The Genetics of White and Gold, Blue and Black: A Holler to 23andMe

The internet is currently losing its collective composure over the perception of colour in the following unremarkable photograph:

Blue and black, or white and gold?

Buzzfeed’s explanation invokes the illusion of compensation; that a single shade can be perceived in multiple ways depending on the lighting context (see image below). There is an excellent write up of the illusion on Jerry Coyne’s blog so I won’t go into any more detail on it here. But you should click through to see a vivid example of the illusion in action.

Compensation illusion: A and B are the same shade.

What I am more interested in is the ratio of “Black and Blue”, to “White and Gold” in that Buzzfeed survey. The sample size is large (>200000 people have voted), and those numbers look suspiciously Mendelian, which got me thinking that perhaps there might be an opportunity to look for a genetic link to colour perception.

Source: Buzzfeed

For those who remember high school genetics, Mendel was the Monk who discovered genetic inheritance by crossing pea flowers of varying colours. When we refer to simple inheritance of traits they are often described as “Mendelian”. At a single locus, perhaps there is a dominant ‘White and Gold’ gene, and a recessive ‘Blue and Black’ gene. At equal frequency in the population, one would expect the phenotypes (white/gold versus blue/black) exactly as shown in the survey. That’s a lot of “ifs”, and highly unlikely, but it is possible that there may be some genetic control underlying this variation in perception.

Mendelian inheritance

Is it possible that compensating in colour perception could be partly influenced by just one locus? It sounds absurd, but if this is not some elaborate trolling then it might actually be a real possibility.

This is where you come in 23andme! As holder of one of the greatest collections of human genetic variation data, I implore you to carry out the white and gold, blue and black survey yourselves. Linked to 600,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms for over 1 million people, we could get a pretty powerful association study done really quickly. The result could tell us something fascinating about the genetics of perception.

Advertisements

As you were, Australian researchers.

Waking up to look at this before a coffee and a shower was enough to put me into fight or flight mode this morning.

With hackles raised I read on and found a sciency corner of Australian Twitter users in a flap about Abbott’s 20% ARC cuts. #AbbottsRazor #ARCcuts etc etc

While the wording of these Tweets is strictly true, they are also completely misrepresenting the politics of these ARC funding estimates.

The numbers are below. The top row is the current budget handed down by Labour in 2013. The middle row is the Abbott Government amendment. The bottom row is the difference. Numbers represented in thousands (000’s).

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

TOTAL

May budget

$883,959

$879,983

$834,587

$788,710

$3,387,239

Amendment

$883,959

$853,110

$783,253

$716,205

$3,236,527

Difference

$0

$26,873

$51,334

$72,505

$150,712

YES. ARC funding will dive by 19% in the next 4 years. But this is a dive courtesy of the Labour Government’s May 2013 budget.

YES. Abbott is cutting funding further, but this amounts to 4% cut in total ARC spending over the next 4 years. The majority of the sliding investment trend came from the initial budget trajectory set out in May.

The time to make a flap about budget cuts was in May. And some of us had a good whinge then. The truth of this latest news is that it is a continuation of the prevailing “death by a thousand cuts” trend, as another shaving is whittled off our future investment in research and innovation.

But the big lesson here is to hold fire when it comes to social media. A forgiving person might acknowledge that this shows that scientists are only human, prone to the occasional passionate, emotional, reactionary outbursts. A harder judge might question whether researchers who don’t think critically and do a bit of their own “research”, deserve any ARC funding at all.

Thanks Alice Hutchings, for engaging your brain. And Tom Stayner for the title.

Postscript

Jeremy Shearman from the Genome Institute in Thailand has produced this graphic showing the effect of amendments on ARC funding over the last few years. The trend is one of providing more upfront dollars with increasingly steep sliding scales of less funding later.

ARC funding amendment history