Estrogen receptor 1 promoter polymorphism and digit ratio in men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The 2D:4D digit ratio, the relative lengths of the index and ring fingers in humans, is a widely used proxy measure for prenatal testosterone exposure. Varying distributions of androgen and estrogen receptors on the second and fourth digits, both of which regulate digit development, appears to be the basis for this effect. Polymorphism in a tandem repeat in the gene coding for the estrogen receptor α (ESR1) in zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata) not only explains a significant amount of variation in digit ratio but also seems to explain the significant correlation between digit ratio and sexual behavior in these birds. Here, we investigate the effect of TA polymorphism in ESR1 on 2D:4D and aggressive behavior in men. METHODS: We genotyped ESR1 polymorphism in samples collected for a previous study in which we had demonstrated an association between androgen receptor polymorphism and aggression, but not 2D:4D. RESULTS: We found a significant effect of ESR1 TA repeat number on left hand 2D:4D ratio. More TA repeats were associated with higher, more feminized, digit ratios. We found no effect on right hand 2D:4D. We also found an effect of ESR1 polymorphism on aggressive behavior. Greater heterozygosity in TA(n) was associated with lower physical aggression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a significant amount of left hand 2D:4D variation and aggressive behavior is due to this variation in ESR1, and that some of the correlation between digit ratio and social behavior is due to pleiotropic effects of ESR1 variation on the two traits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".