Slashdot Mirror
DNA May Carry a Memory of Your Living Conditions From Childhood
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian and British scientists have found that how rich your family was when you were a kid — as judged by wealth, housing conditions and occupation of parents — has a huge impact on your current DNA. 'This is the first time we've been able to make the link between the economics of early life and the biochemistry of DNA,' says Moshe Szyf, professor of pharmacology at McGill University. The study did not show whether the DNA changes identified are passed on to offspring, but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
The changes in DNA are due to methylation of the DNA, not changes in sequence. This can lead to more or less of a given gene being expressed, but won't lead to any actual changes in the genes.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
What is this based on? Perhaps extra robustness is built in for exactly the reason that you may run more risk? So having poor parents may actually give you an advantage...
[rolls eyes]
There are always going to be 'haves' and 'have nots' in this world...that's the way of nature.
While interesting...what exactly could or should anyone do about it?
Everyone can't be rich....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Now idiots like Deepak Chopra have a leg to stand on.
Knowing what I do now about early childhood development, the whole thing is just scary as hell--the more your parents speak to you, the less TV you watch, the better nutrition you get, the more time you spend with other children, and so on... those first two (and then five) years are so critically important to the rest of your life you can pretty much predict the rest of it when you reach adolescence.
No, eating fatty foods, over-sugared foods, and smoking cigarettes is what causes heart disease, diabetes and lung disease.
Giving people who refuse to exercise a little self control another excuse for their behaviour helps nobody.
One step closer to having an ANIMUS?
Canadian and British scientists are recommending that everyone be wealthy, have great housing conditions, and the parents should have a great occupation. The team is still trying to understand how the bottom 99% can be the new 1%.
Giving people who refuse to exercise a little self control another excuse for their behaviour helps nobody.
... except those who benefit from that behaviour.
Turns out F. Scott Fitzgerald was right.
It seems like we've been finding more and more that there are more influences on an organism's genome than just simple heredity and natural selection over a period of several generations. I remember a recent study that suggested that acquired traits might actually be possible to pass on to offspring... if this is the case, we're going to have to revise our models pretty seriously.
If anything, it will only make evolution a lot more impressive. I don't think we'll be seeing X-men level mutations ever, but these kinds of effects could really accelerate change in a species much more than we've ever expected (assuming that these changes happen in reproductive cells as well).
Yes, but changes in fundamental sequence aren't the only way genes 'change'. Changes in expression constitute almost all of the biological changes that affect to an organism during its lifetime, as opposed to merely affecting its offspring; it's only because of expression changes that you ever go from a fetus to an adult (or from a fetus to a slightly larger fetus, for that matter).
I mean, presumably you understand this, unless you're able to talk about methylation solely from reading the article, but I don't want anyone to get the impression that 'only' changing the way DNA is expressed is a small feat.
Expression is *everything*. Almost nothing can be accomplished in any eukaryotic organism without deliberate changes in expression like this; basal transcription (the rate at which your genes are used entirely because the right parts randomly came together with nothing else - like methylation - helping or preventing them) accomplishes almost nothing.
The human genome is a lot like a computer in that way: almost nothing happens without something specifically telling it to work, and these guys just discovered a whole damn code library.
... you are (rewired by) how you live, to twist the cliche. Your offspring might be somewhat rewired by how you lived, too.
I'm betting the latter is demonstrated eventually, given the clues presented by epigenetics and newfound roles of RNA. I read years ago that the behavior of kittens can be largely predicted by that of the father, even if the father was not present after birth; humans are likely affected by the same mechanisms.
I don't know what I should make out of these findings but couldn't it be that kids coming from a "richer" background are fed more nutritiously than maybe a "poor" kid? Couldn't that have an impact on the "appearance" of the genetic material? DNA and life style are such different things that I am not convinced that a correlation between these two are any meaningful at this point.
They're not saying there's any 'extra robustness' being generated here, and you can't reasonably infer that possibility, either..
They're saying that the DNA changes, and it makes these people more likely to die of heart disease. If those changes are permanent and affect their germ cells, then their children will also be more likely to die of heart disease.
If those changes aren't permanent, then their children are only as likely to get heart disease as they were before they lived in a shitty childhood home. Provided they don't raise their kids in the same type of home, of course.
No trait increasing disease rates and no degree of permanence/heritability ever result in someone or their children being better at resisting disease than when they started. That's not how genetics or evolution work.
The only way a bad trait ever makes anyone stronger at the function for which the trait is bad is at the species level, by killing the holder so that the species as a whole has less of that trait.
My parents deprived me when I was a child. I can prove it now since it's all recorded in my DNA!
(yes, this is a joke. laugh.)
Science can definitively say that she's still Jenny from the Block.
Great, I see the social Darwinists are out in force here.
At least I don't see any eugenicists spouting off. Although I do see people arguing that not abandoning the crippled to die of exposure constitutes some massive leap forward in social good.
That's what I like to hear people say in a dense, irreversibly interdependent global society: that merely not letting people die is the extent of our social responsibility.
Jesus Christ this place is depressing.
Great, just another privacy violating way that everything in our life is tracked.
Who's going to sue God for this clear violation of privacy?
Sounds a lot like a Nova program I saw some time ago. It titled 'Ghost in your genes'. It talked about how epigenetics control how your genes are expressed and they had noticed some inherited traits based on whether the ancestors were poor, starving, folk or not.
He wants his obsolete theory of acquired traits back.
This is interesting and useful in many ways, but inheritance is not one of them.
That was from an earlier study 1-2 years back by memory.
The indication seems strong that environment plays a big part in gene expression and it is absolutely fascinating.
I read TFA, and it seems vague what they mean by "rich". I grew up on a farm. We were dirt poor. We got a lot of exercise, as one does on a farm, where whether you eat or not depends on whether you got your chores done. Being on a farm, we ate fairly far down the food chain, commonly fresh foods with almost no processed foods, which we couldn't afford. (This is probably why I never really developed a taste for candy or for overly processed foods.) Sometimes we ate what my dad hunted. (I never did learn to enjoy the taste of venison.)
So, what health risks did I suffer, as opposed to someone who is rich, doesn't have to exercise, and can eat whatever the hell they want? And in what way was their upbringing superior to mine?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Sieg Heil!
"Lingering effect" is not "memory". Calling it memory is bad anthropomorphism, and will contribute to sloppy definitions, fuzzy reasoning, and eventually to pseudo-science. I'm sure the scientist involved understand that the phenomena they're studying is nothing at all like memory, but once this is wrung through the filter of popular press, the distinction gets lost.
This is how quantum physics gets turned into new-age philosophy, and biomechanics gets turned into healing resonant vibrations.
I agree. Scientific results shouldn't be used just for making political points and name calling.
Like you immediately do with it in a slightly back door way.
this research seems to be just a small part of a bigger picture: the genes have memory ... not a fully proven idea but looks quite promising
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Damn spell checker. My fingers do that one all the time, and my subconscious doesn't ring the mail chime until five minutes later.
It doesn't matter if you're poor, so long as you have food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. And public order, so you can walk the streets at night. And sanitation. And the aqueduct. And wine.
When can we expect to have one?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
If the DNA was extracted from somatic cells, as the article states (blood), then it cannot show whether there is a heritable effect (passes on to next generation, for you non-biologists). As the article states: "the study did not show whether these changes might be passed on to offspring. Period. You don't need to incorrectly editorialize with the "but if so". There is no need for a non-biologist to make Lamarckian speculation. If the study was on germ line cells in adults that showed methylation, AND it looked at embryonic DNA methylation of that adult's offspring etc etc... maybe then we can start talking Lamarck. Even then, there is no need to throw out heart disease etc, because it is far far from clear what DNA methylation even controls as far as traits.
All they had to do was look at comic book mutants (X-Men?) to see that most of them come from underprivileged backgrounds.
Eugenics.
It's not that your basic DNA is changed, just that certain segments are silenced or activated.
While it is true that virii can overwrite segments of your DNA, it's more that conditions in the environment turn on or off or alter the expression of the genetic code.
For further details look in a recent biology or biochem book for mRNA, miRNA, siRNA, and other fun things.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Exactly, it's like that waste of great brainpower, aka Silly String Theory.
We do actually have certain medical devices we can implant in your body that react to electromagnetic induced signals, so that say a wristwatch can regulate your dosage or measure it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I wish I could read Slashdot inverted.
More and more, it's the AC posts that are actually sensical, while all the upmodded derpuses spew their shitty agendas about linux/apple/kibibytes/patents/piracy/bleeding hearts/etc.
I get a kick out of how dems/socialists/communists/etc try to fuck with mother nature. It really is very amusing... This story is /almost/ as amusing as them thinking humans are capable of destroying the planet with our simple day-to-day goings on. News flash: humans can't control nature at large. We can make it rain, stop a flood, smog up the air for a day or two - but it always stops when the earth says it's time for it to stop.
People who contribute to society get jobs, and their children live longer. People who are slugs and refuse to train for the abundance of available jobs and contribute have children who are genetically inferior.
In almost all the species the germ line cells, the ones that will become sperm or egg, are sequestered very very early in the development of the fetus. They are also protected more by burying deep in the body, and they undergo fewer cell division compared to other cells. The whole idea is to protect these cells from impact due to life time experience and damage. So it is unlikely the hysteresis on the DNA gets passed on to the progeny.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Good for Facebook. I'm sure your DNA history will be part of your new profile on FB, and we'll start seeing mysterious ads for genetic fixes for what ails us in the margins of our Google search results.
It also affects your children look up epigenetics.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
So suddenly Assassin's Creed makes sense...
Iceland has the oldest running birth register in the world. From it researchers found that birth weight was affected for a few generations after events such as famine.
Another experiment involved transferring DNA from one cat into the egg of another, one black and the other white. (Though I can't remember what colour cat they inseminated.) The result was a patchy black/white cat.
The point I'm making is that we're not purely the product of our main DNA, but also that which triggers DNA to be run (yeah, look, I'm no biologist). And it seems that "that which triggers DNA to be run" is probably inheritable.
(No, I don't have references, and I don't have time to search for them now.)
Superintendant Andrews: "We're 25 prisoners in this facility. All double-Y chromos. All thieves, rapists, murderers, child-molesters. All scum." - Alien 3
[End Of Line]
Strange how long-discredited ideas resurface ages after. It's always troubled me that we're so keen to find the one sole mechanism for things as complex as life, the universe and everything.
Yes, Lieutenant is a commissioned officer rank. However, maybe there's an analogous point since Lieutenant is the lowest of the commissioned officer ranks.
ROTC is college+training then active service, as opposed to the GI Bill route of training,active service,college
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Having an all volunteer force pretty much assures public indifference to the war (IMHO)
Yes, there does seem to be an attitude of "well, those in the military did sign up for it, they should know what you're getting into."
Some anti-war types see military volunteers as part of the problem (as well as or instead of seeing the common soldier as amongst the victims of war)
I figure some do enlist with misconceptions about the military (thanks to salesman behavior from recruiters?). Educational efforts to clear up these misconceptions do make sense.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
"repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
Another way of saying the same thing.
"Rich people actually are genetically superior"
Background
Disadvantaged socio-economic position (SEP) in childhood is associated with increased adult mortality and morbidity. We aimed to establish whether childhood SEP was associated with differential methylation of adult DNA.
Methods
Forty adult males from the 1958 British Birth Cohort Study were selected from SEP extremes in both early childhood and midadulthood. We performed genome-wide methylation analysis on blood DNA taken at 45 years using MeDIP (methylated DNA immunoprecipitation). We mapped in triplicate the methylation state of promoters of approximately 20 000 genes and 400 microRNAs. Probe methylation scores were averaged across triplicates and differential methylation between groups of individuals was determined. Differentially methylated promoter sites of selected genes were validated using pyrosequencing of bisulfite-converted DNA.
Results
Variably methylated probes (9112 from n¼223 359 on the microarray) corresponded to 6176 gene promoters with at least one variable probe. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering of probes obtained from the 500 most variable promoters revealed a cluster enriched with high SEP individuals confirming that SEP differences contribute to overall epigenetic variation. Methylation levels for 1252 gene promoters were associated with childhood SEP vs 545 promoters for adulthood SEP. Functionally, associations with childhood SEP appear in promoters of genes enriched in key cell signalling pathways. The differentially methylated promoters associated with SEP cluster in megabase-sized regions of the genome.
Conclusions
Adult blood DNA methylation profiles show more associations with childhood SEP than adult SEP. Organization of these associations across the genome suggests a well-defined epigenetic pattern linked to early socio-economic environment.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I've seen you post this in about four different places in this thread, and I agree with the sentiment. We're a rich nation and there is more than enough -- right now -- to make everyone quite comfortable. It would be nice.
The problem that I see is without all of those people being FORCED to work for their necessities, I don't think most of us would. I love my work (and I have a great job) but I still wouldn't bother getting up every morning if it weren't for the paycheck. A percentage of people would almost certainly go out and do anti-work -- that is, tear shit up instead of producing. So at that point, I suspect that productivity drops to such a degree that I don't think we would be able to provide for everyone -- everyone would simply get poorer and poorer as productivity dropped and more people were born.
I can't absolutely prove this without an alternate universe, but examples like the Soviet Union have proven to me fairly conclusively that capitalism works and communism doesn't. Obviously, there's an entire spectrum in between pure capitalism and pure communism (and I don't think anyone would want to live in pure capitalism!) but you do take some efficiency out of the system with every step away from capitalism.
It's called "stress."
Do some research on that, and get back to us when you've woken up enough to do some constructive research.
You are flunking basic evolutionary theory, slashdot. Organisms do not evolve, populations do. Ontogenesis is not evolution. Lamarck was wrong.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a4
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
I have always concluded there is such thing as cellular memory, that can be passed on through the genes and is present in every living thing....such as animals etc.
Funny how without having a mother to teach it hunting tactics, my dog knew exactly how to dig for rodents and pounce on them, without having any clue before hand, thus leads the debate of is it really instinct or cellular memory we are talking about.....
I know that if a third generation pianist, lawyer, wrestler, ...they will have an easier time with the tasks of the field, then someone just having picked it up in that lifetime. Wealth being managed inside families for generations (hudson bay family, disney, quaker oats, etc...etc...) these family have wealth beyond imagination, yet through generations, the families seem to always amass more, like the younger generation knows how to manage more, then say someone that just came unto money....(lottery) and would have gone through it all within a few years.
Does sassiness contaminate your genes?
..yet?