drugs blocked the activity of EHD (which normally allows for genes to be transcribed). Analysis found that the genes for V. & O. transcribed

[GoodTaste]

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.

 

[Tarheel]

Perhaps: "How should I understand it?"

I'm afraid I don't see what the problem is. The writer of that piece doesn't assume that everybody reading it knows and understands the technical terms. The explanations are very helpful.

Where is the problem there?

 

[GoodTaste]

The question goes basically like this: Using x to block the flow of gas (the gas normally allows a gas car to get power to move); now analysis found that the gas car moves without gas (because the flow of gas is blocked by x).
Can you see some problem in logic or grammar here? Note that we are talking about reality rather than magic.

Now go back to the OP. I guess the "secret" is in the word "normally" (The drugs blocked the activity of the enzyme histone deacetylase (which normally allows for genes to be transcribed) The analysis found abnormality in the experiemnt. OK just a guess.

 

[Tarheel]

I think you're making things too complicated.

 

[GoodTaste]

I think you're making things too complicated. Anyhow, it's past my bedtime.

What? I thought I've made it simpler to read.

But the question is indeed a bit complicated. Unless you, esp. native speakers, are interested in biology regarding epigenetis, I suggest you not to answer it.

 

[Tarheel]

A

What? I thought I'd made it simpler to read.

But the question is indeed a bit complicated. Unless you, esp. native speakers, are interested in biology regarding epigenetics, I suggest that you don't bother reading it.

Well, as I said before, the writer of this piece took the trouble to explain things. Maybe it's for a general audience.
.
I can reread the OP to see what I missed the first time.

 

[Tarheel]

The drug created an abnormal situation, which is why it was worth mentioning what is normal.

The entire phrase is "the genes for the vasopressin and oxytocin receptors," and there is no reason to focus on just two words.

I'm not sure it's for a general audience. Most of us would trouble understanding it. However, I get the general idea.

 

[GoodTaste]

The drug created an abnormal situation, which is why it was worth mentioning what is normal.

The entire phrase is "the genes for the vasopressin and oxytocin receptors," and there is no reason to focus on just two words.

I'm not sure it's for a general audience. Most of us would trouble understanding it. However, I get the general idea.

Can you see what "the drug" refers to? In the passages that follow the OP, for example, "“Mating activates this brain area which leads to partner preference — we can induce this same change in the brain with this drug,” explains Kabbaj", it is not cleasr what "this drug" is. The content of the article, from the start to the end, is haunted with "the drugs" or simply "drugs/chemicals" rather than "the/this drug", which makes some readers scratch their heads.

As I reread the starting part, the word "dosed" comes into view: "Monogamous prairie voles are known to have higher levels of receptors for these neurotransmitters; and when otherwise promiscuous montane voles (M. montanus) are dosed with oxytocin and vasopressin, they adopt the monogamous behaviour of their prairie cousins". It seems to be probable that "this drug" points to "oxytocin and vasopressin" - but they are two rather than one drug; or perhaps the drug is the combination of the two, I am not sure.

 

[Tarheel]

You make some good points, I'm sure.

We could spend hours discussing this one.

You say there's a mystery about what particular drug was used. That should be mentioned in the article. If it isn't, I can't help.

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not sure I understand what exactly is puzzling you. Here's the abstract from the paper (my highlighting):

Abstract​

In the socially monogamous prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), mating induces enduring pair-bonds that are initiated by partner preference formation and regulated by a variety of neurotransmitters, including oxytocin, vasopressin and dopamine. We examined potential epigenetic mechanisms mediating pair-bond regulation and found that the histone deacetylase inhibitors sodium butyrate and trichostatin A (TSA) facilitated partner preference formation in female prairie voles in the absence of mating. This was associated with a specific upregulation of oxytocin receptor (OTR, oxtr) and vasopressin V1a receptor (V1aR, avpr1a) in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), through an increase in histone acetylation at their respective promoters. Furthermore, TSA-facilitated partner preference was prevented by OTR or V1aR blockade in the NAcc. Notably, mating-induced partner preference triggered the same epigenetic regulation of oxtr and avpr1a gene promoters as TSA. These observations indicate that TSA and mating facilitate partner preference through epigenetic events, providing, to the best of our knowledge, the first direct evidence for epigenetic regulation of pair-bonding.

Does that address your question?

 

[GoodTaste]

The information is useful.
Can you see "which" refers back to in the following OP's sentence?
The drugs blocked the activity of the enzyme histone deacetylase (which normally allows for genes to be transcribed).

To me, "which" appears referring back to the histone deacetylase - this enzyme normally allows for genes to be transcribed, blocking it would lead to genes not being transcribed. The problem is that in the next sentence, the author says "Analysis found that the genes for the vasopressin and oxytocin receptors had been transcribed". So it seems something mysterious happens to make the blockage stop working.

The title of the paper is: Histone deacetylase inhibitors facilitate partner preference formation in female prairie voles. These "Histone deacetylase inhibitors" should have been the drugs that block the activity of the enzyme histone deacetylase.

 

[Tarheel]

Say: "which appears to refer to ...."

I think I understand it well enough for somebody who is not a biologist.

 

[jutfrank]

I don't understand the science very well but I think that when it says the drugs 'blocked the activity' of histone deacetylase, it means only partial blocking. It's still possible for some transcription to take place. I'm not sure, though.