Talk:Triple X syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Triple X syndrome:

Strike through when completed

  • References
  • Expand infobox
  • Image of 3 X chromosomes

See WP:MEDMOS for suggested additional sections

WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
 

The[edit]

The claim about XXX genotypes being 'gifted in empathy' etc is far too vague to be useful without very specific citations. Not only is the term "empathy" itself ill-defined, this kind of generalizaton would be very difficult to support (how does one design an experiment to verify empathic ability?). I don't want to delete it out-of-hand, but someone more familiar with this should check it out. (unsigned comment -- 18 November 2005 216.39.182.234)

  • generally, xxx has an adventage having an extra set However,whoop said the martian it not always, as an xxx, there is no really large unfair advantage or gifted shown has been noted. back to the point, this seems to be more of bias in point of view rather than poor support GSPbeetle 06:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actual name[edit]

Is there an actual name for this disorder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.1 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hereditary?[edit]

The article states Triple X syndrome is not inherited, but usually occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells (ovum and sperm). but what of women with triple X syndrome? How does meiosis work? It would seem to me that half their ova would have XX (since the diploid cells with XXX would have to divide those as XX and X), and thus, they'd have a 50% chance of having either a triple X daughter or a son with Kleinfelter's Syndrome. Is there some process preventing this? Nik42 (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm guessing that they're rendered infertile 96.247.124.209 (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

External links[edit]

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

  • Online discussion groups or chat forums
  • Personal webpages and blogs
  • Multiple links to the same website
  • Fundraising events or groups
  • Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
  • Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Counter Argument In Support Of Links To Trisomy X Yahoo Groups[edit]

First of all I would like to point out that the page you reference says "Links NORMALLY to be Avoided," thus implying that special circumstances can warrant their inclusion.

I submit that the links in question are subject to those special circumstances, for many reasons.

First of all, as you may or may not be aware of, a Yahoo! Group is more than a "chat room," and the groups in question contain several uploaded files and links that provide further information about this syndrome.

Secondly, due to the rarity of this genetic abnormality, and the comparatively mild effects on those who suffer from it, there are few to no organized support groups existing which cater to it. This Yahoo! Group may be in fact the largest and most important means of communication in regards to this syndrome. I would like to cite the Down Syndrome Wikipedia page, which has a category of Support Groups, and assert that the Yahoo! Groups serve as the primary support group for this syndrome.

Third, I would like to know what your definition of "encyclopedic" is. All of the definitions I can find state simply that an encyclopedia is a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Encyclopedic is also often defined simply as "comprehensive". I posit that this article cannot be considered "comprehensive" without referencing this important resource.

Finally, have a heart. Imagine receiving a phone call from a geneticist, telling you that your 18 week old fetus has a genetic abnormality that is more rare than Down Syndrome and that the medical community really has done very little study on it. You turn to the greatest repository of knowledge in the history of mankind, and one of the top 3 links is a Wikipedia article, which has omitted a helpful link to others who will help you understand and live with your child who suffers from this syndrome.

What is the problem exactly? Are those bits costing the Wikipedia foundation too much money? I'll donate enough money to store them for the next 1000 years. Were these links seriously damaging the reputation of Wikipedia more than John Seigenthaler Sr.'s fake biography? Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to shine the bright light of knowledge into the dark abyss of ignorance? When the medical profession is so uneducated about a syndrome that they are reading the article to educate themselves, shouldn't they be made aware of this important resource? Restore those links, and give a small measure of peace to a future troubled soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.221.176 (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Metafemale[edit]

I know my high school biology professor used the term metafemale to describe the condition. I know that the article is redirected from metafemale. I was just wondering why it wasn't mentioned in the introduction.71.7.107.208 (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Metafemale syndrome" is actually the more proper term. The Article should really be moved to that title. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

46,XX/47,XXX mosaics[edit]

The sentences "Some females with triple X syndrome have an extra X chromosome in only some of their cells. These cases are called 46,XX/47,XXX mosaics." currently appear in the Cause section. It doesn't seem to me like this describes the cause at all. Perhaps this should be moved to the introduction paragraph? I don't understand the subject enough to be sure. Apollo reactor (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms wording mistake[edit]

"Females with the condition [...] have an increased risk of learning disabilities, delayed speech, and language skills."

"Risk of language skills" seems like it's a leftover from a reformulation attempt. I edited it to say "deficient language skills". I think that's a bit ugly, so if anybody knows a better formulation, please edit it in. --91.12.107.187 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Misleading[edit]

I found the statements misleading:

"Due to the lyonization, inactivation and formation of a Barr body, in all female cells, only one X chromosome is active at any time in a female cell. Thus, triple X syndrome most often causes no unusual physical features or medical problems."

It should be mentioned that the problems associated with extra chromosomes are derived from increased dosage of genes that are not inactivated by lyonization. Otherwise, there would be no difference between 46 X and 46 XXX (if there is only 1 X active, then they should be phenotypically identical). There are very noticible differences, and lyonization doesnt give a good picture of why it is so. 71.14.67.229 (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Superwoman syndrome[edit]

I removed the term "superwoman syndrome".
"Superwoman syndrome" is not an accepted name for Triple X syndrome (47,XXX).
"Superwoman syndrome" appears to be a misreading—confined to two authors with no expertise in medical genetics—of (the also inappropriate) "superfemale syndrome":

Panda411 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"Coffee cups may be hot" ...[edit]

quote: An individual producing a child with the above abnormalities has higher than average risk to produce more. Most commonly, there is no observable difference in triple X, other than being taller than average. The additional X chromosome can come from either the maternal or paternal side. The condition is verified only by karyotype testing.

seems most of it has been either already expressed in the article (i.e. no visible differences), is obvious (almost every genetic disorder can be/needs to be verified by testing the karyotype) or dubious - while it is possible for the additional X to come from the father, it'd require him to have XXY (or XXYY/XXXY) by himself AND to be fertile & able to reproduce (genitalia etc) AND to be willing to have an intercourse despite the risks involved AND to have a XX/Y meiosis to even be theoretically able to give double X to his kid - without some citation stating how likely (1:...?) it is, i won't leave it here. AFAIK, XXX is usually caused by woman's XX/0 meiosis. somebody please correct me if i'm wrong (ref/cit please). Vaxquis (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Not true. A much more likely cause of XX inheritance from a father is nondisjunction during meiosis that creates the following four haploid gametes: XX, Y, Y, null. Such a father would be fully fertile, though one questions the motility of such a sperm.AWBridges (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


Style[edit]

I guess this is not encyclopedic: "there is usually no distinguishable difference to the naked eye between women with triple X and the rest of the female population." Striepan (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions.[edit]

i have a question has there been any cases where women have had joint problems??? its a questions i have been wanted answered for a long time... if anyone gets on here and reads this edit it and let me know your answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.173.189 (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Symptoms section is not from a good source.[edit]

It's from a completely whacked out source and should not be cited at all for anything else than a good laugh. Since I'm a simple layman I hope someone can take care of this better than I can. --83.254.45.172 (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Doesn't Triple X syndrome also act as an alternative, so if an affected X-linked trait is passed to a female, the third X chromosome takes the place of the affected one, basically saving the female from being a carrier? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. 71.199.40.22 (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

That effect occurs even in regular females, who have two X chromosomes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Super female[edit]

On PubMed, I found 71 hits with a search for "super female". Most of these papers describe triple X syndrome, although few actually refer to "super female". I believe that triple X syndrome was first described as "super female" in this paper from 1959. My conclusion is that "super female" is a rarely used, obsolete term for triple X syndrome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Axl. I take it that you already saw this discussion that I pointed to in the article's edit history? Either way, your creation of this section now means that there is no need to transport that discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, actually I came via the discussion at WikiProject Medicine. I believe that the term "super female" merits mention in a "History" section, but not in the lead section and not as a suggested alternative name. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I considered that you may have come to this article from WP:MED, but I see no discussion about this topic there. And I agree with including mention of super female somewhere in the article, but obviously not in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)