Have you ever had a ridiculous conversation about fictitious characters on a topic that isn't even plausible? Well, around Halloween time I found this graphic while looking for cartoons about genetics to share with the class I was teaching. It is based off of a Nature article from 2005 (Vol 436, 776) which I randomly ran across today. In this article they propose the idea of using “analogies of direct interest and relevance”, such as Harry Potter, to teach difficult topics in science, such as genetics, to younger children. While this example allows children to relate the topic to something easier to understand, the oversimplification of genetics by postulating wizardry as being inherited in a Mendelian fashion starts an interesting conversation for people who actually know genetics and are avid Harry Potter fans.
By assuming mendelian inheritance with being a wizard recessive to not, then, all wizards would be the same genetically for wizardry (ww). Whether you were full, half or mud, you would require two copies of the recessive allele to show the trait. It is not possible for it to be a dominant trait because muggle parents could never be able to produce wizard children; at least not without mutation (which sounds more X-Men than Hogwarts). Now, here is where things get complicated: unless there was some sort of incomplete penetrance (as they mention in the paper in regards to Neville) or environmental influence in the level of activation of that gene, this would not account for variations in wizarding ability.
In a rebuttal to that paper the following month (Nature Vol 437, 318, 2005), doctors at the University of Cambridge (might as well be from Hogwarts) posed some of the same concerns as me and my fellow graduate students. Hermione is born of muggle parents but is a wizard herself. By assuming that being a wizard is a recessive trait then both of Hermione’s parent would have to be carriers of the wizard gene, or heterozygous for wizarding, to allow her to get both recessive alleles. With both of her parents being heterozygous, odds are there was a wizard in the family somewhere along the line on both sides. It is possible, however, Hermione didn't know of her families potential wizarding past because it’s been many generations since there was a wizard or they kept their powers a secret.
They were also skeptical about the idea of incomplete penetrance being the culprit for Neville’s reduced wizarding abilities in comparison to his comrades because incomplete penetrance is associated with dominant alleles and this phenotype is determined by having none.
I think wizarding ability is greatly affected by level of intelligence, the environment and other non-wizard factors and is also not determined simply by one gene. I propose that there is some form of epistasis happening where multiple genes are interacting along a pathway to determine the phenotype. Multiple genotypes can then produce the same phenotype and there can be possible variants of said phenotype based on which genotype you receive, accounting for varying levels of wizarding ability.
In the rebuttal they state that “it is not possible, from the evidence presented so far, to conclude that wizarding is a heritable trait.” I, however, think with a little time with the series and creativity, the mode of inheritance can be determined (but ain't nobody got time for that).
Whether you're celebrating
Valentine's Day, Singles Awareness Day or Thursday
I hope it's filled with lots of love!
204 years ago Charles Robert Darwin was born and the life of one of the most influencial men in science began. Today, we celebrate the life of the man who first described natural selecton in relation to biological evolution and express our gratitude for the enormous benefits that his scientific knowledge has contributed to humanity simply because he ventured to think outside the box. Its Darwin's ingenuity and human curiosity that has allowed the sciences to expand in the way they have the past 150 years. When Darwin was alive, there was a lot of controversy and speculation behind his ideas (even now there are still a lot of people out there who think Darwin is a total quack, but those people are actually the ones quacking) but it is the questioning of and act of building on his ideas that has made such an impact on scientific thought. The Origin of Species, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals and, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (quite the racey title for 1871, huh?) allowed scientists to think of nature in a way they had never thought of before and build on new ideas of what nature was and can become. Darwin may not have been entirely correct with all of his theories but we cannot be anything but greatful for what he gave to the scientific community, and that's innovation.
Happy Birthday Big Guy!
One year ago today I was officially diagnosed with Rheumatic Fever. Since then my ASO titer (see Sick of Getting Sick for more info) has gone from 935 to an even 400, showing that I am well on my way to recovery. While I still have a ways to go, I am feeling healthier than I have in a long time (even with the unsurmountable stresses of graduate school). My doctor, Dr. Shikhman at the Institute for Specialized Medicine in California, is working with my doctor here at Texas A&M so I can utilize the clinic on campus, which is very convenient and pocket friendly. I can stop in between class and lab to chat with my case manager if I ever have a random question or concern and I get all of my injections and blood work done without having to drive all around town. It has been a bit difficult, as the injections still knock me out for a couple days after I get them and I occasionally get bouts of fatigue here and there, but I can only imagine what my life would be like if I weren't getting them. I am thankful for that diagnosis one year ago and even more thankful that the treatment is working!