Scientists discover mystery genes behind a cat's purr and behaviour
The study, published in PLoS One, assessed the behavior of 280 spayed or neutered mixed-breed cats and analyzed their DNA, focusing on the androgen receptor gene.
Researchers found that cats with the short-type androgen receptor gene showed higher owner-assessed purring, while male cats with this gene exhibited higher vocalization towards humans.
Female cats with the short-type gene displayed higher stranger-directed aggression, and mixed-breed cats and rescues tended to meow more, contrasting with pure-breed cats who are more likely to carry the long-type gene.
The findings suggest that longer androgen receptor genes in domestic cats may have emerged due to domestication and selective breeding, potentially helping predict house cat behavioral tendencies and enhance feline care.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Steven Rose obituary: Vituperative neuroscientist
Steven Rose had a personality of two halves. He 'walks with the stoop of an academic but sits with his head cocked, alert like a boxer', one journalist observed. In the first role, Rose was a dedicated researcher who patiently yet doggedly studied the mysteries of the brain — in the process, challenging received wisdom about learning and memory, paving the way for new treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer's. On the flip side of this was a scrappy man who was quick to eviscerate fellow neuroscientists, ideas or institutions that he deemed to be leading the profession in the wrong direction. 'Combat is forced upon me,' he insisted. 'I don't go looking for combats. But they find me. When what I regard as bad or mistaken ideas are non-trivial, they need combating.' Rose was quick to label his intellectual opponents 'fantasists', and even his penultimate book Genes, Cells and Brains in 2012 was an 'angry' tome that boasted 'abundant targets' and a 'lethally impressive hit ratio', as one reviewer observed. An academic 'with a strongly philosophical and political cast of mind', Rose took a stance against the idea that human behaviour was determined by genes. He was adamant that 'we are free to make our own futures, though in circumstances not of our own choosing'. This view placed him in opposition to those thinkers who argued that human nature was largely honed by evolutionary forces, and Rose took no qualms with ferociously critiquing their views. Chief among his targets were the 'reductionist' entomologist Edward O Wilson, the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins and the 'romanticised Stone Age nonsense' of the cognitive neuroscientist Steven Pinker. He also directed his wrath at the enthusiasm for IQ testing in education and employment in the 1970s. Rose believed the question of what constituted 'intelligence' was problematic — arguing the word had much broader and diverse meanings than what could be encompassed in such tests — and he was adamant that intelligence was heavily reliant on a person's environment. He was also a vocal critic of the 'pseudo-science' behind claims by thinkers such as the DNA pioneer James Watson that IQ tests showed inherent differences in intelligence between men and women, or people of different races. 'Intelligence is always intelligence-in-context,' Rose said, adding for good measure: 'Many would argue that someone who can make remarks like Watson's is singularly devoid of social intelligence, for instance.' Although he was quick to dismiss viewpoints he deemed inaccurate, Rose was refreshingly honest about the limits of his own work. He refused to dumb down the most complex aspects of neuroscience into sweeping simplifications, and one of the most common phrases in his book The 21st-Century Brain: Explaining, Mending and Manipulating the Mind (2005) was: 'We just don't know.' Steven Peter Russell Rose was born into an Orthodox Jewish community in north London in 1938. His father Lionel Rose (formerly Rosenberg) was a chemistry teacher who became an intelligence officer during the Second World War. He later worked as an organiser for the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women before founding an advertising agency. His mother Ruth (née Waxman) gave up her career to look after her children but later became co-director of her husband's agency and ran it single-handedly after he died in 1959. Rose's dual interest in socialism and science could be traced back to the events of his childhood. He described how one of his earliest memories was a violent demonstration by the Blackshirts while his father was speaking against the fascists, and said that after being given a chemistry set for his eighth birthday he set up a chemistry lab in his garden. After attending Haberdashers' Aske's boys' school in Hertfordshire on a scholarship, he won another one to study at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a double first in biochemistry in 1959. Evidently talented, but young and ambitious, Rose decided he did not want to continue in a field where there was less scope to make science-altering discoveries. 'I thought, 'The genetic code has been solved; protein synthesis has been done. What's the big next thing to understand? The brain. So where can I go to understand the brain?'' he recalled. The sentiment went down as well as you might expect with his department, and he was 'exiled' to complete a PhD at the Institute of Psychiatry in London in 1961. It turned out to be felicitous, because he met the LSE sociology student Hilary Chantler while in London at a New Left Review meeting. The couple married shortly afterwards and were together for more than 60 years until Rose's death. Even from this relatively young age, the young neuroscientist was interested in engaging the broader public in the knotty science of the mind. He wrote his first book explaining the basics of biochemistry to the general reader while still in his twenties. It was picked up by Penguin and published as the hugely successful paperback The Chemistry of Life in 1966. The following year Rose became one of the founding members of a London-based discussion group that held informal monthly meetings in the upstairs room of the Black Horse pub in Rathbone Place, London. It was the precursor of the Brain Research Association, which was later renamed the British Neuroscience Association and continues to this day. After periods of postdoctoral research at Oxford, Rome and with the Medical Research Council in London, Rose became a professor of biology at the newly formed Open University in 1968. Aged only 30, he became one of the UK's youngest professors. While at the university he established its brain and behaviour research group and remained as a professor there until 1999, though he continued to conduct research at the university for more than a decade afterwards. Rose also took up visiting appointments in the United States, China and Australia and continued to write prolifically alongside his teaching. He penned an enormous number of papers on learning and memory and wrote several highly successful books, including The Making of Memory: From Molecules to Mind (1992), which received the Royal Society science book prize. He wrote several of these publications with his wife Hilary, who was appointed professor of social policy at the University of Bradford in 1975. She survives him with their two sons, the farmer Simon, from Hilary's first marriage, and the criminal defence lawyer Ben. Together, the couple wrote Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology (2000), Genes, Cells and Brains: Bioscience's Promethean Promises (2012) and Can Neuroscience Change Our Minds? (2016). They shared a keen interest in the social and legal aspects of science, and advocated for greater public engagement with ethics. They decried the shift towards an entrepreneurial focus — 'wealth creation is now unabashedly formalised as the chief objective of science and technology policy' — and were among the founders of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science in 1969. Rose also appeared as a panel member on BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze for several years, and was awarded the Biochemical Society medal for excellence in public communication of science in 2002. While researching cures for Alzheimer's disease Rose's work brought him into opposition with animal rights campaigners. He established an ethics committee with lay members before government legislation demanded it, reasoning: 'Such discussions are important, as each side learns to respect and attempt to accommodate the views of the other.' His efforts did not stop the hate mail, however. 'When I informed an officer of one of the major 'anti-vivisection' organisations that our local animal rights movement included active members of a neo-Nazi group, her response was to ask me if I didn't feel like Josef Mengele, the notorious concentration camp butcher. An odd question to address to a Jew,' he added. Rose's laboratory was a lively international hub of scientists. He had visiting researchers from countries including Argentina, France, Spain, Italy and Poland and he took a keen interest in global affairs. In 2002 Rose and his wife initiated a boycott of Israeli institutions in protest at strikes on Palestinians, backed by figures including Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The couple argued: 'The choice today for civil society — and academics and researchers are a part of civil society — is to remain silent and do nothing or to try to bring pressure to bear.' Rose was recognised internationally for his work with the Sechenov and Anokhin medals (Russia) and the Ariens Kappers medal (the Netherlands). But one of the most promising elements of his research was his progress towards finding a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease, for which he won the Lilly award for best innovation in mental health in 2003. In the latter half of his career, Rose started to look towards the future of neuroscience. In 2009 he was invited to deliver a centenary lecture at Bristol University and he assembled a talk entitled: The Future of the Brain: The Promise and Perils of Tomorrow's Neuroscience. In it, he warned of the ways in which his colleagues were overreaching with their offers to 'explain, mend and manipulate the mind'. He was wary of the role of the state and big pharmaceutical companies in research and showed particular concern about the disputed borderlines between being undesirable and being ill. Rose called on his audience to question intolerant attitudes towards age-associated memory impairment, ADHD, compliance disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive behaviour and conduct disorder. 'All of which I suspect I could have been prosecuted for or psychiatrically diagnosed with over the course of my career,' he said. 'If I hadn't been, I'd have been rather sorry that I'd failed.' Steven Rose, neuroscientist and author, was born on July 4, 1938. He died of undisclosed causes on July 9, 2025, aged 87
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Speed of improvement in cancer survival rates ‘slowing', say experts
Progress in cancer survival rates in the UK has 'slowed down', experts have warned. The news comes as a study suggests survival between the most and least deadly types of the disease is wider than ever before. A national cancer plan was 'essential' to 'bring cancer survival trends back towards the best in the world', researchers said. The study, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and funded by Cancer Research UK, analysed long-term trends in the cancer survival index (CSI) for adults across England and Wales from 1971 to 2018. Using records from the National Disease Registration Service for England and the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, experts estimated net survival for up to 10 years after diagnosis for around 10.8 million people. They found that in 2018, the CSI for all cancers combined a decade after diagnosis was 49.8%, higher than the CSI at one year for those diagnosed in 1971/72. Researchers hailed the figure as 'remarkable', but warned that the 'speed of improvement in survival has slowed down'. In the five years from 2000/01 to 2005/06, the 10-year CSI rose by 4%, from 41.2% to 45.2%. But between 2010/11 and 2015/16, the rise was 1.4%, from 47.9% to 49.3%. There were also major gaps in survival when it came to different cancer types. For example, 10-year survival for testicular cancer was 97%, compared with 4.3% for pancreatic cancer. Screening programmes had bolstered survival rates for cancers in the breast, bowel and cervix, according to Cancer Research UK. But survival for other types, such as stomach, lung and brain cancer, had increased by only a small amount in the past 50 years. Writing in the Lancet Regional Health – Europe, researchers warned this slowdown for individual cancers implied a 'system-wide challenge'. Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: 'Thanks to research, most patients today are far more likely to survive their cancer than at any point in the past. 'But the reality is that this progress is slowing – and for some cancers, it never got going in the first place.' The Government launched a call for evidence to help shape a national cancer plan in February. The blueprint aims to outline actions to transform how the disease is treated in a bid to reduce deaths. Ms Mitchell said: 'The upcoming National Cancer Plan for England must include commitments to spot more cancers earlier, as well as backing research into new treatments so that each patient, regardless of their diagnosis, can hope for more moments with the people they love.' Michel Coleman, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at LSHTM, said: 'Since I began my career in cancer research, I've seen substantial increases in survival for most types of cancer. 'Our understanding of cancer biology has expanded, effective screening programmes have been introduced, and new treatments have been developed. Allowing this trend to stall will have devastating consequences. 'This study was only possible because of data on millions of patients from cancer registries in England and Wales. 'It's vital that the Government provides the political and financial support to ensure we maintain this crucial data. Without these, the Government will be flying blind on cancer control. 'The National Cancer Plan is a chance to improve NHS cancer pathways and reap the benefits of new research – the Government must take it.' Cancer Research UK is calling for the national cancer plan to slash waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, saying some patients face unacceptable delays. The plan should also improve early diagnosis of cancer, with plans to boost participation in existing screening programmes and a commitment to rolling out lung cancer screening fully in England by 2029. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'We are prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS. 'We're already seeing progress, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year. 'The National Cancer Plan will set out how we will improve survival rates further and address the variation between different cancer types.'
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
Increase in cancer survival rates has slowed, worried experts warn
Progress in cancer survival rates has slowed down, experts said, and the gap is wider than ever before between those surviving the deadliest cancers and those living through the least deadly. Research led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and funded by Cancer Research UK looked at the Cancer Survival Index for adults in England and Wales from 1971 to 2018. The researchers found that 49.8 per cent of cancer patients survived to a decade after diagnosis, a rate higher than the one-year survival rate in 1971 and 1972. The team, writing in the journal Lancet Regional Health, Europe, hailed the improvement as 'remarkable', but also noted that the 'speed of improvement in survival has slowed down'. Between 2000-01 and 2005-06, the ten-year survival rate rose from 41.2 per cent to 45.2. However between 2010-11 and 2015-16, the improvement in survival rates was from 47.9 to 49.3 per cent. The difference between the survival rates of different types of cancers remained large: 97 per cent of testicular cancer patients survived for ten years, but only 4.3 per cent of pancreatic cancer patients made it to a decade after diagnosis. Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said: 'Thanks to research, most patients today are far more likely to survive their cancer than at any point in the past. But the reality is that this progress is slowing and for some cancers, it never got going in the first place.' According to the charity, screening programmes have improved survival rates for cancers in the breast, bowel and cervix. For other types such as stomach, lung and brain cancer, they had increased by only a fraction in the past 50 years. The government has launched a call for evidence to shape a national cancer plan in February. It will aim to outline changes in treatment to reduce deaths. Mitchell added: 'The upcoming national cancer plan for England must include commitments to spot more cancers earlier, as well as backing research into new treatments so that each patient, regardless of their diagnosis, can hope for more moments with the people they love.' Michel Coleman, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: 'Since I began my career in cancer research I've seen substantial increases in survival for most types of cancer. 'Our understanding of cancer biology has expanded, effective screening programmes have been introduced, and new treatments have been developed. Allowing this trend to stall will have devastating consequences.' The study was conducted using data from about 10.8 million people, available through records from the National Disease Registration Service and the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'We are prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS. 'We're already seeing progress, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year. 'The National Cancer Plan will set out how we will improve survival rates further and address the variation between different cancer types.'
