Homo = same.
Zygote = of the zygote (fertilised egg).

It means that, for a given DNA sequence, you have the same information on both copies of it. As each copy came from a different parent, it means your parents had the same information as each other.
A common cause is related parents.

If you analyse someone’s entire DNA set, you can get a feel for exactly *how closely related* the parents were. The more events where the sequence is the same in both copies = higher degree of relatedness.
For some genetic diseases, you need two ‘bad’ copies of DNA to have the disease. The chances of you having the disease are therefore higher if your parents are related.
This explains high rates of genetic disease in families that practice ‘consanguinity’ (cousin marriage, uncle/niece or aunt/nephew marriage etc).
I’ve attended clinical genetics meetings where the level of homozygosity within a child’s DNA indicates very closely-related parents (dad/daughter). It’s very distressing to see.
For clarity: rates are ‘higher’, not necessarily what one would consider absolutely ‘high’.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Emma Hilton

Emma Hilton Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @FondOfBeetles

17 Apr
A perfect example of the muddled thinking regarding testosterone, advantage and sports categorisation.

‘T means better performance. It’s debatable whether that’s a sports advantage.’

There are two concepts of ‘advantage’ used in the wider discussion. I think of them as Start and Finish Line positions.
Read 19 tweets
10 Apr
This is an excellent analysis of an article typical of the genre seeking to deny the material reality of sex. @lecanardnoir
This photo is key to Andy’s analysis.

“But which of them is male and which is female? They look different with different wing markings, but unless you are a lepidopterist, it is unlikely you know – and if this was a new species no-one would know.”
“So, our knowledge of the sexes of each individual is non-existent. We do however know that one will be male and the other female.”
Read 7 tweets
7 Apr
An important review.

Considering Sex as a Biological Variable in Basic and Clinical Studies: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement | Endocrine Reviews | Oxford Academic academic.oup.com/edrv/advance-a…
All serious scientific agencies are outlining requirements for clear definitions of sex as it pertains to biology studies.

The Endocrine Society is not the first to make such statements, but this is comprehensive.
Many guidelines, including those from the NIH and the European Commission, demand separation of sex from gender (where the latter is irrelevant in all non-human studies).

And demand clarity on both sex and gender.
Read 5 tweets
6 Apr
The number of people displaying an abject lack of knowledge about the history of colonialism in Africa is frankly mind blowing.

Do you not look at maps? Wonder about languages and town names? Read any books by African writers? About economics? About foreign aid?
Never curious about the various secessions or civil wars? The stripping of mineral resources?

I am no expert, not by a long shot, but how on earth do you avoid it?
I’m not arguing that the average person should have in-depth knowledge. I’m asking how anyone can express surprise at older colonial territory maps and not look phenomenally stupid.
Read 5 tweets
30 Mar
‘there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.’

Peak idiocy. Right there, the most stupid thing I’ve ever read. cnn.com/2021/03/28/us/…
I. Just. Can’t.

The conformation of external genitalia has extremely reliably permitted sex identification from birth, and increasingly, in utero.

A kid could do it. And get it right almost all the time.
The demand that the world bows to ‘assigned’ is because some people don’t think physical anatomy reflects whatever bonkers idea of ‘sex’ they wish to promote.
Read 4 tweets
29 Mar
@MediClit The key with socialisation is that one is not making a truly free choice. It can feel like a free choice, it can framed as one, but socialisation constrains the options, even if one does not realise it.
@MediClit Lots of women are afraid to speak intimately about their anatomy. That’s the result of years of being, say, teased at school, told that vulvas/vaginas smell, that being hairy is ‘gross’. It all impacts on how we process stuff and how we respond to stuff.
@MediClit You’ve revealed your medical history. You were socialised regarding how labia ‘should look’. Many women, including me for many aspects, are socialised about how hairy their legs ‘should be’, or that they look old/tired without makeup.

It’s not a weakness to recognise that.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!