Deaf marriages=increased chance of deaf kids

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,165
Reaction score
5
A high rate of marriage among deaf individuals can explain the increased frequency of connexin deafness in the United States
By: News-Medical
Published: Tuesday, 27-Apr-2004
**Printer Friendly **
*Email to a Friend

*
A high rate of marriage among deaf individuals can explain the increased frequency of connexin deafness in the United States and may have led to a doubling of its occurrence during the past 200 years, according to a study by hereditary deafness experts at Virginia Commonwealth University.
The VCU researchers used an innovative computer simulation to show that intermarriage among the deaf can dramatically accelerate the frequency of mutations in the gene encoding the protein connexin 26 that are responsible for most of the inherited hearing loss in the United States. That occurs because parents who both have connexin deafness pass the gene mutation to their child, usually causing deafness at birth and making a disproportionate contribution to the pool of deaf individuals in the next generation, according to the study which will be published in the June issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics. The study was published early online.
"In the United States, at least 85 percent of individuals with profound deafness marry another deaf person," says Dr. Walter Nance, professor of human genetics and lead author on the article. "Because we now know that more than 100 different genes are responsible for deafness, most deaf parents have children with normal hearing because they pass different genes to their offspring.
"But in the case of marriages among couples who both have the same form of recessive deafness, all their children will be deaf and capable themselves of also passing on the altered gene to their offspring. In addition, as many as 3.5 percent of the hearing population in the United States may carry single mutations involving the connexin 26 complex, making this one of the most commonly recognized single gene defects."
About one in 800 infants has profound hearing impairment, and about half of these cases are thought to be genetic in origin. Investigators are interested in learning more about deafness genes because deafness sometimes is accompanied by other conditions, such as blindness, and they are seeking ways to avoid or prevent these serious side effects.
Nance notes that intermarriages among the deaf started to increase about 1800 after the first schools to teach sign language were opened, improving the social and economic circumstances of the deaf and allowing them to communicate among themselves and with non-deaf individuals who learned sign language. Before that time, marriages among the deaf were rare.
"In regions where national or statewide schools for the deaf have been established and marriages among students have occurred, we've seen an amplication of the commonest form of recessive deafness in the overall population," he said.
These findings about how sign language contributed to intermarriages among the deaf and led to an increase in the frequency of connexin deafness in the United States and other developed countries have led Nance and his colleagues to speculate about how this genetic mechanism also may have been involved in the evolution of speech. The acquisition of syntactic speech generally is viewed as the most significant event in human evolution because it set man apart from other primates and led to an explosive evolution of the human brain by facilitating the transfer abstract knowledge, experience and culture.
There is general agreement that there has been an explosive acceleration in human evolution in the last 100,000-200,000 years, but the precise way in which the fixation of favorable genes in our species was accelerated has been one of the most important unresolved problems about human evolution.
"When you think about how the onset of selective marriages among deaf populations led to an increase in specific mutations for deafness, you easily can see how these same forces might have contributed to the spread of genes for speech among Homo sapiens 160,000 years ago," Nance said. "If you were one of the first primates with an ability to communicate by speaking, wouldn't you want to select a partner who could whisper sweet nothings in your ear?"
EDITORS' NOTE: A copy of Dr. Nance's article is available via e-mail in PDF format or by fax. For information, please call VCU News Services at (804) 828-1231.
 
I’ve posted this before, but here’s the abstract of that paper.

Testing the Hypothesis that Assortative Mating has Increased the Frequency of Cx 26 Deafness. W.E. Nance; Liu, R. Erdenetungalag, J. Radnaabazar, B. Dangaasuren, A. Pandya. Dept Human Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Richmond, VA; Dept Maternal and Child Health, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.

Using a novel extension of segregation analysis, we have shown that the frequency of homozygosity for Connexin 26 (Cx 26) mutations among the deaf in the U.S has increased from about 19% to 35% since 1800. We proposed the increasing frequency may be caused in part by the intense assortative mating for deafness in this country during that period (Lancet, in press). For a genetically heterogeneous recessive trait such as deafness, assortative mating preferentially increases the frequency of the commonest recessive genotype since these individuals account for a disproportionate share of the non-complementary matings that can only produce deaf offspring. To test our hypothesis, we screened for Cx 26 mutations in a sample of deaf Mongolian students who belong to a population without a long tradition of intermarriages among the deaf. At least half of the Mongolian population still lead a nomadic lifestyle; deaf students have been educated at a central school in Ulaanbaatar only since the mid 1950's; sign language was not introduced until 1994 and among 620 deaf probands at the school none had two deaf parents. Cx 26 testing has been completed by direct fluorescent sequencing of the coding exon in probands from 10 simplex and 18 multiplex sibships. Eleven were found to carry the V27I polymorphism, which has also been noted in other populations but no examples of the 35DelG mutation or any other pathologic allele was encountered. In contrast, the expected number of Cx 26(+) cases in a comparable U.S. sample would be 8(p<0.005). The low frequency of Cx 26(+) cases in a population where deaf marriages have been very uncommon in the past supports the view that assortative mating may explain the high frequency of this trait in other populations. Low Cx 26(+) rates in Japan and anecdotal reports from China and India are consistent with our data. If our hypothesis is correct, assortative mating may represent another important mechanism in addition to genomic instability and heterozygote advantage which can maintain specific phenotypes at unexpectedly high frequencies in the population.
 
they consider deafness as some kind of mutation eh? now that sounds alittle offensive
 
Steel said:
they consider deafness as some kind of mutation eh? now that sounds alittle offensive
I am one of x-men! I have a power that could not speak english but gibberish that no one, not even CIA can decipher! It means that my powers will help America win in the WW3.
 
Lol. Deafness IS a mutation in some ways. Genetically deaf people are deaf because of a mutation in their gene strand... some people consider this a godsend, and others consider this a burden. It's actually just how you view "mutants".
 
Miss-Delectable said:
"If you were one of the first primates with an ability to communicate by speaking, wouldn't you want to select a partner who could whisper sweet nothings in your ear?"

Just can see the primates whispering sweetly, "Oooga, ogga!" :)
 
Magatsu said:
I am one of x-men! I have a power that could not speak english but gibberish that no one, not even CIA can decipher! It means that my powers will help America win in the WW3.
:rofl:
 
Ziusudra said:
Lol. Deafness IS a mutation in some ways.

Deafness is a mutation. To a biologist, the word ‘mutation’ simply means an alteration to the genetic sequence of an existing cell line. Mutations can be good or bad. If they are bad, they cause disease. If they are good, we call it evolution.
 
I've always thought of liza as a mutation
 
Magatsu said:
I am one of x-men! I have a power that could not speak english but gibberish that no one, not even CIA can decipher! It means that my powers will help America win in the WW3.
:rofl: Me too! I'm Professor V! :twisted:
 
I know that if I had a kid with a deaf woman, it would be 50/50 because I'm actually hearing. I'm deaf because I became sick and my mother didn't take proper care of me.
 
I wouldnt mind doing that but knowing that I brought the deafness somehow on the kid would be a nice guilt trip if I intended to do this on purpose
 
I'm the only deaf person in the entire family (about 80 relatives overall)

but back in the 1880s, there was a guy who was born deaf as well and he was a ship builder so you know, there hasn't been another deaf person in the family until the next hundred of years later, the recessive genes of deafness kicked in, and then there I am...born deaf for some weird reason so...is deafness really part of the human evloution? and why would deafness be considered an improvement in the human genes where we can't hear and others can?

Just wondering :o
 
VamPyroX said:
I know that if I had a kid with a deaf woman, it would be 50/50 because I'm actually hearing. I'm deaf because I became sick and my mother didn't take proper care of me.

I wish it were that way for me. I know if I have a child with a deaf man, there would be a higher chance of having a deaf child. The deafness in my family is genetic, born hearing then gradually turn deaf. poo. =/
 
but knowing that I brought the deafness somehow on the kid would be a nice guilt trip if I intended to do this on purpose
Oh, I don't know.....To me deafness isn't that big of a deal. Compared to a lot of other more serious conditions (like Alhizheimer's, autism, mental retardation, and a host of others) , deafness is just as good as hearing.
so...is deafness really part of the human evloution? and why would deafness be considered an improvement in the human genes where we can't hear and others can?
Well maybe some of the genetic deafness may be due to the genes trying to correct a more serious genetic defect or solve an enviromentally caused problem. I know for example they have discovered that cystic fibrosis was the end result of two people with carrier genes marrying each other. Well duh...but the thing is, the reason why carrier genes exist is b/c the carrier genes helped protect the person against dystentry (which was very common way back when) The same is true for things like Sickle Cell aniemea and I think maybe even Tay-Sachs.
Not all deafness (and things considered disabilies) are genetic. Only a very small percentage of disabilties are genetic, and I think most genetic conditions are either denovo (happens as a random mutation as is my case) or recessive. (the person passing on the mutation is not affected, but does have the abilty to produce kids with "designer genes")
 
Steel said:
so...is deafness really part of the human evloution? and why would deafness be considered an improvement in the human genes where we can't hear and others can?

Deafness is simply a genetic variation, just like red hair or webbed feet. The fact that the mutation which causes deafness exists in the human genome doesn’t mean that it has an evolutionary advantage; it just means that it is not an evolutionary disadvantage. Since the genome for deafness is widespread in the human population (approximately one out of every 30 people is a recessive carrier) this indicates that deafness does not present a serious evolutionary disadvantage. It just doesn’t make that much difference. Genetic mutations are only weeded out of a population when they confer such a strong disadvantage that the carrier is unlikely to survive to reproductive age. A good example of this would be progeria—the disease that causes accelerated aging and causes the host to die from advanced cardiovascular disease by the age of 12 or 13. There are only about 30 cases of this disease in the United States at any given time. The reason that this genetic variation is so rare is that it kills its host before the host can reach reproductive age—so it was flushed from the human genome millions of years ago.

It’s possible that at one time in our evolutionary history deafness conferred a survivalistic advantage. Heightened visual acuity and the ability to communicate silently over long distances would obviously be extremely beneficial to a group of hunters. So deafness may have at one time ensured reproductive success by guaranteeing human populations an adequate food supply.
 
hmmm quite an interesting and understandable theory there, Levonian...it's all starting to make more sense.

You think that years ago, the deaf cavemen would proably survive better than the hearing cavemen? lol just a wild guess but of course, you know it's not really fun being deaf and all but I can understand that there are reasons for it and there are other ways to make up for your deafness, for many people who are disabled, always has other things to make up for, like smelling things that are very far away, can feel the vibrations better than others, etc...are all parts of the genes mutation? looks like it.

Maybe it is part of the evloution, because it seems that deafness is trying to improve the genes for other people in the future, right? not that all of the others would be deaf, but perhas to grow bigger and stronger, and live longer, etc...you know, the changes from recessive genes. Maybe in the future as deafness has helped them feel the vibrations better than the hearies, they might even be able to climb on walls like a spider lol because you can feel the vibrations anywhere...the floors, the ceilings, the walls, etc you know, just for protection and warns of danger, etc...just another wild guess but it might be possible.

evloution takes thousands and thousands of years to evolve into another completely different and improved form...so maybe deafness and blindness and others that makes people disabled for some reason are the beginings of the genetic improvements for the future.

sorry if it sounds lame or anything but hey I'm better at science than biogoly lol
 
deafdyke said:
I know for example they have discovered that cystic fibrosis was the end result of two people with carrier genes marrying each other. Well duh...but the thing is, the reason why carrier genes exist is b/c the carrier genes helped protect the person against dystentry (which was very common way back when) The same is true for things like Sickle Cell aniemea and I think maybe even Tay-Sachs.

Sickle cell anemia is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. People who have sickle cell anemia are immune to malaria. Even if left untreated, sickle cell anemia usually allows its host to live well into their mid-twenties. Malaria on the other hand, will decimate a population, with substantial numbers of victims dying in childhood. You can see, therefore, that sickle cell anemia was at one time in our evolutionary history a very strong pro-survivalist trait. The populations who had the sickle cell mutation lived long enough to pass on their genetic material, whereas the non-sickle cell populations didn’t survive to reproductive age. Which is why the genome is still widespread in certain populations. Now that malaria has been more or less controlled through modern technology, sickle cell anemia is now considered to be an undesirable disease. The same may be true of deafness. Now that the evolutionary need for deafness has been eliminated, deafness is now also considered to be an undesirable condition. Since modern technology has eliminated the threats that these genetic variations provided protection against, it is technology which has made these genetic mutations ‘diseases’, not the conditions caused by the mutations themselves.
 
Back
Top