Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:42:26.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Bird's Eye View of Human Sex Determination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the beginning the dogma was that sex determination in man followed the Drosophila pattern in which XO is male, XXY female, and the Y chromosome has no direct influence on the determination of sex. On the grounds of specific anomalies with which they presented, females with Turner Syndrome were sex chromatin tested and found to be chromatin negative [1]. This result, confirmed in 1956 by the male frequency of red-green colour blindness in these subjects which indicated that they carried only one X chromosome in spite of their female phenotype, suggested that therefore they might be XO, and, so, hinted that sex determination in man might not follow the then accepted pattern [2]. In 1959 chromosome studies confirmed that XOs were female [3] and showed that subjects with the symmetrical XXY sex-chromosome anomaly were with Klinefelter syndrome [4]. In the same year, by showing that XOs were females also in mice [5] it became accepted that the Y chromosome was the determiner of the formation of the testis in the mammalian embryo, and so was the key element in primary sexual differentation. It would seem appropriate to call this formal model of chromosomal sex determination the Malandrium pattern [6].

In 1966 Jacobs and Ross [7], from work on males with Y chromosome deletions narrowed down the testis determining function of the Y chromosome to its short arm. Then, in 1975, Wachtel and collaborators [8] were the first to formulate a hypothesis on the sex determining gene, or, more precisely on the nature of its product. They suggested that this developmental role might be played by the H-Y antigen, a weak histocompatibility antigen which had been known to be involved in the rejection of male skin grafted onto otherwise histocompatible female mice. The idea had run into technical difficulties and a major problem was related to the significance that should be attached to the results of two different ways for demonstrating the antigen, namely the cell-mediated cytotoxicity test or the serological test. Efforts were made to keep the H-Y hypothesis alive, largely because there was a certain elegance about it [9, 10]. However eventually XX male mice, lacking H-Y by either test, spelt the end of the candidature of H-Y as the testis determining mechanism [11, 12].

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. Polani, PE, Hunter, WF et al. (1954): The Lancet II: 120121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Polani, PE, Lessof, MH. et al. (1956): The Lancet I: 118120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ford, CE, Jones, KW et al. (1959): The Lancet I: 711713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Jacobs, PA, Strong, JA (1959): Nature 183: 302303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Welshons, WJ, Russel, LB (1959): Proc Nat Acad Sci USA, 45: 560566.Google Scholar
6. Westergaard, M (1958): Advanc Genet 9: 217247.Google Scholar
7. Jacobs, PA, Ross, A (1966): Nature 210: 352–236.Google Scholar
8. Wachtel, SS, Ohno, S (1975): Nature 210: 352354.Google Scholar
9. Polani, PE, Adinolfi, M (1983): J Immunogenet 10: 85102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Polani, PE, (1985): In Ghesquire, J, Martin, RD Eds Human sexual dimorphism Taylor & Francis, London 443445.Google Scholar
11. McLaren, A, Simpson, E et al. (1984). Nature 312: 552555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Goldberg, EH, Mclaren, A et al. (1984): J Reprod Immunol. Google Scholar
13. Jones, KW, Singh, L (1981): Hum Genet 58: 4653.Google Scholar
14. Singh, L, Jones, K.W. (1982): Cell (Cambridge, Mass), 28: 205216.Google Scholar
15. Evans, EP, Burtenshaw, MD, et al. (1982): Nature, 300.Google Scholar
16. Ferguson Smith, MA (1966): Lancet, II, 475476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Evans, HJ, Buckton, KE (1979): Hum Genet 49: 1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Solari, AJ (1980): Chromosoma 81: 315337.Google Scholar
19. Polani, PE (1982): Hum Genet 60: 207211.Google Scholar
20. Burgoyne, PS (1982): Hum Genet: 61: 8590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Polani, PE (1981): In Austin, CR, Edwards, RG, Eds Mechanisms of Sex Differentiation in Animals and Man 465547 Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
22. Haldane, JBS (1936): Ann Eugen 7: 2857.Google Scholar
23. Fisher, RA (1936): Ann Eugen 7: 87104.Google Scholar
24. Maklin, MT (1952): Amer J Hum Genet 4: 1430.Google Scholar
25. Sachs, L (1954): Ann Eugen 255261.Google Scholar
26. Goodfellow, PN (1987): Development (Cambridge), Suppl 101: 119125.Google Scholar
27. Muller, U (1987): Development (Cambridge), Suppl 101: 5158.Google Scholar
28. Page, DC, Mosher, R et al. (1987): Cell (Cambridge, Mass) 51: 10911104.Google Scholar
29. Page, DC (1988): Phil Trans R Soc London, B, 322: 155157.Google Scholar
30. Palmer, MS, Sinclair, AH (1989): Nature 346: 240244.Google Scholar
31. Sinclair, AH, Berta, P, et al. (1990): Nature 346: 240244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Goodfellow, PN, Hawkins, JR et al. (1991): In Davies, SM Tilghman Eds Genome Analysis, 3, Cold Spring Harbor Lab Press.Google Scholar
33. Berta, P, Hawkins, JR et al. (1990): Nature 348: 448450.Google Scholar
34. Gubbay, J, Collignon, J et al. (1990): Nature 346: 245250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Koopman, P, Gubbay, J et al. (1991): Nature 351: 117121.Google Scholar
36. Koopman, P, Munstreberg, A et al. (1990): Nature 348: 450452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Goodfellow, PN, Lovell Badge, R (1993): Ann Rev Genet 27: 7192.Google Scholar
38. Jost, A, Magre, S (1988): Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 322: 5561.Google Scholar
39. Mittwoch, U (1992): Hum Genet 89: 467479.Google Scholar
40. Tommerup, N, Schempp, W et al. (1993): Nature Genetics 4: 170174.Google Scholar
41. Eicher, EM (1988): Phil Trans R Soc Lond B322: 109118.Google Scholar
42. Fredga, K, Gropp, A et al. (1976): Nature 261: 255257.Google Scholar