Variation in Color Vision Genes May Have Helped Humans See the Fruit for the Trees

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Eight percent of men experience red-green color blindness, which results from mutations in genes that code for light-sensitive pigments. But a new study suggests that even men who aren't color blind may see the world differently than women do, thanks to natural selection.

Brian Verrelli of Arizona State University and Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland analyzed genetic data from 236 people from around the world. Specifically, they studied a gene on the X chromosome known as OPN1LW, which codes for a protein that detects visible light in the red spectrum. Exchange of material between this gene and a neighboring gene associated with green light leads to a high amount of genetic variation but can result in color blindness if the process goes awry. Among the study participants the researchers found 85 variants of the gene. ¿That's approximately three times higher than what you see at any other random gene in the human genome,¿ Tishkoff says. ¿Usually it's a bad thing to have too much change in a gene, and natural selection gets rid of it. But in this case we're seeing the reverse.¿

The increased variation enhances the ability to discriminate between colors in the red-orange spectrum, particularly among females, because they have two copies of the X chromosome. Previous research in other primates has suggested that enhanced red vision in females allows them to better distinguish between berries and foliage when they are gathering food, Verrelli explains. If females did the gathering in prehistoric times, as many experts believe, that may explain why genetic variation promoting color sensitivity persists today. ¿We can't explicitly test it, but the model fits,¿ Verrelli says. The results will appear in the September issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe