Biological and social aspects of human sexual orientation: chemocommunicative hypothesis

Cover Page

Abstract


Failure to understand the role of biological and social factors in the formation of some socially important traits in humans can lead to the appearance of undue tension in interpersonal relationships. This is due to a distorted perception of man often unreliable information, its ambiguity due to the uncertainty of the terminology used and, as a consequence, the impossibility of its correct analysis. Using of term “sexual orientation” shows as a genetic understanding of the trait’s formation and data on sex formation control mechanisms may clarify and complement our knowledge on the subject. Under the theme chemocommunicative model is considered and its contribution to the formation of “sexual orientation” in humans.


Eugene V. Daev

St. Petersburg State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: mouse_gene@mail.ru

Russian Federation PhH, Professor

  1. Tzapigina R, Aref’ev A, Sverdlova O, Daev E. Pheromonal regulation hypothesis of the space-genetic structure of the house mouse (Mus musculus L.) populations. World Congress of landscape ecology, IALE, Abstr. Ottawa, Canada; 1991. P. 84.
  2. Инге-Вечтомов С.Г. Экологическая генетика. Что это такое? // Соросовский образовательный журнал. — 1998. — № 2. — С. 59–65. [Inge-Vechtomov SG. Jekologicheskaja genetika. Chto jeto takoe? Sorosovskij obrazovatel’nyj zhurnal. 1998;(2):59-65. (In Russ).]
  3. Holttum S. Research watch: the power of genetic and biological explanations to reduce social inclusion. Mental Health and Social Inclusion. 2012;16(3):116-120. doi: 10.1108/20428301211255383/.
  4. LeVay S. Gay, straight, and the reason why: the science of sexual orientation. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press; 2011. P. 1-412.
  5. Definition of terms: sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation. In: The guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients, adopted by the APA Council of Representatives; 2011. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx.
  6. American Heritage® Science Dictionary. Retrieved January 22, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual-orientation.
  7. Agate RJ, Grisham W, Wade J, et al. Neural, not gonadal, origin of brain sex differences in a gynandromorphic finch. PNAS. 2003;100(8):4873-4878. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0636925100.
  8. Ngun TC, Ghahramani N, Sánchez FJ, et al. The genetics of sex differences in brain and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. 2011;31:227-246. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2010.10.001.
  9. Ensemble genome browser release, 83. 2015. http://www.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Location/Genome (посл. вход 02.09.2016).
  10. Cytochrome P450, family 21, subfamily A, polypeptide 2; CYP21A2. http://omim.org/entry/613815?search=cyp21&highlight=cyp21 (посл. вход 01.09.2016).
  11. Steroid 5-alpha-reductase 2; SRD5A2. http://omim.org/entry/607306?search=srd5a2&highlight=srd5a2 (посл. вход 01.09.2016).
  12. Cytochrome P450, family 19, subfamily A, polypeptide 1; CYP19A1. http://omim.org/entry/107910?search=cyp19a1&highlight=cyp19a1 (посл. вход 01.09.2016).
  13. Yamauchi Y, Riel JM, Ruthig VA, et al. Two genes substitute for the mouse Y chromosome for spermatogenesis and reproduction. Science. 2016;351(6272):514-516. doi: 10.1126/science.aad1795.
  14. Sanders AR, Martin ER, Beecham GW, et al. Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychological Medicine. 2015;45:1379-1388. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714002451.
  15. Burri A, Cherkas L, Spector T, Rahman Q. Genetic and environmental influences on female sexual orientation, childhood gender typicality and adult gender identity. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(7):e21982. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021982.
  16. Alexander GM, Wilcox T, Woods R. Sex differences in infants’ visual interest in toys. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38:
  17. -433. doi: 10.1007/s10508–008–9430–1.
  18. Hines M. Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology. 2011;32:170-182. doi: 10.1016/j.yfrne.2011.02.006.
  19. McIntyre MH, Edwards CP. The early development of gender differences. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2009;38:83-97. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-.
  20. –164338.
  21. Ball GF, Balthazart J, McCarthy MM. Is it useful to view the brain as a secondary sexual characteristic? Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2014;46:628-638. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.08.009.
  22. Hines M, Brook C, Conway GS. Androgen and psychosexual development: Core gender identity, sexual orientation, and recalled childhood gender role behavior in women and men with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). The Journal of Sex Research. 2004;41(1):75-81. doi: 10.1080/00224490409552215.
  23. Kinsey, Alfred C, et al. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; Bloomington, IN: Indiana U. Press; 1953.
  24. Beaulieu-Prévost D, Fortin M. The measurement of sexual orientation: Historical background and current practices. Sexologies. 2015;24:e15-e19. doi: 10.1016/j.sexol.2014.05.006.
  25. National Research Council. The Health of lesbian, gay, bisexualand transgender people: building a foundation for better under-standing. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64806/ (посл. вход 01.09.2016).
  26. Andersen JP, Blosnich J. Disparities in Adverse Childhood Experiences among Sexual Minority and Heterosexual Adults: Results from a Multi-State Probability-Based Sample. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e54691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054691.
  27. Corliss HL, Cochran SD, Mays VM. Reports of parental maltreatment during childhood in a United States population-based survey of homosexual, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2002;26:1165-1178.
  28. Plöderl M, Tremblay P. Mental health of sexual minorities. A systematic review. International Review of Psychiatry. 2015;27(5):367-385. doi: 10.3109/
  29. 2015.1083949.
  30. Muscarella F. The Evolution of Male-Male Sexual Behavior in Humans. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 2007;18(4):275-311. doi: 10.1300/J056v18n04_02.
  31. Edward DA. The description of mate choice. Behavioral Ecology. 2015;26(2):301-310. doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru142.
  32. Kohl JV. The Mind’s Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 2006;18(4):313-369 (посл. вход 02.09.2016).doi: 10.1300/J056v18n04_03.
  33. Sela L, Sobel N. Human olfaction: a constant state of change-blindness. Exp Brain Res. 2010;205:13-29. doi: 10.1007/s00221–010–2348–6.
  34. Alexander BM, Skinner DC, Roselli CE. Wired on steroids: sexual differentiation of the brain and the role in the expression of sexual partner preferences. Frontiers in Еndocrinology. 2011;2:1-11. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2011.00042.
  35. McClintock MK. Estrous synchrony: modulation of ovarian cycle length by female pheromones. Physiol Behav. 1984;32:701-705.
  36. Russell MJ, Switz GM, Thompson K. Olfactory influences on the human menstrual cycle. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1980;13:737-738.
  37. Stern K, McClintock MK. Regulation of ovulation by human pheromones. Nature. 1998;392:177-179.
  38. Cadman SM, Kim S-H, Hu Y, et al. Molecular Pathogenesis of Kallmann’s Syndrome. Horm Res. 2007;67:231-242. doi: 10.1159/2F000098156.
  39. Garcia-Gonzalez D, Murcia-Belmonte V, Clemente D, de Castro F. Olfactory System and Demyelination. The Anatomical Record. 2013;296:1424-1434. doi: 10.1002/ar.22736.
  40. Martins Y, Preti G, Crabtree CR, et al. Preference for Human Body Odors Is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation. Psychological Science. 2005;16:694-701. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2005.01598.x.
  41. Даев Е.В. Психогенетика с основами генетики. — СПб.: Н-Л, 2015. [Daev EV. Psihogenetika s osnovami genetiki. Saint Petersburg: N-L; 2015. (In Russ).]
  42. Stevenson RJ. An Initial Evaluation of the Functions of Human Olfaction. Chem Senses. 2010;35:3-20. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjp083.
  43. Warr N, Greenfield A. The molecular and cellular basis of gonadal sex reversal in mice and humans. WIREs Dev Biol. 2012;1:559-577. doi: 10.1002/wdev.42.
  44. Berenbaum SA, Beltz AM. How early hormones shape gender development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2016;7:53-60. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.11.011.
  45. Герлинская Л.А. Механизмы поддержания гетерогенного воспроизводства в популяциях млекопитающих: Автореф. дис. … д-ра биол. наук. — Новосибирск, 2008. [Gerlinskaja LA. Mehanizmy podderzhanija geterogennogo vosproizvodstva v populjacijah mlekopitajushhih. [dissertation]. Novosibirsk; 2008. (In Russ).]
  46. Kimball BA, Cohen AS, Gordon AR, et al. Brain Injury Alters Volatile Metabolome. Chemical Senses. 2016;00(00):1-8. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjw014.
  47. Moshkin M, Gerlinskaya L, Morozova O, et al. Behaviour, chemosignals and endocrine functions in male mice infected with tick-borne encephalitis virus. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2002;27:603-608.
  48. Lie HC, Simmons LW, Rhodes G. Genetic dissimilarity, genetic diversity, and mate preferences in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2010;31:48-58. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.001.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files Action
1. Fig. 1. The order of processes during the sexual differentiation of multicellular organisms and genetic determination of phenotypic sex differences in humans. The growing influence of social environmental factors after birth, leading to the formation of gender differences in behavior is shown View (155KB) Indexing metadata
2. Fig. 2. A simplified model of human chemical signals participation in the formation of heterosexual orientation (a and b — for women and men, respectively). M and F — male and female chemosignals. Dotted arrows — select chemical signals, which developed numbness. Arrows DDCS observed a dose-dependent release of attractant chemical signals to which no desensitization (marked in gray). The curved arrow — the formation of SO in response to relevant chemosignals View (168KB) Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 3. Variants of SO in the case of violations of the reception of “male” (a) or “female” (b) chemical signals. Blocking reception is shown in bold black lines. HomoSO — homosexual orientation. The rest of the symbols are the same as for Fig. 2 View (132KB) Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 4. The mechanism of homosexual interest formation by the recipient in case of abnormal synthesis of sex-specific chemical signals and/or their disturbed excretion by the donor (marked with black crossed lines). The rest of the symbols are the same as for Fig. 2. CS — chemical signals View (121KB) Indexing metadata

Views

Abstract - 788

PDF (Russian) - 285

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2016 Daev E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.