The Scourge that is ‘Man Flu’
In a study conducted by Dr Olivier Restif, a Royal Society University Research Fellow, and Professor William Amos at the University of Cambridge, a mathematical model was developed seeking to answer the question as to why men appear to be more prone to illness than women.
Prior studies indicate that not only are men at higher risk for infection, but that their illnesses are more severe and lingering. However, this apparent fact seems paradoxical in terms of evolutionary development because if men are more often exposed to disease than women (a generalization) shouldn’t they have developed a stronger immune system over time? Restif and Amos’ mathematical model incorporated many factors to quantify the male/female dynamic relationship between host and pathogen including: hormonal differences, extent of risk-taking behavior, bacterial/viral presence, and a key consideration often overlooked; the costs/benefits of immunity.
The study’s results indicate that the more adventurous lifestyles of males leads to greater exposure to infection, yet this also leads to lower immune protection. It is common knowledge that the human body adapts to handle external stimuli be it positive or negative, and Restif and Amos’ do not challenge this fact; instead they conclude that “above a certain level of exposure…the benefit of rapid recovery in males decreases owing to constant reinfection”. In other words, despite ridding oneself of infection at one point, the constant bombardment of pathogens males face due to their nature causes them to quickly become infected again. This ultimately means the benefit of evolving a stronger immunity isn’t worth the cost for males (a waste of time and effort). Hence, the genetic laziness of men has lead to observation that males have a weaker resistance to pathogens today; in retrospect this probably should have been more obvious since everyone knows men are ingrained with a ‘why bother’ attitude.
Furthermore, Restif and Amos stated that though their model only addresses diseases that transfer directly between hosts, the framework could be modified to pattern “sexually transmitted diseases and ‘vertical transmission’ from mother to offspring”, and similarly for a variety of future studies.
The method presented by Restif and Amos is important because it has the potential to provide extensive and novel understanding as to not only how but why viruses disseminate.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183485.php
Prior studies indicate that not only are men at higher risk for infection, but that their illnesses are more severe and lingering. However, this apparent fact seems paradoxical in terms of evolutionary development because if men are more often exposed to disease than women (a generalization) shouldn’t they have developed a stronger immune system over time? Restif and Amos’ mathematical model incorporated many factors to quantify the male/female dynamic relationship between host and pathogen including: hormonal differences, extent of risk-taking behavior, bacterial/viral presence, and a key consideration often overlooked; the costs/benefits of immunity.
The study’s results indicate that the more adventurous lifestyles of males leads to greater exposure to infection, yet this also leads to lower immune protection. It is common knowledge that the human body adapts to handle external stimuli be it positive or negative, and Restif and Amos’ do not challenge this fact; instead they conclude that “above a certain level of exposure…the benefit of rapid recovery in males decreases owing to constant reinfection”. In other words, despite ridding oneself of infection at one point, the constant bombardment of pathogens males face due to their nature causes them to quickly become infected again. This ultimately means the benefit of evolving a stronger immunity isn’t worth the cost for males (a waste of time and effort). Hence, the genetic laziness of men has lead to observation that males have a weaker resistance to pathogens today; in retrospect this probably should have been more obvious since everyone knows men are ingrained with a ‘why bother’ attitude.
Furthermore, Restif and Amos stated that though their model only addresses diseases that transfer directly between hosts, the framework could be modified to pattern “sexually transmitted diseases and ‘vertical transmission’ from mother to offspring”, and similarly for a variety of future studies.
The method presented by Restif and Amos is important because it has the potential to provide extensive and novel understanding as to not only how but why viruses disseminate.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/183485.php
posted by Joshua Mott at 7:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home