We are going to have to ask for the experts to comment on this one. The BBC reports (thanks for the tip Mytri):
Indians infected with the AIDS virus are more likely to contract the disease than people in the west, a new study has found.
Scientists say that Indians have lower immunity to the virus because they have genes that hasten the disease.
India says more than five million of its citizens are infected with the HIV virus, second only to South Africa.
Activists say the number of Indians affected by HIV/Aids is much higher than the government says.
Scientists at India’s premier medical school, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), studied 200 people with HIV infection and 2000 healthy people over two years for the study.
I always try to look at genetic anomalies in terms of evolutionary pressures. In cases where none are obvious I just shrug my shoulders and wait for an explanation.
“Protective genes are low among Indians while the harmful genes are more common,” Dr NK Mehra, head of the study told the BBC.
Ummmm. That explanation doesn’t quite make it clear (to me at least). In a somewhat related story the Hindustan Times reported last week that Indians and Pakistanis in England have the lowest number of sexual partners (ouch).
Indians and Pakistanis have the lowest number of sexual partners, a research has found. According to a report published in The Lancet, Indians and Pakistanis have an average of one sexual partner.
A survey of more than 11,000 adults between 16 and 44, reveals that white women in Britain have more sexual partners than females from the other main ethnic groups. They have an average of five sexual partners.
Black Caribbean men have an average of 50 per cent more lovers than white males. Among men, those of black Caribbean and African descent both average nine lovers in their lifetime, followed by whites with six, Indians two and Pakistanis one.
Dr Kevin Fenton of University College London, the study’s lead author, says this was the first research among the general population. Previous studies of sexual behaviour and health have been based on data gathered at genito-urinary clinics, raising fears over how far the findings could be generalised.
If I were to attempt to correctly merge these two studies, this means the Indians in Britain will be less likely to have their weak genes assaulted by the AIDS virus provided they keep their distance from frisky white British women.
There are HLA variants known to confer partial immunity. For example, people have studied sub-Saharan African prostitutes – possibly the highest risk group in the world, alongside gay sub-Saharan Africans – who were miraculously not HIV positive after several years as a sex worker.
more:
In addition to HLA variation, deletions in CCR5 that are frequent in Northwest Europeans have also been shown to confer immunity:
more.
Not to bang the GNXP drum overmuch, but given these kinds of nontrivial discrepancies between populations, it is premature to say that human evolution stopped at the neck or stopped after we dispersed from Africa.
One other point: given the demographics of those infected with AIDS, it seems behavior is the best inoculant. Berkeley scientists have shown that AIDS has an ultra-strong selective effect in Sub-Saharan Africa. As both sexual behavior and IQ are highly heritable, we can expect nontrivial behavioral selection in Sub-Saharan Africa within our lifetimes.
Also – while this sort of speculation is difficult to nail down without large scale sequence data, it’s not out of the question that the CCR5 variants which provided immunity to the black plague also provided immunity to STDs that were common around that time…and the Renaissance started soon after the Black Plague ended. Perhaps the CCR5 variant is the tip of an iceberg of mutations that provided inoculation (both molecular and behavioral) against STDs. To take the speculation and run with it….because behavioral inoculation would have the effect of encouraging greater sexual restraint/planning/foresight/etc., the selective reaction to STDs may have promoted the development of civilization after the long European dark ages.
Quote from GNXP essay on IQ:
To what extent are these genetic differences mitigated by multiple generations of the same race successively enjoying a higher standard of living, better nutrition and a higher quality of education? At what point does nature stop being the lead?
Second question: have experts studied the propensity for Alzheimer’s in sub-Saharan Africans vs African-Americans? Those results would be interesting.
Lastly, what, if any, conclusions can we draw about people in general from studies such as these? (It’s my roundabout way of saying that I hope this doesn’t provide ammo for half-cocked “social psychologists”)
Uh, let’s keep the conversation on AIDS/HIV shall we? The business about intelligence and continued human evolution is distracting.
GNXP reader, you’ve given lots of data about the protective genes that, presumably, Indians lack (has anyone studied that to find out for sure?).
But what about the harmful genes mentioned by one of the researchers? Is that for real?
Another question: you refer to the gene that some sub-Saharan Africans have. But does that actually affect the statistical rate of conversion? If not, then the absence of the gene in India doesn’t explain the difference in the rates.
And: don’t lifestyle and nutrition potentially play a part in determining how likely people are to get full-blown AIDS?
Regardless of AIDS/HIV, Alzheimer’s, IQ, etc., a big part of my above questioning goes towards the rate at which these genes can alter/mutate, if they do. How quickly can surroundings and related changes express themselves in genetics through adaptation and variation? Or is it a case of if your race has shitty genes for HIV, generations of you are stuck with it?
Should’ve listened to my mom and become a doctor so as not to ask all of these questions.
Wow, that’s fascinating. Particularly because “Indian” is such a huge group. (Anyone know about the genetic diversity of India? I’m guessing it’s big, since it’s usually keyed to ethnic diversity, right?)–it would be interesting to see that result resolved by State/Country. Maybe it has to do with climate? I mean, totally extemporizing here, isn’t HIV originally a simian virus? If a group traditionally spends a lot of time near monkeys might they have higher or lower immunity?
I read recently that some Europeans have better immunity, possibly conferred by the plague. Maybe the subcontinent somehow managed to avoid the plague?
Another Desi-genes thing I’ve heard lately is an increased probability of having narrow veins and arteries. Don’t know if that’s true or if it can be related in anyway.
Sorry, more on the plague right above me. Silly Saheli. Nice cite, gnxp.
Really? You were extemporizing? Wouldn’t have guessed…but then again maybe there is some scientific tempor to that theory. I am just a whacko ignoramus.
But what about the harmful genes mentioned by one of the researchers? Is that for real?
don’t get hung up on “harmful” vs. “protective.” this isn’t a function vs. loss of function thing, the “genes” in question are part of the broad HLA family, basically the they code for some very special functions within your immune system related to T cells.
humans are very diverse on the HLA loci, likely because there is selection for diversity in that pathogens mutate and evolve so fast that a genetic “monoculture” is really easy to wipe out quickly. this is one reason native americans had problems with eurasian pathogens, their HLA profiles are relatively homogenous so a really bad plague can fell them all in one swoop. the HLA loci are so diverse that your HLA profile might be closer to a chimpanzee than your cousin, because these alleles, forms of the gene, are older than the chimp-human line split.
all this is to go to the idea that “protective” and “harmful” are contextual terms. the “harmful” genes are probably “protective” in other contexts, and the “good” genes probably are “harmful” in other contexts. the hypothesis about CCR5 is that they were protective against bubonic plague, but seeing as how the frequency of the gene is modal in southern sweden, and that bubonic plague probably come from asia, i’m not so sure about that.
Maitri:
To what extent are these genetic differences mitigated by multiple generations of the same race successively enjoying a higher standard of living, better nutrition and a higher quality of education? At what point does nature stop being the lead?
Sometimes never. The Japanese, for example, have been first world for a very long time but are still not as tall as the Dinkas of the third world. Genetics do matter and put bounds on what can be achieved by environmental manipulation. Whether you’re talking disease or IQ or height, the gaps between humans can be as big as that between a pygmy and Manute Bol…and about as unbridgeable by post-natal intervention.
Nobel Prize Winner James Heckman has done a lot of work on this and has concluded that IQ (for example) cannot be substantially positively altered beyond the initial big jump that comes from living in an industrialized society.
Other skills can be easily altered, but not IQ. The Flynn effect is puzzling in light of these experimental observations, but the new era of direct brain measurements pioneered by guys like Paul Thompson (cited above) and Richard Haier will render IQ obsolete:
This makes sense as similar things have been observed in primates and other animals, where the location of brain alterations makes a big difference.
Anyway, as these brain measurements predict IQ, which correlates with outcome measures like how much money you make, how likely you are to get a PhD, and how well you will do on the SAT, it will be only a few years before we can observe whether IQ-relevant time evolution in mean brain structure is in fact occurring. This might be the case – in OECD countries people are taller today than they were 100 years back, and they might also be smarter.
Of course there are exceptions to every statistical rule, but the gross statistics matter – just as the fact that there are some non-Asian minorities in academic positions does not stop people from using a statistical label to refer to them as “underrepresented”.
Second question: have experts studied the propensity for Alzheimer’s in sub-Saharan Africans vs African-Americans? Those results would be interesting.
Well the results wouldn’t be comparable. With life expectancy having fallen off a cliff across Africa (see this shocking graph), the people who make it to old age in sub-Saharan Africa are exceptional. In Uganda and Botswana life expectancy is below 40.
don’t lifestyle and nutrition potentially play a part in determining how likely people are to get full-blown AIDS?
I haven’t seen much about nutrition, but behavior and lifestyle plays a big role. Studies consistently show that men who have sex with men and people who have high numbers of sexual partners have the highest infection rates. Thus gay males and African Americans (and to a lesser extent Americans of Hispanic descent) have much higher infection rates.
How quickly can surroundings and related changes express themselves in genetics through adaptation and variation? Or is it a case of if your race has shitty genes for HIV, generations of you are stuck with it?
Selection has to be very strong to have a rapid effect on the whole distribution. For a single locus the equations have been worked out for a number of different selection regimes. See here for a textbook example with a dichotomous Mendelian trait and (scroll down) here for an example with a continuous trait.
This picture may also be helpful. What we are talking about with AIDS is something like the threshold selection shown on that page, where those with a small number of sexual partners live and those with a large number die. You can model that with a hard step function or a softer sigmoid.
Insofar as genetics influences sexual behavior at all (expressed by a parent-child correlation aka heritability coefficient), those who pass down sexually restrained behavior (whether biologically or culturally) will be more likely to have grandchildren.
You can also come up with an explicit multilocus model. Assume that sexual behavior as measured by number of partners over lifetime is the (pseudo) continuous trait which ranges from 0 to Wilt-the-Stilt numbers and beyond. The long tail is required to model the large number of partners of prostitutes and gay males, who are crucial hubs in most epidemiological graph-theoretical models of infection.
The center of your sigmoidal threshold function will be more lenient if you possess genes which give you a molecular inoculant. For example, some of the prostitutes in the above references required dozens or hundreds of partners before seroconversion was observed. So you can model the presence of an inoculant by a shift in the sigmoidal death function.
The sad part is that rapid selection means mass death of the sort that is currently happening in Botswana, where 40% of the adult population has HIV/AIDS.
razib:
the hypothesis about CCR5 is that they were protective against bubonic plague, but seeing as how the frequency of the gene is modal in southern sweden, and that bubonic plague probably come from asia, i’m not so sure about that.
There is molecular evidence too, though. The CCR5 variant impedes the ability of Yersinia pestis to get into the cell. The variant protein provides less of a foothold for infection. The same has been observed at the cellular level for HIV – CCR5 delta-32 cells are less vulnerable for seroconversion.
To bring it back to Indian susceptibility to AIDS, here are the premises:
1) As far as I’m aware of, no study has shown widespread molecular immunity to HIV. As the CDC says in its page on the CCR5 delta-32 variant:
Thus molecular inoculation is (as far as we know) currently less of a factor than behavioral inoculation. Within the European population, this may be tentatively illustrated by the difference in infection rates between gay males and heterosexual males. Of course, it may be that the (behavioral) genetic basis of homosexuality covaries with the (molecular) genetic susceptibility to HIV infection, so this is why I say “tentatively illustrated”.
2) For this reason, talk of “susceptibility genes” or resistance genes cannot omit talk of genes which influence behavioral properties, particularly behavioral attitudes towards sex. Thousands of such genes exist, of course. It is incoherent to believe that genes may determine sexual orientation but not sexual desire/appetite/restraint/etc.
It is also empirically unsound – high parent-child correlations have been found for an enormous number of behavioral traits, even among twins raised apart. MIT’s Stephen Pinker goes into great detail in The Blank Slate. But here’s one example:
and another
and one more
Anyway. Point is that behavior is the strongest inoculant against AIDS. Both biology and culture influences behavior. And for both biological and cultural reasons, Indians do not tend to have large numbers of sexual partners (fecundity is not the same as promiscuity). Thus statements like this are terribly misleading:
India says more than five million of its citizens are infected with the HIV virus, second only to South Africa.
India has more than 1 billion people, while South Africa has 25 million. For actual AIDS infection rates, go to AVERT. India has prevalence rates around 1% in most states according to 2003 data. It is highly unlikely that an outbreak will be seen there (or in China) which is on the scope of that in Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Africa has 25 million
Sorry, it’s 42 million. Doesn’t change the point though, which is that rates of infection differ by about 20 fold.