Working picture of the excavation of a skeleton on the Lincoln Eastern Bypass site.Credit: Network Archaeology
Posted on 01/25/2024 9:13:31 AM PST by SunkenCiv
As part of their research published in Communications Biology, they also identified the earliest known person with Jacob's syndrome (characterized by an extra Y chromosome—XYY) in the Early Medieval Period, three people with Klinefelter syndrome (characterized by an extra X chromosome—XXY) across a range of time periods, and an infant with Down Syndrome from the Iron Age.
Most cells in the human body have 23 pairs of DNA molecules called chromosomes, and the sex chromosomes are typically XX (female) or XY (male), although there are differences in sexual development. Aneuploidy occurs when a person's cells have an extra or missing chromosome. If this occurs in the sex chromosomes, a few differences like delayed development or changes in height can be seen around puberty...
The team at the Crick developed a computational method that aims to pick up more variation in sex chromosomes. For the sex chromosomes, it involves counting the number of copies of X and Y chromosomes, and comparing the outcome to a predicted baseline (what you would expect to see).
The team used the new method to analyze ancient DNA from a large dataset of individuals collected as part of their Thousand Ancient British Genomes project across British history, identifying six individuals with aneuploidies across five sites in Somerset, Yorkshire, Oxford and Lincoln (two sites). The individuals lived across a range of time periods, from the Iron Age (2,500 years ago) up to the Post-Medieval Period (about 250 years ago).
They identified five people who had sex chromosomes that fell outside the XX or XY categories. All were buried according to their society's customs, although no possessions were found with them to shed more light on their lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Working picture of the excavation of a skeleton on the Lincoln Eastern Bypass site.Credit: Network Archaeology
It’s less rare than Overdrive Syndrome, but these researchers seem to be people who are taking care of business, so, matter of time.
Hopefully, they’ll keep working on their technique.
These results sound hardly definitive. Maybe this “ancient tissue” doesn’t match what they have set up, probably using fresher samples.
Science seems to be all hyperbole, these days. It probably generates more grant money, though there may be some fun in imaging a past full of freaks and mutants.
“All were buried according to their society’s customs, although no possessions were found with them to shed more light on their lives.”
Doesn’t that show low status?
As opposed to living in a present full of freaks and mutants?
Perhaps, but I don’t think this is necessarily genetic.
I was thinking more along the lines of “Shrek” being a historical document. Next, they will identify the remains of a talking donkey.
My older sister had Turner Syndrome. She was plagued by lifelong abnormalities in all kinds of health problems.
She passed away in 2016 from heart problems. Her stint blew out while she was watching television late at night. She was 64 years old, which is quite good for a Turner Syndrome patient. Normal life expectancy is around 50.
Not necessarily.
Having a child with abnormalities was in most societies considered a shame or punishment from God and the child kept out of sight.
When this child died they most likely would be buried without any pubic service or honors.
Yup. Or their possessions may have been modest, and in the form of nice clothing which deteriorated into dust during the past couple thousand years.
It’s definitely Turner Syndrome, or Jacob’s Syndrome, or Klinefelter Syndrome with degraded or maybe cross contaminated DNA.
Interesting. You made me look it up.
It’s odd that Turner Syndrome is described as a woman with a missing X chromosome, when it could just as easily be a man with a missing Y. Of course, the suffering person may well exhibit only female traits.
My complaint is that the technique described seems no where near as definitive as identifying intact cells in tissue with the malady. It sounds to me like what has been found could more easily be explained by other means, such as selective breakdown of whatever markers they are looking for.
Of course, if the findings are well within the norms of what currently exists, then it isn’t really saying much. But far outside the norm would lead me to question the methodology before the results.
I like how at the end they talk about looking at trying to look at this beyond the binary.
Thing is, these issues are extremely rare - that doesn’t elinimate the binary. Try throwing a, “2” between the 1’s and 0’s and see what happens.
Not expert but this seems implausible and no I do not trust the science
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
