GoodTaste
Key Member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2016
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
To look for clues of epigenetic agents at play in monogamous behaviour, neuroscientist Mohamed Kabbaj and his team at Florida State Universit. y in Tallahassee took voles which had been housed together for 6 hours but had not mated. The researchers injected drugs into the voles' brains near a region called the nucleus accumbens, which is closely associated with the reinforcement of reward and pleasure. The drugs blocked the activity of the enzyme histone deacetylase (which normally allows for genes to be transcribed).
Analysis found that the genes for the vasopressin and oxytocin receptors had been transcribed, and as a result the nucleus accumbens of the animals bore high levels of these receptors.
Source: Nature Gene switches make prairie voles fall in love
The grammar appears to be puzzling to me. Are "the genes" in the scope of "genes"? Usually it should have been so - yet here it seems to have encountered a dilemma in logic: The drugs blocked the activity of EHD (the enzyme histone deacetylase) which normally allows for genes to be transcribed, and so the genes should not be allowed to be transcribed under the influence of the drugs; now that the analysis found the genes get transcribed in defiance of the impact of the drugs.
Do you see the consistency of the expression? How to correctly understand it?
Sorry for the confusion - I don't have a clear clue to express my understanding - it seems to be a mixing of vague logic and grammar.
Analysis found that the genes for the vasopressin and oxytocin receptors had been transcribed, and as a result the nucleus accumbens of the animals bore high levels of these receptors.
Source: Nature Gene switches make prairie voles fall in love
The grammar appears to be puzzling to me. Are "the genes" in the scope of "genes"? Usually it should have been so - yet here it seems to have encountered a dilemma in logic: The drugs blocked the activity of EHD (the enzyme histone deacetylase) which normally allows for genes to be transcribed, and so the genes should not be allowed to be transcribed under the influence of the drugs; now that the analysis found the genes get transcribed in defiance of the impact of the drugs.
Do you see the consistency of the expression? How to correctly understand it?
Sorry for the confusion - I don't have a clear clue to express my understanding - it seems to be a mixing of vague logic and grammar.