• girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Beyond mice, researchers also examined blood samples from 100 patients — and uncovered autoantibodies targeting Xist-associated proteins that scientists hadn’t previously linked to autoimmune disorders. A potential reason, Chang suggests: standard tests for autoimmunity were made using male cells.

    I’m am glad they decided to look at other samples. As a woman I find it extremely frustrating that science is still using male cells, testing standards, etc to diagnose and treat women.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      If it helps, the HeLa cell line, very popular in scientific research, comes from an African American woman: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

      I guess the reason for using only male cells in this case, might’ve been that if they’re running the test either on a self-replicating cell line, or on a heavily inbred strain of lab mice, where both X chromosomes are supposed to be “practically identical” due to the inbreeding, while one of them gets inactivated in females, then running a test on cells with both X and Y chromosomes, would already include “all there was to see”, with only half the work.

      It’s interesting to see some advances in the understanding of the interaction of two X chromosomes, and how the result is not exactly the same as a single X.

      • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The HeLa line had its own male-dominated issues, ie: denying her family a right to any money from the use of her genetics … which, once rectified, led to a signing away of any rights for people who have an interest in helping advance scientific and medical knowledge and/or treatments.

        I know this because I was asked to become part of a study, but after reading the contract that clearly stated I (and my family/descendants) would be shut out of any and all financial compensation, I declined.

        While I agree with this if/when a government agency or university developes treatments or cures, I do not agree with it when the info is given freely to for-profit big pharma for them to make trillions from.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          her genetics

          Honestly, I don’t see how any person is entitled to the ownership of info that’s shared with 99.9% of humanity, and which neither them nor any of their ancestors had any hand in creating.

          It’s not like anyone has any custom handcrafted genes (yet). Other than a handful new mutations, even a possible copyright of “until death + 75 years” would have expired a long time ago.

          Big pharma copyrighting and patenting the results of their investigations, makes more sense in this case; they’ve at least done something.

          I was asked to become part of a study

          You should have the right to get compensated for participating in a study, or for allowing them to associate the info with your name. I just think the info itself is part of the public domain.

          Like, if you freely leave a fingerprint somewhere public, and someone decides to extract the DNA from that, then proceeds to use it to develop a treatment, cure, bioweapon, clone you, or test the safety of some extra wings genetic augmentation… then good for them.

    • derbis@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Male mouse cells no less. Of all the things we have to worry about, we gonna throw mouse sexism on the pile?

  • soaproot@sfba.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    @Gaywallet This particular link wasn’t opening for me. But what I have heard elsewhere is that there are indeed known to be a number of parts of the X chromosome which affect the immune system, in ways we are still in the process of figuring out.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s an interesting article, and well exposed.

      It basically goes to say that the inactivation mechanism (Xist noncoding RNA strand) which gets triggered when there are two X chromosomes present in a cell, almost completely coats one of the X chromosomes, disabling it… but the result is not completely inert, still allowing the attachment of other partial strands, in weird combinations that can lead to an (auto)immune response.