Origin and possible roles of the Sox8 transcription factor gene during sexual development

Sox8 is a member of the Sox family of developmental transcription factor genes and is closely related to Sox9, a critical gene involved in mammalian sex determination and differentiation. Both genes encode proteins with the ability to bind similar DNA target sequences, and to activate transcription in in vitro assays. Expression studies indicate that the two genes have largely overlapping patterns of activity during mammalian embryonic development. A knockout of Sox8 in mice has no obvious developmental phenotype, suggesting that the two genes are able to act redundantly in a variety of developmental contexts. In particular, both genes are expressed in the developing Sertoli cell lineage of the developing testes in mice, and both proteins are able to activate transcription of the gene encoding anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), through synergistic action with steroidogenic factor I (SF1). We have hypothesized that Sox8 may substitute for Sox9 in species where Sox9 is expressed too late to be involved in sex determination or regulation of Amh expression. However, our studies involving the red-eared slider turtle indicate that Sox8 is expressed at similar levels in males and females throughout the sex-determining period, suggesting that Sox8 is neither a transcriptional regulator for Amh, nor responsible for sex determination or gonad differentiation in that species. Similarly, Sox8 is not expressed in a sexually dimorphic pattern during gonadogenesis in the chicken. Since a functional role(s) for Sox8 is implied by its conservation during evolution, the significance of Sox8 for sexual and other aspects of development will need to be uncovered through more directed lines of experimentation. Copyright (C) 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Am I being treated fairly by my leaders? The roles of group identification and self-other comparisons in judgements of procedural justice

The current experiment focuses on the roles of social identity and social comparison in perceptions of procedural justice. Participants are randomly allocated to conditions in a 2 (whether the participant has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other has the opportunity to voice an opinion), X 2 (whether the comparison other is an ingroup or an outgroup member), between subjects design. Participants are then asked to report the extent to which they perceive the procedure they are involved in to be fair. It is predicted that participants will have a strong feeling of procedural unfairness when they are not given an opportunity by the leader to voice their opinion, but learn that their comparison other is given that opportunity. It is also predicted that the feeling of unfairness should be stronger when the comparison other is an outgroup rather than an ingroup member. Additionally, participants receiving a fair treatment may regard the procedure as fair when their outgoup comparison other receives an unfair treatment. Results support these predictions and reveal that how people make judgments of procedural justice through social comparison is qualified by the social identities of the parties involved.