[Esteban_Jones]

THE MAD SCIENTIST HAS ENTERED THE BUILDING.

Okay, I have a feeling this thread will eventually be moved to General Discussion, because it's so far from being a real-world option. However, I'll start it here because I'm seriously interested in possiblities.

Where is the breast size gene??!??!

Information science and biotech are getting to the point where we can establish a correlation between big breasts, or even breasts that don't seem to want to stop at any size (Hi, Illyanna!), and the genes that are responsible.

I keep wanting to ask large-breasted women if they will donate a bit of genetic material to science, so we can figure out why their boobs are so big. I know we're bound to figure it out sometime, and eventually implant surgery will be replaced with an innoculation with a retrovirus that turns on the booby growth, and then another that turns it off again when desired size is achieved. Or else one that has a specific size encoded, and doesn't need to be turned off.

I've searched and I've searched, and I can't find any info on the 'net, nor even anything suggesting anyone is looking. If there is any place to discuss this idea, it's here.

So why don't we keep an eye open for the Home Genetic Analyzer, and then I'll happily construct the database, and we'll figure out what makes big natural boobs big -- naturally!

Comments, please! Need input! Illyanna, would you be willing to give us a tissue sample? And Keisha, I understand your body puts a big part of any extra pounds right on your chest. Inquiring minds want to know why!

So yeah, I'm trying to start a thread of discussion that will entertain hare-brained schemes, welcome volunteers (no, we're not looking for guinea pigs just yet), and enable the scientifically inclined to get together with the informationally gifted and the BE obsessed.

I have a few science fair ideas already:

How about a topical one-two punch? Rob lotion containing glucagon on the unwanted bulges at waist and thigh, and another lotion containing insulin on the breasts. Viola! Saddle bags melt away, and breasts store fat. There are other factors involved, I know, but it's a place to start.

Is there a doctor in the house? Tell me why it won't work that way.

Medical science buffs, get your thinking caps around this:
"P450 aromatase overexpression macromastia". Google it, and let us all know what you think.

God I hope I get some (other) super geeks with me on this!!

Estéban
----------------------------------------------------
No sig yet, nor avatar neither. Perky A cup rating tho!  

[MrHHH]

I've been thinking about this also. Looking for something like this would require a lot of samples. And your best best would be getting samples from the biggest women.

Who knows? All women might be capible of becoming really busty if given a certain hormone.
 

[Illyanna]

*waves hi and rolls up her sleeve*
All in the name of science!

[sheber]

Hookay.................anytime you want rreal science to chime in  let me know..........................

[steveo]

let me save you some time...  

 

[Esteban_Jones]

Quote:
Hookay.................anytime you want rreal science to chime in  let me know..........................  

I didn't make that clear, Sheber? Yes, real science is the whole idea. I know my ideas so far would make barely plausible fiction, so I need help from others who know what they're talking about.

Chime in! Hell, bring the whole orchestra!  

[sheber]

Actually, its here, but its related to a whole host of other conditions as well.  

[Esteban_Jones]

Yes, CYP19 and cytochrome P450 control a whole array of metabolic processes, notably metabolism of many drugs, iirc.

And aromatase overexpression has been noted in connection with breast cancers and endometriosis, among others. However (and I'm pulling everything I say from the web, so again I don't really know what I'm talking about), ... Well, here:

Quote:

Estrogen biosynthesis in adipose tissue has assumed great significance in terms of a number of estrogen-related diseases. The biosynthesis of estrogens from C19 steroids [e.g., androstenedione and testosterone] is catalyzed by a specific form of cytochrome P450, namely aromatase cytochrome P450 (P450arom; the product of the CYP19 gene). The human CYP19 gene comprises nine coding exons, II-X, and its transcripts are expressed in the ovary, placenta, testes, adipose tissue, and brain. Tissue-specific expression of the CYP19 gene is determined at least in part by the use of tissue-specific promoters, which give rise to transcripts with unique 5'-noncoding termini. Thus, the distal promoter I.1 is responsible for expression uniquely in placenta. On the other hand, the proximal promoter II, which regulates expression via a cAMP-dependent signaling pathway, is responsible for expression in the gonads. Transcripts in breast adipose tissue contain 5'-termini corresponding to expression derived from promoters I.4, II, and I.3, with I.4-specific termini predominating. The latter are derived from promoter I.4, which contains a glucocorticoid response element and an interferon-gamma activation site element and is responsible for expression in the presence of glucocorticoids and members of the class I cytokine family.

(from Agarwal VR, Ashanullah CI, Simpson ER, Bulun SE. Alternatively spliced transcripts of the aromatase cytochrome P450 (CYP19) gene in adipose tissue of women. Emphasis added.)

So what does this jargon-burdened excerpt suggest? That estrogen is not just made in the ovaries, but in adipose tissue as well.

There is a documented case of familial breast hypertrophy. A boy presented with gynecomastia, and his sister with precocious puberty. Their father also had gynecomastia, and their grandmother had macromastia to a degree requiring reduction mammaplasty. All due to a gene which encoded overexpression of aromatase in adipose tissue. I'll supply that reference if anyone wants it.

Just one possible trail to follow. The extra challenge is that cancer seems to commandeer every metabolic process related to normal breast growth. So when we look for "aromatase CYP19" we get a thousand hits on sites relating to breast cancer research, and maybe 10 relating to giant but otherwise healthy breasts. With my very limited knowledge of molecular biology and genetics (not a single class, ever), I'm going to need some smart people like Sheber and anyone with expert Google skills to help track down some further relevant published research.

Illy, we need to talk about cloning the Boob Fairy.  

[rtpoe]

One way might be to study what happens when breasts don't develop properly, and see what the treatments there do for normal breasts...

A comparative study of the effect of oestrogen substitution therapy on breast development in girls with hypo- and hypergonadotrophic hypogonadism.

Pertzelan A, Yalon L, Kauli R, Laron Z.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=6980064&dopt=Abstract

rtpoe

[sheber]

If I read correctly through related topics, any desired effects (by those desiring gigantomastia) are determined in the womb.

[MunchWolf]

exactly ... and even if designer babies were allowed ... what doctor would go along with the request .. modify my baby so she'ld have huge breasts in 20 years ...

-Munch "try biochem if you what quicker results" Wolf

[Chronicler]

Quote:
exactly ... and even if designer babies were allowed ... what doctor would go along with the request .. modify my baby so she'd have huge breasts in 20 years ... -Munch "try biochem if you what quicker results" Wolf

What Father would even request that? Scary idea.

Anyway I'm not exactly pre-med either. But, I think of this from another angle.

Quote:
Yes, you are correct that it is not milk enlarging your breasts in early pregnancy. The period of the most rapid breast growth is during the first eight weeks. The enlargement is due primarily to engorgement of the blood vessels, enabling increased circulation to the breasts. Thereafter, estrogen stimulates growth of the ducts, and progesterone stimulates growth of the glandular tissue (called lobules or alveoli). Breast changes are individual and the range is zero to 800 cc of volume per breast; the average is about 400 cc. It is not uncommon for women to increase by one or two cup sizes during pregnancy. This declines after weaning.

Source

So here we have a clear example that a physiological condition can and does induce breast tissue growth. I would think it might be more effective to pursue this line of research than to try and isolate a specific gene, or set of genes in a relational context that we have yet to quantify. Another reason why I say this is that I believe genetic 'code' can be altered throughout the course of an organism's life span. But, we are going the same place, just from different angles.

If you are familiar with the 'hundredth monkey theory', then you are aware that it seems possible for such a thing as a 'super conscious' to actually exist. I became aware of this theory while reading a book on holography and quantum mechanics. The subject was Meissner fields. The author (Michael Talbot; "The Holographic Universe", 1992) suggests that our collective human conscious may exist within a Meissner field which is perceivable only to humans. On to super string theory and electromagnetics...

We know that Meissner fields can potentially make 'non-local' or faster than light travel possible because of the fact that they enable the complete isolation of a super conductive circuit, excluding all other electromagnetic fields. So when a monatomic, platinum group element, say Gold, in the high spin state is used as both nodes of a super conductive circuit, we can, and have (although the US DoD refuses to acknowledge the research results) shown that these 'non-local' circuits can be manufactured by using ORMEs and electromagnetics which make faster than instant connectivity possible over ANY distance! (Laurence Gardner; "Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark", 2003)

So my hypothesis is that perhaps the physiological changes could possibly be induced by some sort of interaction on this quantum level between the female, the male who fertilizes her, the newly formed fetus, and the human global consciousness. What exactly is it that causes the breast growth? Well, there are numerous observable phenomenon which will ultimately be shown as contributing to this process, but that is not necessarily the impetus of what 'tells' the female body to 'start' and 'stop' growing breast tissue. It's the same idea as wondering exactly what tells your body to heal a cut. It seems to be related to some pre-existing condition or ideal state of being which enables the body to then begin to form its actual biological process. We see that milk also does not actually begin to be produced until after birth. This, to me, suggests that at some level it is dependent on the female body 'knowing' it needs to do this, why, and for exactly how long. This all seems to have to do with the body 'knowing' it needs to do something, so therefore we may theorize, however redundantly, that it is possible for our very minds themselves to store information which can be accessed or referenced by biological processes.

So where is this information stored so that it can affect actual genetic change? Junk DNA perhaps. We also know that physical traits are passed on to children through genes. If DNA/RNA can be seen to interact with other variables through this sort of non-local process, then it may also be safe to hypothesize that it could be possible for Junk DNA to store, or reference information via electromagnetics that could even pass on physical traits from a parent that were acquired after the DNA/RNA was set at the time of their conception. So could breast growth be the result of a relative need based on external conditions rather than a preset biomechanical apparatus which dictates a preset limit once activated?

Anyway I guess what I am getting at is that I think maybe the most practical way would be to trick the female body into thinking it needs to grow really big breasts. One way to achieve this naturally is obviously by direct manipulation of the genes, but if there is another more fundamental process which may have an effect on genetic composition, then we need to understand that before we even begin to examine specific genetic conditions.    

[MunchWolf]

Quote:

So where is this information stored so that it can affect actual genetic change? Junk DNA perhaps. We also know that physical traits are passed on to children through genes. If DNA/RNA can be seen to interact with other variables through this sort of non-local process, then it may also be safe to hypothesize that it could be possible for Junk DNA to store, or reference information via electromagnetics that could even pass on physical traits from a parent that were acquired after the DNA/RNA was set at the time of their conception. So could breast growth be the result of a relative need based on external conditions rather than a preset biomechanical apparatus which dictates a preset limit once activated?
 

You do know that junk DNA is inert?  It's a lot like rem statements in a program code ...

It's there, but it doesn't have a means to be utilized ...

-Munch "Was one chemistry class away from getting a genetics degree as opposed to the bio degree I got" Wolf

[melonie_charm]

Quote:
exactly ... and even if designer babies were allowed ... what doctor would go along with the request .. modify my baby so she'ld have huge breasts in 20 years ...

I have no doubt that, for the extremely rich, there will be no problem whatsoever finding willing offshore doctors to gene splice 'designer baby' characteristics to order as soon as the technology is developed to the point where it can exist outside of a government funded laboratory.  

[Chronicler]

Yes, the fact that it does not have the means to be utilized is what makes me say "What the hell is it there for then?" It MUST have SOME purpose, or it just would not be there.

I was just contemplating the possibility that perhaps it is only inert in the context which we understand it. It's  like maybe it is a useless piece of DNA code by itself, but could the possibility exist that it may take on some unforseen function when paired with another 'thing'. Like when I write PHP pages on my gallery, every single page in my gallery is useless by itself because the headers are parsed in by Apache. You must have both the header file and the content file for either one to be of any discernable use because each one has information which the server needs in order to complete the page as it was intended.

It's really kind of a whacko idea, what I am talking about because it's just really me using my imagination. But I really feel as though the key to initiating the physiological changes in a woman which spur breast growth, or the processes that allow us to heal, and many other things, at least have to be filtered through the mind for the body to process the required changes when the female body says "hey hold the phone I got a fertilized egg here... change of plans ppls..".

So because of that I also want to look at the aspect of our minds, the subconscious or even 'superego' which could potentially play a role, since there are so many unquantified variables when talking about how the genes actually work. I mean we have mapped the genome successfully, but we still do not understand the extremely complicated dynamics of how those codes work and with all different types of hormones/chemicals/glands. We can isolate specific phenomena at the physioogical level, but all I am saying is that perhaps the reason we do not understand it yet is maybe, MAYBE at least partly due to us 'looking in the wrong place' for answers. It may be inert and apparently useless, but if we bring in a medium like non-local electromagetism over which this information could possibly be accessed, then in my opinion we have a new pairing of experimental variables to 'test'.

Another reason why I go this really bizarre route is because through studies on 'stealth-atoms' like the ones produced by ORMEs, we have shown there to be a fifth dimension of space time (again, the Laurence Gardner book is a surprisingly useful reference), so if we consider that perhaps junk DNA, which I do not believe can be totally useless, may be able to interact with photons or electromagnetic impulses (just for the sake of eliminating all non-possibles), we would have to assume that there may also be this same type of interaction within our bodies on a more noticable level. Perhaps this could explain people who can see auras, and how those people claim they can see things materialized in or through the aura (which I believe to be the body's personal magnetic field).

So I think it is likely that we must at some point take into account the actual energy force that manages our body's communication mechanisms must also be examined if we are to truly understand how our genes fucntion in a logical scientific capacity.