Talk:XYY syndrome

message: When I did the merge from Xyy syndrome I found some questionable content.
::Some studies show a higher concentraion of XYY males in prisons than in the general population, thus reflecting behavioral difficulties in children translating into criminal behavoir as adults.
::There are conflicting studies on XYY and the effect on IQ.  Some show that the IQ of XYY males is 10 to 15 points lower than siblings, others show IQ not varying from population wide averages.
::Children with XYY may benefit from regular demanding physical exercise and additional encouragement in developing language skills.  This may reduce the likelihood and severity of any behaviorial problems.
::The Turner Center For Information, Counselling, and Research has published a booklet on the XYY syndrome. This booklet can be ordered free of charge by request to the centre.
I will not put these statements on the main page, they seem out of date and maybe biased.  If someone wants to move them to the main article, please locate recent sources from the medical literature to back it up. Thatcher131 02:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'm not very happy with the section about a greater proportion of people with XXY being found in the prison population, and then inferring that XYY people are inherently aggressive. 
I do not know if there are a greater proportion of XYY people in prison or not, but let me in any case illustrate by example this statistical mistake that's very easy to make.
Lets imagine there are twice as many red-haired men in prison compared with the proportion of red-haired men men in the population as a whole. Should this lead to a conclusion that red haired men in general are more aggressive, that red-hairedness probably indicates an aggressive personality?
No, because only 1% of red-haired men are in prison. 99% of red-haired men are perfectly law-abiding citizens. Thus using red-hairedness as a sign of aggression is incorrect for the 99% of red-haired men who lead blameless and responsible lives.  Thus, red-hairdness is useless as a means of signaling an aggressive personality.  
It is easy to make the mistake in statistical reasoning illustrated by the above. I do not know what the name of this bias or fallacy is, but could someone edit the article to refer to it please? 
I am sensitive about this because, although as far as I know I am not XYY, I am unsually tall as a result of having tall parents, which some people seem to think is a result of being XYY, or may be just seen as being a sign in itself of aggression. From Goliath onwards, unusually tall people have always had a bad press. We are still invariably depicted in popular culture and the media as being aggressive. This is a great burden to bear through life, as many people (and institutions and organisations) are spontaneously unpleasant even though I've never seen them before in my life, So lets all try and avoid this kind of reasoning and make life a little more bearable for XYYs.
: I'm not quite sure I agree with your logic.  You're completely right that it's absurd to assume that any given person who has an increased risk factor for condition Q automatically possesses condition Q, but from that point on I disagree with you.  Look at it this way: the proportion of people who were abused as children is (say) twice as high in prison as outside.  Does that mean that being abused as a child makes you more likely to go to prison?  Well, yes it does--even if only 1% of abused children end up in prison, if 0.5% of non-abused children do as well, it doubles your chance of ending up in prison. Ckerr 06:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken statistical reasoning 

message: Changed incidence from 1 in 850 to 1 in 1,000 boys as given in References (Nielsen 1998, Allanson & Graham 2002, Milunsky 2004, Nussbaum et al. 2004, Beltz 2005, NLM Home Genetics Reference 2006).
The estimated incidence of 1 in 1,000 males given in most recent scientific journal articles and current medical genetics reference books is based on a pooled estimate from several studies--including the largest single study by Nielsen & Wohlert (Human Genetics 1991;87:81-3) that reported an incidence of 1 in 851 males.
Dr. Nielsen gives an estimated incidence of 1 in 1,000 males in his 1998 booklet XYY Males. An Orientationrather than the incidence of 1 in 851 males from his own 1991 single study.
Panda411 05:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidence

message: Removed reference to Jacob's syndrome.
*This is not an accepted name for 47,XYY and is not found in any published scientific journal article, medical textbook or dictionary.
*It only appears in Dr. Sylvia S. Mader's popular series of high school/introductory college biology textbooks and related course materials.
*Patricia Jacobs and her colleagues in Edinburgh published the first reports of the other two sex chromosome trisomies (47,XXY and 47,XXX) in 1959 and the first report of a group of 47,XYY males in 1965, four years after Dr. Avery Sandberg and his colleagues in Buffalo published the first report of a 47,XYY man in 1961.
 
Removed reference to Supermale syndrome.
*This is not an accepted name for 47,XYY and is only used to refer to an incorrect stereotype put forth in the 1960s by some scientists and journalists based on speculations that turned out to be false.
 
Removed references to XYY-trisomy and 47,XYY aneuploidy.
*XYY is a sex chromosome trisomy and 47,XYY is an aneuploidy, but these phrases are redundant and are not used together as a phrase in the medical and scientific literature. 
*XYY-trisomy only appears as the title of an outdated and inaccurate 33-year-old (1974) New Encyclopaedia Britannica Micropaedia article which was last revised 22 years ago in 1985.
Panda411 (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that perhaps it should be in the article that it's known as "supermale syndrome", even though it does not quite exists. "supermale" redirects to this article, and it's listed on "criminology topics". Perhaps should be a section about misconception with the history of that thing of the guy who was exceptionally violent, but turned out to be just a normal XY guy in the end. If that's true.--Extremophile 14:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Jacob's syndrome, Supermale syndrome, XYY-trisomy and 47,XYY aneuploidy

message: I propose changing this article's citation style from Harvard referencing to Footnotes to improve its readability. Would there be any objections to this?
Panda411 03:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, remember to cross it out on the To Do list when completed, thanks. --apers0n 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation style

message: The last paragraph of the Behavioral effects subsection had said:
:Developmental delays and behavioral problems are also possible, but these characteristics vary widely among affected boys and men, are not unique to 47,XYY and are managed no differently than in 46,XY males. Aggression is not seen more frequently in 47,XYY males.
On 5 December 2006, this was edited and changed to say:
:Developmental delays and behavioral problems are also possible, but these characteristics vary widely among affected boys and men, are not unique to 47,XYY and are managed no differently than in 46,XY males.
:In popular culture, including the TV series The XYY Man and the movie Alien 3, XYY males have been depicted as aggressive and even criminal. However, this is not supported by medical studies.
With an edit summary "pop culture XYY and why it ain't so".
I have reverted this paragraph to its former wording and meaning because:
# The original sentence (supported by citations from 5 current authoritative medical references) definitively said "Aggression is not seen more frequently in 47,XYY males". The edit weakened and changed its meaning from the original cited references to merely say that (aggression in XYY males) "is not supported by medical studies".
# A short-lived (13-episode) summer-filler British TV series from 30 years ago (that has never since been available on video) and a bad sci-fi movie sequel from 12 years ago are too obscure to define popular culture.
# There was already a link in the See also section to the Genetics Influencing Aggression article with information about historical scientifically discredited assumptions about XYY (I restored the See also section which was deleted by a different editor on 10 December 2006).
Panda411 13:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop culture XYY and why it ain't so 

message: Removed the following statement that was based on very limited, biased, outdated research from over three decades ago:
:Behaviour that has been reported as more common in 47,XYY individuals as compared with 46,XY is: irritability, hyperactivity, impulsiveness and emotional outbursts.
citing:
: Money, John (2002). "Chapter 7: Behavioral Cytogentics" in A First Person History of Pediatric Psychoendocrinology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. , pp. 77-82.
::"The syndrome of 47,XYY is not restricted to the institutionalized. Noel and Revil (1974) found sixteen examples of it by karyotyping samples of blood from blood donors in the general population of Chambéry, France. In their survey, Noel and Revil found that their sixteen 47,XYY men had no criminal history, but as compared with 46,XY men they were more impulsive and irritable, less able to cope with hostility, more given to emotional outbursts and were more unpredictable at home and work."
:citing:
:: Noel B, Revil D (1974). "Some personality perspectives of XYY individuals taken from the general population". J Sex Res 10(3):219-25.
::: A 1974 study by French researchers who assumed XYY men to be tall and aggressive, found that 7 of 16 XYY men (only 2 of whom had completed the 3rd year of secondary school) had a somewhat different psychological profile on Rorschach, TAT, and projective drawing tests compared to 28 XY control men in Chambéry, France.
::::"For four of seven XYY individuals, compared with none in the control group, the preferred leisure time activities were hunting and often judo. It could be hypothesized that these subjects find in these activities the possibility to sublimate their aggression."
Controversial sexologist John Money's autobiographical 2002 retrospective review is completely ignorant of any research on XYY (and other sex chromosome aneuploidies) in the last three decades--since his highly unethical and tragically unsuccessful experiment chemically castrating (with massive doses of Depo-Provera) XYY young men and boys who had antisocial (not sex-offending) behavior problems.[]
Panda411 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Money 

message: Is this possible? Or maybe even just a "Y" syndrome? Like maybe if the X chromosome falls apart into a Y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.219.118 (talk • contribs) 
:No I think you need an X chromosome, and I'm not sure if an X could become a Y if the genes are removed 71.65.34.160 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible. While the male contributes either an X or Y sperm, Egg cells are only made from the woman's X chromosomes. Unless the female had a Y somewhere(Which she wouldn't, that would make her a man), the child would have to have at least one X. 98.232.14.59 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actualy isn't impossible to conceive, however it is impossible to bring to term because it is embryonic lethal (that is to say it is non-viable.) It can occur by the fertilization of an empty ovum by two 23,Y sperm (or possibly, by the fertilization by one 46,YY produced by nondisjunction during meiosis). This may seem bizarre, but a similar process produces an obstetric malignancy, the hydatiform mole. A complete mole results from the fertilization an empty ovum by either two sperm 23,X or possibly a 46,XX sperm. 69.37.84.6 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only nondisjunction, but also trisomic rescue, which results in uniparental disomy of the sex chromosomes from the father (i.e. the Y chromosomes). XYY might turn into YY by trisomic rescue (eliminating the maternally-derived X chromosome). Wait a minute, why are all the people posting in the section "YY syndrome" here on Talk:XYY syndrome using IP addresses? --121.7.203.206 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys all forgot to indent your discussions, so I fixed that. Well now I'm the first registered user here! Protactinium-231 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: This discussion began over a decade ago, but hey, it's relevant information. Since this conversation, there actually has been a report of a living human with a 46,YY cell line (and a 45,Y one!). It's A Novel Sex Chromosome Mosaicism 45,X/45,Y/46,XY/46,YY/47,XYY Causing Ambiguous Genitalia (Khan, 2017) and describes a three-year-old boy with 7.5% of his cells lacking an X chromosome. The ambiguous genitalia is likely unrelated to the Y/YY lines, and rather an effect of 20% of his cells being 45,X. Sadly, the study includes no developmental information. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: YY Syndrome

message: Sorry. Just wanted to come in again to say: where does the extra Y chromosome come from? --121.7.203.206 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Y? 

message: I've used up my three reverts for today. Can someone revert this edit as it is the same thing that multiple editors keep on deleting? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done now, so nevermind anymore. Thanks for helping! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert help

message: Removed two sentences added on 17 December 2006 citing Wilson & Cooley (2000):
:Since the only clear physical characteristic is the stature, the condition usually is only detected during genetic analysis for another reason. 
:Possible complications include early clumsiness and fine motor problems, muscle weakness and incoordination.
* Stature is not a "clear physical characteristic" of XYY that prompts genetic analysis. 
* While there have been reports of XYY males with early clumsiness, fine motor problems, muscle weakness or incoordination, these have not been shown to be characteristic of XYY males.
The first edition of: Wilson & Cooley (2000) Preventive management of children with congenital anomalies and syndromes  has three paragraphs on page 170 about "47,XYY Syndrome." The information in the three paragraphs is very inaccurate and outdated, including the following sentence from the first paragraph:
:The most striking complications are developmental and behavioral differences, including early clumsiness and fine motor problems, muscle weakness and incoordination, borderline mental disability (IQ 70 to 90) in 38 percent, impulsive behavior and temper tantrums (Gorlin, 1990, pp. 61-2; Jones, 1997, pp. 70-1).
The references cited by Wilson & Cooley (2000) for this sentence are: Gorlin, Cohen, Levin (1990) Syndromes of the Head and Neck, 3rd ed.  and Jones (1997) Smith's recognizable patterns of human malformation , both of which contain very inaccurate and outdated information, citing from 38 years ago: (Daly et al., 1969)  a case report of a tall 5 year old XYY boy referred for a neurological examination because of awkwardness and an obvious articulation problem, and (Daly, 1969)  a report on the same 5 year old XYY boy and 11 XYY men found in a chromosome survey of patients 6 feet or more tall in six Wisconsin hospitals for the mentally ill or mentally retarded.
The second edition of: Wilson & Cooley (2006) Preventive Management of Children with Genetic Conditions: Providing a Medical Home, 2nd ed.  has two paragraphs about "47,XYY Syndrome" on pages 206-7 with the same very inaccurate and outdated information presented in a different format and omitting references for the sources of the information.
Panda411 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed statements citing Wilson & Cooley (2000) 

message: This section currently says that there are no physical features characteristic of the syndrome, which I understand to be correct and is consistent with the rest of the article; however, it also says that "Most often, the extra Y chromosome causes extreme physical features and medical problems."
I'd assume this is an error or vandalism that hasn't been noticed, but I don't know enough about the area to correct it, so thought I'd mention it here. Cheers. SamBC(talk) 10:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted 11 February 2008 vandalism by 207.163.18.80. Panda411 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical traits section 

message: :Most often, the extra Y chromosome causes no unusual physical features or medical problems.
vs.
:47,XYY boys have an increased risk of learning difficulties (in up to 50%) and delayed speech and language skills.
OK, "up to 50%" isn't "most often", but it looks odd to me... Aeluwas (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the second point you highlight needs modifying, as the following sentence says 10%, and I don't know how that compares to the general population. Someone ought to look at those references and see if the sentence might want to be prepended with "some studies suggest" or "older studies suggest" or something. As it is, that whole (short) paragraph is hard to get any sort of meaning from. SamBC(talk) 12:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it seems as though no context is given for two different percentages- several citations support 50% but the CDC study suggested only 10%? Is the one study refuting the other studies? Were the statistical methods significantly different and therefore the results cannot be compared? As of right now, it's confusing and more information about the discrepancy in results is needed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.0.17.93 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't this article contradicting itself? 

message: The article says that some say that it shouldn't be considered a syndrome because "the phenotype is normal".  While I understand what is meant (there are no detrimental physical effects), the article says (with a cited source) that XYYs average 7 centimeters taller than XYs -- this is definitely a significant difference. "Normal" is a loose word, and when I first read that section, I thought it meant XYY had no phenotypic effects.
Perhaps it should say, instead of "the phenotype is normal", "the condition is not associated with illness". What do you think? Vultur (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording issue?

message: Looking at the way sperm is produced by cell division, normally making one daughter- (X) and one son-making-sperm (Y) from a fathers XY-cells, this leads me to the assumtion that there is an increased likelyhood for a XYY-man to have sons instead of daughters. My thinking that there are two possibilities of sperm to be produced: X and YY or XY and Y, creating (with normal one-X mother's eggs): XX, XYY, XXY and XY -children respectively. Two of them having 47 chromosome, but have the same chances to survive and being born (I haven't heard the opposite yet). That makes the chances for a boy 3:1. Apart from that the likelyhood to have a child with Klinefelter's syndrome (47,XXY) is 25%. Correct? Thoughts? 
It should be easy to determine the percentage of sons of 47,XYY-males if one has a file of these individuals, so maybe a scientist working on this topic has already done a survey?
Thinking about it, is it possible that 47,XYY-males are the reason for overall more males than females being born? Note that in the case of 46,XY-father and 47,XXX-mother, (according to my simple calculations) the eggs are XX and X or X and XX and mixed with sperms X and Y the children are XXX, XX, XX, XXX, XXY, XY, XY, XXY = the same chance for XX, XY, XXX and XXY; 1:1 boys:girls--TeakHoken91.33.22.131 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likelyhood of male offspring 

message: I removed the line about the 'context' re: IQ differences from the general population. Earlier in the paragraph a study is quoted as showing a lower IQ in comparison to siblings; removed quote cited a difference in IQ for a general populace sample. Since the two statistics are not directly correlative (one shows a trend, whilst the other shows a simple average, with no 'direction') I believe this to be a fallacy in logic (there's surely a term for this, mathematically, though I know it not). I am certainly open to discussion, here, but would request that the logic/mathematics, applied as the cut piece is worded, should trump any 'emotional' argument. I have no axe to grind with the parent article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regnad kcin75 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Context...

message: is mentioned in the article. Was he in favor of forced abortions or afraid of a future with such laws? Talk:H. Bentley Glass --80.187.97.4 (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Glass preferred a voluntary eugenics program (perhaps augmented by tax penalties or fines like those of China's one-child policy) and hoped a forced abortion regimen "under a Nazi type of dictatorship" would not be necessary. Panda411 (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  H. Bentley Glass 

message: Substituted at 10:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on XYY syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090614103635/http://www.cafamily.org.uk:80/Direct/x15.html to http://www.cafamily.org.uk/Direct/x15.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified