Authors : 1.Ketaki Baravkar ; 2. Prisha Wahal ; 3. Sumant Ghantewar ; 4. Uditi Verma 

A prime interest in the study of behavioral genetics has been in how genetic predispositions relate to environmental factors in influencing human behavior. Genetic elements in question are  the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene and the cadherin 13 (CDH13) gene, which have been linked to behavioral traits, such as aggression and impulsivity. While genetic polymorphisms in these genes appear to affect behavioral tendencies, it is not deterministic. Rather, they covary with environmental variables as intricate and complex mechanisms shape individual behavior. This introduction attempts to identify the role of environmental factors as related to MAOA and CDH13, outlining what their role is in behavioral science.

The MAOA gene, often called the “warrior gene, is therefore a gene encoding the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which degrades neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (Kim-Cohen et al., 2006). Variants of the MAOA gene, especially those linked with low enzymatic activity, have been related to an increased risk for aggressive and antisocial behaviors, particularly in people exposed to adverse environments during childhood (Caspi et al., 2002). For example, studies have shown that maltreatment in early life can increase the impact of low-activity MAOA variants by several fold, indicating a gene-environment interaction (GxE) (Fergusson et al., 2012). This points out the relevance of environmental inputs in modulating genetic risks, as genetic predispositions alone are not enough to predict behavioral outcomes.

The CDH13 gene encodes a cell adhesion molecule involved in neural connectivity. Associations with impulsivity and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been reported (Franke et al., 2009). Variations in the CDH13 gene are thought to affect neural development and functional connectivity in brain regions implicated in impulse control. However, the expression of these manifestations is mostly moderated by environmental factors such as parental neglect, peer influence, and socioeconomic challenges. Interactions with CDH13 variants often exacerbate or mitigate these behavioral manifestations (Tiihonen et al., 2015). This underscores the bidirectional influence of genetic and environmental variables, which means that neither acts in isolation.

These include childhood trauma, socioeconomic status, peer relationships, and exposure to substance abuse. Such environmental factors play a crucial role in the expression of behavioral phenotypes related to MAOA and CDH13. According to the differential susceptibility framework, genetic variants that make individuals more sensitive to both adverse and supportive environments have been found (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). For example, children carrying high-risk variants of MAOA or CDH13 are likely to express strong negative outcomes in a toxic environment but can also demonstrate resilience or positive behaviors in a nurturing environment. Such duality stresses the malleability of genetic influences under varying environmental conditions.

Understanding the interplay between MAOA, CDH13, and environmental factors has important implications for research and intervention strategies. It challenges deterministic views of genetic influence, advocating for a nuanced perspective that incorporates environmental contingencies. It also opens avenues for targeted interventions that address environmental risk factors, potentially mitigating adverse behavioral outcomes associated with genetic predispositions.

In conclusion, the role of environmental factors in shaping the behavioral impacts of MAOA and CDH13 highlights that human behavior is complex. Examining the role of GxE interactions shows that genes and environment are highly interrelated, therefore shared, in the multifaceted expression of behavior. Future research in these intricacies may uncover new ideas for understanding behavioral genetics and advance a more holistic, personalized pathway to prevention and treatment.

Background and Literature Review

The complex interaction between genetic predisposition and environmental influences remains a focus in behavioral genetics. MAOA and CDH13 have been frequently highlighted for their modulatory roles concerning the proclivity for specific behavioral tendencies after exposure to adverse environments. Although studies have linked such markers to aggression, impulsiveness, and antisocial behavior, it has also been shown that their actions are not deterministic, but instead are modified through subtle and intertwined GxE.

Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) is the gene that codes for the enzyme monoamine oxidase‐A which breaks down various neurotransmitters including dopamine and serotonin. The only association between violence/impulsivity and certain variants of MAOA gene (especially consistent with poor enzyme activity or MAOA-L) have been found when someone is maltreated (Caspi et al., 2002). Some literature suggests that maltreated individuals with MAOA-L exhibit much higher risks of developing adult antisocial behavior compared to individuals of similar genetic and environmental backgrounds.

Similarly, the CDH13 gene encodes a neural adhesion molecule implicated in impulse control and the connectivity of certain brain regions. Variants of this gene have also been associated with ADHD and conduct disorder, providing evidence that other environmental risk factors such as neglect and socioeconomic disadvantages may add on to the genetic risk (Tiihonen et al., 2015). Individuals who carry strains of the CDH13 gene that provide a high environmental risk may be able to show resilience in supportive environments, exhibiting further proof of context-dependent effects of genetics.

Literature is rife with glowing studies by Caspi et al. (2002), providing overwhelmingly indubitable evidence for interaction between MAOA and childhood adversity. Their results indicated that MAOA-L individuals subjected to maltreatment were far more likely than non-maltreated counterparts with the same genetic background to develop antisocial tendencies. Byrd and Manuck (2014) consolidated this through meta-analysis involving 27 studies and thus confirmed that MAOA-L carriers with early-life adversities displayed raised.

Zhang (2017) built upon this work focusing on the gene×gene×environment interaction with a particular interest in MAOA and the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism of the serotonergic transporter (5-HTTLPR). Or in other words, exposing subjects with MAOA-L allele & short 5-HTTLPR to childhood maltreatment increased their risk for aggression. Results of this kind help to unravel the mechanisms of action for complex behaviors and their genetic basis.

Despite the extensive research on MAOA and CDH13, gaps remain in the literature. Most studies have focused on male populations due to the X-linked nature of the MAOA gene, leaving a significant gap in understanding its effects in females. Additionally, research predominantly focuses on Western populations, necessitating further exploration of sociocultural influences on gene-environment interactions. Another underexplored area is the potential for environmental interventions to mitigate genetic risks, particularly through early life support systems and targeted behavioral therapies.

THEME 1:  The Intersection of Genetics and Adversity: Decoding MAOA’s Role in Behavioral Pathways.

The MAOA gene, often sensationalized as the “warrior gene,” has gained significant attention due to its role in neurotransmitter metabolism and implicate behavioral regulation. Present research has widely demonstrated that MAOA gene does not act in isolation but is deeply entwined with environmental influences, shaping behavioral outcomes. This gene is extensively studied for its role in aggression and antisocial behaviour particularly defined by  adverse childhood experiences reflecting on its critical role in neurotransmitter regulation. 

Low-activity MAOA variant (MAOA-L) in individuals has been seen to reduce enzymatic function, leading to higher neurotransmitter levels, which  generally contributes to increased impulsivity and in certain cases aggression. Research shows that these behavioural responses are let alone not an outcome of these genes but an intercorrelated relation of these active genes and  environmental exposure, particularly during early development.

EXISTING LITERATURE-

For the longest time researchers believed that antisocial behavior and aggression were hardwired into our DNA suggesting that certain genes could predestine violent or impulsive behaviour. This idea of  genetic determinism  suggested that our biology alone shaped who we become and how we behaved. But as a result of profound recent research,  instead of seeing genes as rigid blueprints of behavior, researchers have concluded  that genes don’t work in isolation. They respond to the world around us shaped by one’s childhood experiences, relationships, and stressors. One of the most groundbreaking studies on how genes and life experiences interact was conducted by Caspi et al. (2002). This long-term study followed a group of boys in New Zealand, tracking how their early childhood shaped their behavior as they grew up. The results suggested that the boys who carried a low-activity variant of the MAOA gene (MAOA-L) and had experienced severe childhood adversity were far more likely to develop antisocial behaviors and even show violent tendencies. This study also pointed towards an important discovery: not all boys with the MAOA-L gene developed these behaviors—only those who had suffered maltreatment suggesting that genes alone do  not determine our fate and instead highlighted how childhood experiences can activate or suppress genetic risks.

Similarly, (Byrd & Manuck, 2014)conducted a meta-analysis of 27 studies and confirmed that maltreated males with MAOA-L exhibited higher risks of developing antisocial tendencies, while those with the high-activity MAOA variant (MAOA-H) showed no such effects. In case of males, the ones with MAOA-L who experienced maltreatment showed significantly higher risks of antisocial behavior, including impulsivity and  aggression while on the contrary, results were inconsistent highlighting a major gap in the literature.

Another study (Zhang, 2017), expanded on previous research by exploring interactions between MAOA and another gene, 5-HTTLPR (the serotonin transporter gene), in a sample of 546 Chinese adolescent males. It focused on studying gene-gene-environment interactions and found that males with both MAOA-L and the short allele of 5-HTTLPR were at the highest risk of aggressive behavior when exposed to childhood maltreatment. This research further tells us how behavioural responses are a combination of various gene interactions  and environmental factors.

GAPS IN EXISTING LITERATURE:

Most studies on MAOA gene variants come from research done on men, largely because the gene is located on the X chromosome. Since men inherit just one copy of MAOA, any variations in the gene tend to have a more direct impact on their behavior. Women, on the other hand, have two copies of the gene , one from each parent, which means their biology can balance out its effects in ways we don’t yet fully understand. Because of this, research on MAOA in women has been less clear-cut. Most research on MAOA has focused on Western populations, such as the U.S., Europe, and New Zealand not providing enough insights on how different socio-cultural aspects affect gene and environment interactions.  Another prominent gap is to study further how early-life experiences can  alter gene expression and whether interventions can reverse these effects. Early-life experiences, such as stress, nutrition, and exposure to toxins, can lead to epigenetic changes that affect an individual’s development, health, and susceptibility to diseases. For example, trauma during childhood might lead to lasting changes in the expression of genes involved in stress response, which could influence mental health outcomes later in life. Understanding this link between early-life experiences and epigenetics is crucial for interventions. Rarely the existing literature does not focus on the positive impact of the environment around combating the effects of genetic predispositions.

This theme is crucial to study because it shifts our understanding of human behavior and provides us with deeper insight on the interaction between MAOA and environment. It challenges the idea that genetics dictates everything about us and instead highlights the power of our environments and life experiences in shaping who we become. The latest findings call for  interdisciplinary approaches that bring together genetics, psychology, and social interventions to address complex behavioral outcomes. 

THEME 2: Influence of X-linked MAOA on Males vs. Females: A Detailed Analysis

The MAOA gene, located on the X chromosome, encodes the enzyme monoamine oxidase A, which is responsible for degrading neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. Variations in the MAOA gene, particularly in its promoter region, have been linked to behavioral traits and psychiatric conditions. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of how the influence of the MAOA gene differs between males and females due to differences in X-chromosome inheritance, expression, and hormonal interactions. The study highlights the complex interplay between genetic, environmental, and hormonal factors in shaping behavior and mental health outcomes. The MAOA gene has been extensively studied for its role in regulating neurotransmitter levels and its association with various behavioral and psychiatric conditions. The gene’s location on the X chromosome means that males and females inherit and express it differently, leading to distinct behavioral outcomes. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current understanding of the MAOA gene’s influence on males and females, focusing on genetic basis, enzyme activity, neurotransmitter regulation, gene-environment interactions, hormonal influences, and clinical implications.

Genetic Basis and Expression

Males: Males inherit only one X chromosome, making them hemizygous for the MAOA gene. This results in the full expression of the inherited variant, either high-activity (MAOA-H) or low-activity (MAOA-L). The absence of a second X chromosome means that males are more vulnerable to the effects of the low-activity variant, as there is no compensatory mechanism.

Females: Females inherit two X chromosomes, leading to heterozygous or homozygous expression of MAOA variants. X-chromosome inactivation (Lyon hypothesis) results in the random silencing of one X chromosome in each cell, creating a mosaic pattern of MAOA expression. This moderates the effects of any single variant.

MAOA Variants and Enzyme Activity 

The MAOA gene has a polymorphism in its promoter region, known as the MAOA-uVNTR (variable number tandem repeat), which affects transcriptional efficiency:

• Low-activity variant (MAOA-L): Associated with reduced enzyme activity, leading to higher levels of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.
• High-activity variant (MAOA-H): Associated with increased enzyme activity, leading to lower levels of these neurotransmitters.

Neurotransmitter Regulation

Males: The low-activity MAOA variant in males is associated with higher baseline levels of neurotransmitters, which can lead to heightened emotional reactivity, impulsivity, and aggression.

Females: Due to mosaic expression, females with one low-activity and one high-activity variant may have more balanced neurotransmitter levels, reducing the behavioral impact of the low-activity variant.

Gene-Environment Interaction

The effects of MAOA variants are strongly influenced by environmental factors, particularly early-life stress and trauma: Males: Research has shown that males with the low-activity MAOA variant who experienced childhood maltreatment were significantly more likely to develop antisocial behavior compared to those with the high-activity variant. This highlights the gene-environment interaction (GxE), where the combination of genetic predisposition and environmental stressors amplifies behavioral outcomes.

Females: Similar interactions have been observed in females, but the effects are often less pronounced due to the moderating influence of X-inactivation and hormonal factors.

Hormonal Interactions

Males: Higher levels of testosterone in males may amplify the effects of the low-activity MAOA variant on aggression and impulsivity.

Females: Higher levels of estrogen in females may have a protective effect, moderating the influence of MAOA variants on behavior.

Behavioral and Psychiatric Implications

Males: The low-activity MAOA variant has been linked to increased risk of aggression, impulsivity, and antisocial behavior, particularly in adverse environments.

Females: The behavioral effects of MAOA variants in females are more variable and context-dependent, with some studies showing associations with mood disorders rather than aggression. The low-activity MAOA variant in females has been associated with higher susceptibility to stress and depression, particularly in the presence of adverse life events.

Biochemical Mechanisms

The MAOA enzyme plays a critical role in the degradation of monoamine neurotransmitters:

• MAOA: Serotonin, Dopamine, Norepinephrine → Degradation → Metabolites
• Low-Activity Variant: Reduced enzymatic activity leads to higher levels of these neurotransmitters, which can dysregulate mood, impulse control, and stress responses.
• High-Activity Variant: Increased enzymatic activity results in lower neurotransmitter levels, which may also contribute to mood dysregulation, albeit through different mechanisms.
• Sex Differences:
  • Males with the low-activity variant may experience heightened emotional reactivity and impulsivity due to consistently elevated neurotransmitter levels.
  • Females, due to mosaic expression of MAOA variants, may have more balanced neurotransmitter levels, leading to less extreme behavioral outcomes.

Clinical and Ethical Considerations

The association between MAOA and behavior has raised ethical concerns, particularly in the context of using genetic information to predict or explain criminal behavior. It is important to emphasize that MAOA variants do not determine behavior on their own but interact with a wide range of genetic, environmental, and social factors.

Existing Literature 

Early research identified a significant mutation in the MAOA gene within a Dutch family characterized by impulsive aggression (Brunner et al., 1993). This mutation resulted in a complete loss of MAOA enzyme activity, establishing a link between the gene and aggressive behavior in males. Notably, males with this mutation exhibited impulsive aggression, whereas females did not, due to the compensatory effect of their second X chromosome.

Subsequent research uncovered a polymorphism in the promoter region of the MAOA gene, known as MAOA-LPR, which influences transcriptional activity (Sabol et al., 1998). The low-activity variant (MAOA-L) is associated with reduced enzyme activity and has been linked to various behavioral traits. This variant’s impact is more pronounced in males, who possess only one X chromosome, making them more susceptible to the effects of reduced MAOA activity.

A pivotal study demonstrated that the low-activity MAOA variant (MAOA-L) interacts with childhood maltreatment to predict antisocial behavior in males (Caspi et al., 2002). Specifically, males with the MAOA-L variant who experienced childhood maltreatment were significantly more likely to develop antisocial behavior compared to those with the high-activity variant (MAOA-H).

A comprehensive meta-analysis further confirmed the interaction between MAOA-L and adverse environments in predicting antisocial behavior, particularly in males (Fergusson et al., 2012). The effect of MAOA-L was more pronounced in males due to the lack of a second X chromosome, while females exhibited more variability in outcomes.

Neuroimaging research has provided insights into the neural mechanisms underlying the behavioral effects of MAOA variants (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2006). Males with the MAOA-L variant exhibited hyperactivity in the amygdala and reduced prefrontal cortex activity, which are associated with impulsivity and aggression. These findings highlight the impact of the low-activity MAOA variant on brain regions involved in emotional regulation, with stronger effects observed in males.

Research focusing on females has shown that the low-activity MAOA variant (MAOA-L) is associated with increased susceptibility to stress and depression, particularly in adverse environments (Sjöberg et al., 2007). Unlike in males, females with the MAOA-L variant are more likely to develop internalizing disorders (e.g., anxiety, depression) rather than externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression).

GAPS IN LITERATURE:

Most MAOA research has focused on males due to the gene’s location on the X chromosome, leading to limited understanding of its effects in females, particularly on internalizing versus externalizing behaviors. Studies suggest females with the low-activity MAOA variant may be more susceptible to stress and depression, but findings are inconsistent. Additionally, research has been largely restricted to populations of European ancestry, limiting the generalizability of results across diverse ethnic groups. Since MAOA variant prevalence varies across populations, future studies should include broader demographics.

The interaction between sex hormones and MAOA gene expression remains unclear, with research primarily examining testosterone’s role in male aggression, while estrogen’s effects in females are understudied. Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation influenced by stress and trauma, may alter MAOA activity, but long-term consequences remain unknown. Protective factors that mitigate the negative effects of MAOA variants, such as supportive relationships, also require further investigation.

Neuroimaging research has focused on males, with little exploration of sex-specific brain differences linked to MAOA. Finally, clinical applications of MAOA research remain underdeveloped, raising ethical concerns, particularly in legal contexts. Future research should address these gaps through sex-balanced, diverse, and interdisciplinary approaches to better understand MAOA’s role in behavior.

THEME 3: Ethical considerations in genetic screening for MAOA and CDH13 variants.

The MAOA (monoamine oxidase A) and CDH13 (cadherin 13) genetic screening variants raised ethical debates about their links with aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Some have associated it; however, many related issues including those on the matters of determinism, privacy, stigma, and misuse require thorough critical debates.

One of the ethical issues is genetic determinism, the idea that genes are solely responsible for behavior. It can lead to stigmatization and discrimination in employment, education, and social life (Hyman, 2019). Environmental factors greatly affect behavior, meaning that MAOA and CDH13 cannot independently determine violent behavior (Beaver et al., 2018).

The most significant ethical issue concerning privacy is in genetic screening. The results of a person’s genetic test should be explained in full to him or her before conducting the test and obtaining his or her consent. Genetic information can be used by insurance companies, employers, or law enforcement, which might undermine autonomy and personal rights (Appelbaum et al., 2020).

Genetic screening in criminal justice gives rise to several ethical dilemmas. Although proponents argue that genetic screening could contribute to rehabilitation and risk assessment, it may promote genetic profiling-whereby one is judged according to their genetic predisposition as opposed to actions. This hampers fair and just operations and can potentially lead to preventive discrimination (Fowler et al., 2021).

Unequal access to genetic screening would further exacerbate socioeconomic disparities. Misuse of genetic information in marginalized communities may reinforce existing biases and systemic inequalities (Roberts, 2018). Genetic screening for MAOA and CDH13 might give insights into behavior, but ethical concerns have to be considered. Regulatory safeguards, informed consent policies, and public awareness are essential to ensure fair, responsible, and just applications of genetic data.

Existing literature : 

MAOA and CDH13 variants are some of the variants under investigation as playing a role in aggressive as well as criminal acts. Research by Beaver et al., 2018 sought to understand whether genetic risk interplays with childhood adversity, suggesting that genetic markers may promote violent tendencies but are greatly influenced by environmental factors. In a similar manner, Fowler, Moffitt, and Caspi (2021) pointed out the ethical and policy implications of behavioral genetics in the criminal justice system, warning against genetic determinism and profiling. Hyman (2019) discussed the risks of genetic determinism in neuroscience, stating that genetic markers are not the cause of behavior. Moreover, Roberts (2018) analyzed the implications of genetic justice, concluding that the abuse of genetic data would only reinforce systemic biases. Collectively, these studies suggest that while genetic screening can provide insights into behavioral tendencies, ethical safeguards are necessary to prevent discrimination and misuse.

Genetic screening and behavioral genetics are viewed differently by various cultures based on their ethical and moral outlooks. In Western societies, there is a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and genetic privacy, leading to caution regarding genetic determinism and discrimination (Appelbaum et al., 2020). However, Eastern philosophical traditions like Confucian ethics might focus more on the collective good and the societal implications of genetic knowledge and might accept genetic insights as a tool for societal harmony (Zhang, 2021). Indigenous and marginalized communities are almost always very skeptical of genetic research for historical misuse and a lack of consent, establishing the need for equal representation and ethical engagement (TallBear, 2019). The impact of philosophy and genetics would be seen in the context-sensitive ethical frameworks that respect diverse cultural values and historical experiences.

While genetic screening for MAOA and CDH13 may have some insights about behavior, it raises ethical questions. There are a need for regulatory safeguards, informed consent policies, and public awareness to make sure that these applications of genetic data are fair, responsible, and just.

Gaps in the existing literature : 

Despite extensive research in the area of genetic screening of MAOA and CDH13, many crucial gaps are evident in the literature. For example, most of the studies remain correlation-oriented, not causative, so one is uncertain as to whether such genetic variants would contribute directly to violent behavior or are just being associated with environmental and social factors (Beaver et al., 2018). Moreover, longitudinal and cross-cultural studies on ethical implications of genetic screening are few, which makes it challenging to understand how different societies see and regulate the data of genetics (Zhang, 2021).

Another serious gap includes the lack of diversity in genetic research, since most studies were conducted on populations of European descent, thus questions of generalizability and equity in applying genetic screening across diverse racial and ethnic groups (TallBear, 2019). There has been a limited investigation of the psychological impact of genetic testing on those who discover they carry these variants, where aspects of mental health, identity, and social stigma are concerned (Appelbaum et al., 2020).

Finally, although the ethical concerns of genetic screening in criminal justice have been well debated, little research exists on policy frameworks and associated legal safeguards that can prevent misuse of genetic information (Roberts, 2018). Gaps must be filled to create feasible approaches that are both ethical, equitable, and scientifically robust for genetic screening.

Theme 4 : Nature Meets Nurture: Unraveling Trauma’s Genetic Pathways

The intersection of nature versus nurture resounds compellingly in behavioral genetics and our considerations of behavior. The MAOA and CDH13 genes–well-known as markers of aggression/impulse control have been top dog in research investigating the interface when genetic vulnerabilities are confronted by early adverse events. Current findings tell us that those genes are not acting in isolation on the cascade of events eventually leading to disease they have extremely important interactions with environmental conditions, particularly childhood trauma. This theme focuses on the gene-environment interaction, thus focusing on how trauma becomes activated or silenced by genetics, leading to very deep shaping of behavioral end products

Genetic Markers and Responses to Trauma

Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) is a gene encoding an enzyme very necessary for the catabolism of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. Its weak activity form (MAOA-L), for example has been linked to far increased aggression and impulsivity, by there presence nearly exclusively in individuals that have grown up in a devastating childhood environment (Caspi et al.de-scribed in detail). Here we directly challenge the so-called genetic determinism by demonstrating a new model how early life adverse events can potentiate genetic risks. Thus, CDH13 which is a gene related to both impulse control and connectivity of the brain has been tagged as a candidate gene for ADHD and conduct disorders. Studies indicate that people with CDH13 variants are more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of trauma, however they can also become resilient in supportive environments.

Existing Literature

For several decades, the literature on antisocial behavior and aggression examined the genetic deterministic perspective, proposing that people who exhibited specific gene variations were pre-purposed for violent tendencies. Emerging evidence, however, demonstrates that genes act-more as modulators, turned on or off by environmental circumstances. In a study that was in a way revolutionary, Caspi et al. (2002) found that people with the variant MAOA-L who suffered from childhood maltreatment had a much excellent probability of developing antisocial behaviors. Byrd & Manuck (2014) further corroborated this in an analysis of 27 studies, found that MAOA-L carriers who faced adversity were at relatively higher risk for aggression compared with MAOA-L carriers in a supportive environment.

Also, Zhang (2017) explored such gene-gene-environment interactions and demonstrated that opposite interactions involving both MAOA-L and short allele variants of the 5-HTTLPR produced the highest risks for aggression in children suffering maltreatment. The findings serve to delicately illustrate the complexity involved when tracing genes, for, in reality, such acts could not occur in isolation, but rather, within a milieu of interrelated biological and environmental influences.

Gaps in Existing Literature

Despite considerable research, inequalities remain in our understanding of the nuanced effects of MAOA and CDH13 across various populations. Whereas most studies refer to males-in particular because of the factor X-linking into MAOA-it inevitably leaves speculations on how these may influence female. Research has also largely drawn its cohorts mainly from western populations, a factor that limits comprehension on how cultural and socio-economical factors shape the interplay of gene and environment. In another major gap is understanding how early life interventions-programs like therapy, structured support systems, and social upgrading programs-can help curb genetic susceptibility and foster resilience. 

Additional Insights 

Most MAOA research has focused on males due to the gene’s location on the X chromosome, limiting the understanding of its effects in females. Studies suggest that females with the low-activity MAOA variant may be more prone to stress and depression, but findings remain inconsistent. Additionally, research has primarily examined European populations, restricting the applicability of results to diverse ethnic groups. Since MAOA variant prevalence differs across populations, future studies should include broader demographics.

The interaction between sex hormones and MAOA expression is not well understood. While testosterone has been linked to increased aggression in males with the low-activity variant, the role of estrogen in females is underexplored. Epigenetic mechanisms, such as DNA methylation influenced by stress, may alter MAOA activity, but their long-term effects require further research. Additionally, protective factors, such as supportive relationships, that may counteract the negative effects of MAOA variants are understudied.

Neuroimaging research has primarily focused on males, with little insight into sex-specific brain differences associated with MAOA variants. Furthermore, clinical applications remain underdeveloped, raising ethical concerns, especially in legal contexts. Future research should address these gaps through sex-balanced, diverse, and interdisciplinary approaches to better understand MAOA’s role in behavior.

CONCLUSION

The study of MAOA and CDH13 and interrelation between environmental factors and these  genes reinforces a hopeful and nuanced perspective on human behavior. The study of behavioral genetics has highlighted the importance of gene-environment interactions in shaping human behavior. Research on the MAOA and CDH13 genes prove  that the genetic predispositions may influence traits like aggression and impulsivity but they do not alone dictate a person’s behavioral responses. Instead, these genetic factors interact with life experiences, making individuals react and make decisions in touch with their environment. Primary research on the effect of these genes has highlighted a profound impact of one’s life experiences (education opportunities, relationships, basic amenities) on the manifestation of the impact of these genes. A child with a certain CDH13 variant may struggle with impulsivity while another with an MAOA variant may struggle from aggression but a  strong relationships, a stable home and early intervention can completely change their developmental path. This reinforces the idea that biology is only one part of the equation and life experiences on the other determine how those biological traits unfold. Further research should focus on conducting  longitudinal studies in order to track the long-term effects of early interventions,  stable home environments and healthy relationships on individuals with genetic predispositions to aggression or impulsivity. This research could guide policy decisions and clinical practices. Targeted support programs that consider both genetic predispositions and life experiences can be a game-changer in helping individuals reach their full potential. Public education on the interplay between genetics and life experiences can effectively shift societal perceptions, fostering greater empathy and reducing stigma. Awareness campaigns and media discussions can help people recognize and understand that their genetic predispositions do not define their future. 

References : 

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
• Andreeva, A. V., & Kutuzov, M. A. (2010). Cadherin 13 in cancer. Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer, 49(9), 775-790. https://doi.org/10.1002/gcc.20789 
• Appelbaum, P. S., Grisso, T., & Moser, S. (2020). Informed consent in genetic research: Balancing autonomy and societal benefit. American Journal of Bioethics, 20(3), 45-56.
• Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 548-568.
• Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2018). The interplay between genetic risk and childhood adversity in predicting criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 42-51.
• Brunner, H. G., Nelen, M., Breakefield, X. O., Ropers, H. H., & van Oost, B. A. (1993). Abnormal behavior associated with a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A. Science, 262(5133), 578-580.
• Buckholtz, J. W., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). MAOA and the neurogenetics of human aggression. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(1), 12-19.
• Byrd, A. L., & Manuck, S. B. (2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior: A gene-environment interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 10-17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.027
• Capitanio, U., Bensalah, K., Bex, A., Boorjian, S. A., Bray, F., Coleman, J., Gore, J. L., Sun, M., Wood, C., & Russo, P. (2019). Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. European Urology, 75(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.036 
• Carrel, L., & Willard, H. F. (2005). X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females. Nature, 434(7031), 400-404.
• Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., … & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854.
• Farahany, N. A. (2016). The legal implications of genetic testing. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 435-457.
• Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., Horwood, L. J., Miller, A., & Kennedy, M. A. (2012). Moderating role of the MAOA genotype in antisocial behavior. British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(2), 116-123.
• Fowler, T., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2021). Behavioral genetics and the justice system: Ethical and policy implications. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(2), 134-145.
• Gonzalez-Tapia, M. I., Roca, M., & Elices, M. (2020). Ethical issues in the application of genetic testing to criminal behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01891
• Huang, Y., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Liu, W., & Li, J. (2022). CDH13 in renal cell carcinoma: expression, clinical significance, and immune infiltration. Cancer Science, 113(2), 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.15220 
• Hyman, S. E. (2019). The perils of genetic determinism in behavioral neuroscience. Neuron, 101(6), 999-1001.
• Kim-Cohen, J., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Williams, B., Newcombe, R., Craig, I. W., … & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children’s mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry, 11(10), 903-913.
• Knoppers, B. M. (2014). Informed consent and the ethics of genetic research. Nature Reviews Genetics, 15(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3626
• Meyer-Lindenberg, A., Buckholtz, J. W., Kolachana, B., Hariri, A. R., Pezawas, L., Blasi, G., Wabnitz, A., Honea, R., Verchinski, B., Callicott, J. H., Egan, M., Mattay, V., & Weinberger, D. R. (2006). Neural mechanisms of genetic risk for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(16), 6269-6274. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0511311103
• Miyazaki, T., Kato, H., Shitara, Y., Kimura, H., Nakajima, M., Faried, A., Sohda, M., Fukai, Y., Masuda, N., Fukuchi, M., Kuwano, H. (2005). Cadherin-13 gene silencing in gastric cancer and its potential value in prognosis. Oncology Reports, 13(5), 935-940. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.13.5.935 
• Patard, J. J., Leray, E., Rodriguez, A., Rioux-Leclercq, N., Guillé, F., & Lobel, B. (2003). Correlation between symptom graduation, tumor characteristics and survival in renal cell carcinoma. European Urology, 44(2), 226-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00221-1 
• Roberts, D. E. (2018). Genetic justice: DNA data and the future of criminal justice. Harvard Law Review, 131(7), 1565-1598.
• Rubinow, D. R., & Schmidt, P. J. (1996). The role of estrogen in mood disorders in women. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 57(Suppl 13), 5-10.
• Sabol, S. Z., Hu, S., & Hamer, D. (1998). A functional polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene promoter. Human Genetics, 103(3), 273-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004390050816
• Shao, Y., Li, W., Zhang, L., Xue, B., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, D., & Wu, B. (2022). CDH13 is a prognostic biomarker and a potential therapeutic target for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. American Journal of Cancer Research, 12(10), 4520-4544.
• Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E., & Jemal, A. (2022). Cancer statistics, 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 72(1), 7-33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708 
• Sjöberg, R. L., Nilsson, K. W., Wargelius, H. L., Leppert, J., Lindström, L., & Oreland, L. (2007). A functional polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A gene promoter influences susceptibility to stress and depression in females. Biological Psychiatry, 62(1), 110-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.06.017
• TallBear, K. (2019). Native American DNA: Ethical dilemmas and cultural narratives. Genetic Anthropology Journal, 12(4), 89-104.
• Wang, S., Song, Y., Yan, M., Zhao, X., & Sun, X. (2021). The prognostic role of cadherins in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: A bioinformatics-based study. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(8), 4192. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22084192 
• Zhang, J. (2021). Confucian perspectives on genetic screening: Ethics, society, and governance. Asian Bioethics Review, 13(1), 25-40.
• Zhou, Q., Wu, J., Wang, Z., & Wang, L. (2022). Bioinformatics analysis of CDH13 and its association with immune cell infiltration in renal cell carcinoma. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, 102345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.102345