complex patterns of non-random sequence variation result from the combination of genetic predisposition and experience with ligand-specific, de novo receptor gene-mediated beneficial changes in nutrient chemical-dependent behavior that enables adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction. Simply put, adaptive evolution via speciation is controlled by the metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones -- species specific chemicals that control reproduction in species from microbes to man. For science journalists and laypeople, I'm simply saying that what you eat determines the pheromones that you produce, which determine your social and sexual success. That is what I detailed in Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors Review by Kohl (2012)

Excerpt from the section An epigenetic continuum from microbes to humans: from theory to facts, paragraph 2)

"A gene that codes for the mammalian olfactory receptor, OR7D4, links food odors to human hunger, dietary restraint, and adiposity (Choquette et al., 2012). OR7D4 exemplifies a direct link1 from human social odors to their perception (Keller, Zhuang, Chi, Vosshall, & Matsunami, 2007) and to unconscious affects2 on human behavior associated with human olfactory-visual integration (Zhou, Hou, Zhou, & Chen, 2011); human brain activation associated with sexual preferences (Savic, Heden-Blomqvist, & Berglund, 2009), human learned odor hedonics; and motor function (Boulkroune, Wang, March, Walker, & Jacob, 2007)."

1This ‘direct link’ is between the ligand: androstadienone, and the OR7D4 receptor.

2‘Effect(s)’ and ‘affect(s)’. In context, sensory input effects hormones that affect behavior. An effect of sensory input on hormones can result in behavioral affects/affects on behavior.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the concept is technical, there are people who are familiar with the basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization that are required to link sensory cause to hormones and their behavioral affects in mammals like mice and men. To some, it has now become clear or it will soon become clearer that random mutations theory has no explanatory power when attempts are made to link adaptive evolution via ecological, social, neurogenic, and socio-cognitive niche construction as detailed in my model. Random mutations do not cause adaptive evolution. That's a ridiculous theory. It is, nevertheless, one that many scientists will continue to incorporate into their works until they know more about cause and effect.

In my model, for comparison, "The concept that is extended is the epigenetic tweaking of immense gene networks in ‘superorganisms’ (Lockett, Kucharski, & Maleszka, 2012) that ‘solve problems through the exchange and the selective cancellation and modification of signals (Bear, 2004, p. 330)’. It is now clearer how an environmental drive probably evolved from that of food ingestion in unicellular organisms to that of socialization in insects. It is also clear that, in mammals, food odors and pheromones cause changes in hormones such as LH, which has developmental affects on sexual behavior in nutrient-dependent, reproductively fit individuals across species of vertebrates."

It is the change in luteinizing hormone (LH) that epigenetically links olfactory/pheromonal input to the biological core of evolved mammalian behavior via conservation of an evolved gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ system pathway that organizes and activates behavioral reciprocity. The only explanation for adaptive evolution with any across-species explanatory power is found in my details of the epigenetic effects of olfactory/pheromonal input on intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression, which leads to de novo expression of olfactory receptor genes. Thus, when someone like Andreas Keller says "We are only just beginning to understand the causes and consequences of the unusual genetic and functional variability of large chemosensory receptor gene repertoires in different species." --The collective, We, should not be used.

Instead, minimally, others could comment on my model, and perhaps tell me what I don't understand.

Hello Doctor Kohl.

It's nice to see you're still active here on the forum!

Even though I feel like a monkey most of the time I'm reading scientific articles, the information you just provided is very interesting. I never realised we are so dependent on the sense of smell!

Do you think our current (21st century, globalised, western) diets favour or oppose human pheromone production? Or that has more to do with cultural habits we didn't have in 1200 AD, like showering every day? Some guys in the forum like to eat a lot of celery. I've read there is Androstenone in it's cytoplasm.

P.S.: I like the subtle sarcasm about Dr. Keller in the end, haha!

Cheers!

(09-11-2012 5:35 PM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  Hello Doctor Kohl.

I'm a medical laboratory scientist with no academic degree

(09-11-2012 5:35 PM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  It's nice to see you're still active here on the forum!

Even though I feel like a monkey most of the time I'm reading scientific articles, the information you just provided is very interesting. I never realised we are so dependent on the sense of smell!

Clearly, even most researchers don't realize that.

(09-11-2012 5:35 PM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  Do you think our current (21st century, globalised, western) diets favour or oppose human pheromone production?

I'm certain that nutrient chemicals alter human pheromone production but cannot be absolutely certain about the level of negativity in current diet-driven alterations.

(09-11-2012 5:35 PM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  Or that has more to do with cultural habits we didn't have in 1200 AD, like showering every day? Some guys in the forum like to eat a lot of celery. I've read there is Androstenone in it's cytoplasm.

Diet and culture go hand in hand in the alterations-- good or bad.

(09-11-2012 5:35 PM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  P.S.: I like the subtle sarcasm about Dr. Keller in the end, haha!

I dislike being ignored by colleagues who should be familiar with my works, but often seem not to be. One would think that those interested in information about olfaction and pheromones might at some point in the past 16 years looked at my domain, where I've blogged 270+ posts in the past 2-3 years. One might also think that I'm being ignored because I was not well-suited to academic pursuits like most of them seem to have been. It's hard for me to imagine how they could be taught anything new, which might explain why they ignore what's new from me. I don't teach it, I expect others will learn, or not.

Interesting stuff!

Pheromone output can be maximized by eating the right foods !


Now, what are the optimal right foods/ingredients ? :-)

Quote:I dislike being ignored by colleagues who should be familiar with my works, but often seem not to be. One would think that those interested in information about olfaction and pheromones might at some point in the past 16 years looked at my domain, where I've blogged 270+ posts in the past 2-3 years. One might also think that I'm being ignored because I was not well-suited to academic pursuits like most of them seem to have been. It's hard for me to imagine how they could be taught anything new, which might explain why they ignore what's new from me. I don't teach it, I expect others will learn, or not.

This is true, not only for you but also for consciousness researchers when it comes to academic 'standards'

(09-12-2012 3:40 PM)Thoth Wrote:  Interesting stuff!
This is true, not only for you but also for consciousness researchers when it comes to academic 'standards'

Thanks. It seems especially true for researchers involved with pheromones at any level of expertise. Roberto Bonasio, for example wrote: "Contrary to its original denomination as “junk” DNA, most of the 98% of the human genome devoid of protein-coding potential is transcribed, and a considerable fraction is also conserved in sequence among different species, more than would be expected by chance." in Emerging topics in epigenetics: ants, brains, and noncoding RNAs Roberto Bonasio Article published online: 12 JAN 2012 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06363.x

The publication date is of particular interest with the Sept 5 reporting about what can no longer be called “junk” DNA. So, we have a history here of invertebrate pheromone research that predicts what's now discussed in the context of 30 published works from teams of researcher around the world. Perhaps some of them should pay attention to what's happening here in the Research Forum so that they, too, can grasp the epigenetic continuum.

20+ years ago while in genetic engineering classes we called these "non-coding regions" but the science was very primitive with little use of computerized analysis and the reagents and assays were no where near as purified as they are now.

My research focused on DNA methylation as a secondary mechanism for inheritance and surviving selection pressures. DNA Methylation that blocks DNA regions from activity can be passed from mother to child and affects the ability of regions to transcribe. Methylation even survives the removal of a genome from the native cell after transplant into a donor cell.

This has been described in more recent work as "epigenetic memory" and can affect the development and function of an organism from fertilization to reproduction, from mammals all the way to fungi.

I have little doubt that some of the pheromone research will touch on this mechanism at some point, especially since it has been discovered that the foods we eat have bits of DNA and RNA from the food that survive digestion and float around in our bodies, most likely having effects on our cellular and hormonal function.

"We are what we eat" becomes very different when considering our diet and how the basic digested components of the food are used to fuel, build, and repair our bodies, and now it seems are capable of providing their genetic instruction sets in some form to our bodies' cellular machinery and receptors! Are vegans more plant-like due to some common sets of genetic codes acting in them and their food? Are carnivores more animal-like for the same reasons? Lots of research to come on this type of feedback mechanism for sure, and probably an even bigger backlash against Genetically Modified Organisms in our food chain.

So if we are consuming plant or animal foods where the organism itself depended on some pheromone for its lifecycle, it is plausible that some of the genetic codes from that food might make their way into our bodies and have some effects on how we produce and perceive the same pheromones - there is literally no way to know if this is happening until the DNA sequences for producing and reacting to pheromones are known and an assay to detect them in our blood can be created. And what if the genetic codes are the same between us and the food? There may be no way to know the source.

I think it would be more likely that the stuff left after food digestion as plant or animal hormones, proteins, etc. are active in our bodies and creating signals that affect us due to their presence alone or elevating naturally occurring levels in our bodies.

Even so, a whole new perspective between us and our environment is opened up, and we can only learn how to manage our lives and our relationship with our food sources in more responsible ways.

You might want to participate in this, but I'm not sure whether a subscription if required. I was able to post the first question, nonetheless, and am anxious to see whether its addressed in the context of my model.

3pm Thursday
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/20...Ev-I.email

Not only are we what we eat but the metabolism of nutrient chemicals to pheromones tells others who and what we are just like in all other species.

That makes it hard for human pheromone-deniers to keep denying the obvious facts, so we may see who decides to hedge their bets.

James V. Kohl

(09-12-2012 8:55 PM)2Soon2Care Wrote:  20+ years ago while in genetic engineering classes we called these "non-coding regions" but the science was very primitive with little use of computerized analysis and the reagents and assays were no where near as purified as they are now.

My research focused on DNA methylation as a secondary mechanism for inheritance and surviving selection pressures. DNA Methylation that blocks DNA regions from activity can be passed from mother to child and affects the ability of regions to transcribe. Methylation even survives the removal of a genome from the native cell after transplant into a donor cell.

This has been described in more recent work as "epigenetic memory" and can affect the development and function of an organism from fertilization to reproduction, from mammals all the way to fungi.

I have little doubt that some of the pheromone research will touch on this mechanism at some point, especially since it has been discovered that the foods we eat have bits of DNA and RNA from the food that survive digestion and float around in our bodies, most likely having effects on our cellular and hormonal function.

"We are what we eat" becomes very different when considering our diet and how the basic digested components of the food are used to fuel, build, and repair our bodies, and now it seems are capable of providing their genetic instruction sets in some form to our bodies' cellular machinery and receptors! Are vegans more plant-like due to some common sets of genetic codes acting in them and their food? Are carnivores more animal-like for the same reasons? Lots of research to come on this type of feedback mechanism for sure, and probably an even bigger backlash against Genetically Modified Organisms in our food chain.

So if we are consuming plant or animal foods where the organism itself depended on some pheromone for its lifecycle, it is plausible that some of the genetic codes from that food might make their way into our bodies and have some effects on how we produce and perceive the same pheromones - there is literally no way to know if this is happening until the DNA sequences for producing and reacting to pheromones are known and an assay to detect them in our blood can be created. And what if the genetic codes are the same between us and the food? There may be no way to know the source.

I think it would be more likely that the stuff left after food digestion as plant or animal hormones, proteins, etc. are active in our bodies and creating signals that affect us due to their presence alone or elevating naturally occurring levels in our bodies.

Even so, a whole new perspective between us and our environment is opened up, and we can only learn how to manage our lives and our relationship with our food sources in more responsible ways.

Thanks James, I'll take a look at it! My curiousity is really piqued by all the new research on this, seems like a revolution in food sciences is coming!

And good job in getting the first post in - hope your hit counter on your pub goes through the roof!
There wasn't an active hyperlink for your paper like the Bonasio paper, are you able to hyperlink to it in the post?

(09-12-2012 8:55 PM)2Soon2Care Wrote:  I have little doubt that some of the pheromone research will touch on this mechanism at some point, especially since it has been discovered that the foods we eat have bits of DNA and RNA from the food that survive digestion and float around in our bodies, most likely having effects on our cellular and hormonal function.

This is so interesting!!
Do you know the percentage of food that survives digestion or it wasn't disclosed in the study?