Extra Genes For Starch Eaters

Humans have different numbers of a gene for digesting starch, probably because starch-eaters who got more of the genes had an advantage. Karen Hopkin reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

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.



You are what you eat. Or so it’s been said. Well it turns out that what we eat has also influenced who we are. Down to the level of our genes. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Cruz have found that populations of people who eat a high-starch diet harbor extra copies of a gene whose product breaks down starch.

Ok, we all learned in high-school biology that genes come in pairs: one copy from mom, one from dad. In reality, things aren’t always that simple. For some genes we get multiple copies. Such as the gene for salivary amylase, the enzyme that kicks off the digestion of starch. On average, we humans have half a dozen copies of that gene. I say “on average” because not everyone has six. One person could have two, and another could have ten.

What the Santa Cruz scientists discovered is that individuals from populations that eat a lot of starch—potatoes or corn or rice—skew to the higher-end of that copy number spectrum. And they credit natural selection: more amylase probably conferred a fitness advantage to those who were eating starchy foods. Chimps, on the other hand, have only two copies of the amylase gene. Maybe because they’re not bananas about bread.

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