Genetic Switches Behind 'Love' Identified In Prairie Voles

ananyo writes "Researchers have shown for the first time that the act of mating induces permanent chemical modifications in the chromosomes (epigenetic changes), affecting the expression of genes that regulate sexual and monogamous behavior in prairie voles. Prairie voles have long been of interest to neuroscientists and endocrinologists who study the social behavior of animals, in part because this species forms monogamous pair bonds — essentially mating for life. The voles' pair bonding, sharing of parental roles and egalitarian nest building in couples makes them a good model for understanding the biology of monogamy and mating in humans (abstract)."

Comments

Good model?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The voles' pair bonding, sharing of parental roles and egalitarian nest building in couples makes them a good model for understanding the biology of monogamy and mating in humans

A good model for ideal human behavior, sure, but actual behavior?!? One wonders if the researchers have met any actual human couples.

Re:Good model?!?

[dragon-file]

The voles' pair bonding, sharing of parental roles and egalitarian nest building in couples makes them a good model for understanding the biology of monogamy and mating in humans

A good model for ideal human behavior, sure, but actual behavior?!? One wonders if the researchers have met any actual human couples.

Of course they haven't met actually human couples. They're researchers.

Re:Good model?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife is the type that got turned on by me being with other women. While this sounds awesome, I quickly found that it was too much trouble dealing with one (both physically and mentally), let alone multiple women was not as good as being monogamous. I think people stray from their partners for immediate, temporary gratification because of hormones and the excitement. If this option was on the table, folks would learn quickly the value of having one person

Re:Good model?!?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The voles' pair bonding, sharing of parental roles and egalitarian nest building in couples makes them a good model for understanding the biology of monogamy and mating in humans

A good model for ideal human behavior, sure, but actual behavior?!? One wonders if the researchers have met any actual human couples.

People like the vole model because prairie voles are(somewhat atypically) pair-bonded; but there is at least one closely related vole flavor that isn't. Makes narrowing down the elements involved (comparatively) pleasant and straightforward, by biology standards. Plus, 'vole' is pretty close to 'lab rat' in terms of size/cost/lifecycle-length/animal-rights-activists-setting-fire-to-your-lab, which makes it preferable to larger, more unwieldy, comparison animals.

Re:Good model?!?

[Immerman]

Indeed. Primate monogmay correlates fairly well with proportional testical size - by which measure humans fall about midway between gorillas (where the females will reject advances by anyone but their troop leader) and chimpanzees (who use sex for a wide variety of social purposes and demonstrate almost no prolonged sexual pair-bonding).

I would be inclined to suggest that holding long-term monogamy as the "ideal" human behavior is itself the source of the vast majority of the problems our species encounters in that domain. There are (were?) considerably advantages to such an arrangement when trying to establish stable sociological institutions upon which empires can be built, but those advantages come at the expense of trying to distort our basic natures into something that they are, generally speaking, not inclined to be.

Re:Good model?!?

[dcollins]

So you support a society in which everyone is permanently miserable, because it serves to successfully perpetuate the permanently-miserable society.

Well, you're certainly not alone.

Re:Good model?!?

[lgw]

So you think that for a society in which there are two live-in caregivers the normal state is misery? Wow, you must be pretty unhappy.

I think the big problem was that, for lack of reliable birth control, "sex for fun" got tangled up with "raising children". Spending 20 years with someone just because you had sex with them no doubt makes for much unhappiness. OTOH, waiting to have kids until you're ready to commit long term (as opposed to waiting to have sex until you're ready to commit long term) has proven itself a good strategy for the kids.

Or the opposite

[cellocgw]

Somehow I strongly doubt that any such epigenetic (or other) monogamy-influencing event takes place when humans mate.

Re:Or the opposite

[Immerman]

There is minimal evidence to suggest that humans are biologically predsposed to long-term pair bonding at all, in fact there's considerable evidence to the contrary. Oxytocin does however seem to be a significant agent in the amount of pair-bonding we are predisposed to.

The problem is that researchers like these try to use species that are biologically inclined to long-term monogamy as models for an unrelated species (us) that are sociologically biased towards it. Because the basic fact is that sociological behaviors operate on an almost completely different set of rules, and changes on timescales that genetics can't hope to respond to effectively.

So how about for a change instead of trying to shoehorn human behavior into some sort of arbitrary "moral ideal", we instead take a good hard look at what we actually are, and adjust our sociological and moral norms to be in line with our basic natures. Socially enforced monogamy was a useful solution to support child-rearing as our societies grew beyond the scale where tribalism was effective, but it was hardly the *only* solution, and irrationally clinging to it as the ideal today, when pretty much everything else about our society has been utterly transformed, is intellectually questionable at best.

NIMH

[Antipater]

"This is a study I myself wanted to do years ago,” says Thomas Insel, who heads the US National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. “...This study for me really is the first experimental demonstration that the epigenetic change would be necessary for the long-term change in behaviour.”

Insel continued. "Unfortunately, due to a scandalous bit of contrived fiction, we here at NIMH have been prohibited from doing this kind of work for decades. Every attempt to work on a rodent model is sabotaged, with a Frisbee left at the scene and the words 'REMEMBER NICODEMUS' spray-painted on the wall. Police never found a suspect, and eventually Congress pulled the funding. Hopefully our colleagues at Florida State can continue this valuable work without such interference!"

Bonobos

[dcollins]

"a good model for understanding the biology of monogamy and mating in humans"

Are humans that close to prairie voles? Because bonobos, our closest actual relation evolutionary speaking, are highly sexualized and totally polygamous.

http://brembs.net/bonobos.html

Of course, if one is seeking to bolster some culturally-determined myth of monogamy (so as to uphold property rights and inheritance, perhaps) then you've got to look pretty far afield for examples of monogamous species.

Re:Except...

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, no. Any mistakes perceived by the vole would be removed by the chemical modifications.

Praire voles have permanent beer-goggles.

Re:Except...

[femtobyte]

Humans aren't entirely monogamous, but along the spectrum observed in other species --- from rigid monogamy to "mate with anything that moves" --- humans are at least semi-monogamous; frequently pair-bonding, if not for life, at least for the relatively long period for offspring to be born and reach self-sufficient maturity. Understanding the biological mechanisms backing "strongly monogamous" mammalian behavior may also provide information about what biological mechanisms contribute to humans' less total tendencies towards monogamy.

Re:Except...

[MightyYar]

Just because biology is talking, doesn't mean you have to listen.

If that's your strategy, you probably are destined for disappointment. IMHO, it's best to learn how to identify and avoid situations that force you to confront your biology.

Re:Hypergamy Cure?

[femtobyte]

One can hardly call this "human nature" when pretty much every other developed country has higher equality and social mobility --- if anything, the US is bucking the trend of human nature to seek higher ideals of equality and freedom once technological development allows the satisfaction of lower needs. Of course, the key is not convincing more rich white male rich guys to marry their Mexican maids despite a complete lack of shared culture, but to create a society where there is a sense of shared culture and humanity between people in all walks of life. For example, having a robust and high-quality public education system so both the kids of millionaires and janitors grow up socializing together is a key component in more egalitarian societies. So to is having high minimum wage standards and social safety nets, so that even maids can have time/access to hobbies and culture and forming relationships outside of a depressed community of grinding poverty. When living on a lower quintile income isn't a death sentence for your children's hopes and dreams and future, then there is much less of a barrier to marrying for love across income lines.

Humans aren't monogamous though

[GodfatherofSoul]

Culturally maybe, but not biologically. I just read an article a few months back about why our penises are shaped the way they are. Basically, the head is optimized to siphon another male's semen out of a woman during the thrusting action. That slightly uncomfortable sensitivity you feel after orgasm is nature's way to stop your thrusting so you don't accidentally siphon out your own semen.