Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Find Olfactory "Memory" Passed Between Generations In Mice
New submitter Raging Bool writes "The BBC is reporting that acquired phobias or aversions by mice can be passed on to subsequent generations. From the article: 'Experiments showed that a traumatic event could affect the DNA in sperm and alter the brains and behavior of subsequent generations. A Nature Neuroscience study shows mice trained to avoid a smell passed their aversion on to their 'grandchildren.''"
Score one for Lamarkian evolution. (And epigenetics). I knew Darwin was wrong...
can an aversion to working for a living be passed on through DNA as well?
Oblig
This explains why babies see the windows splash screen and begin crying.
BTW, turns out Lamarck got it right.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
These "scientists" suggest that the "DNA" of the offspring was modified.
In fact, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has modified their results to look this way.
The truth is that His Noodly Appendage is wrapped around each living being and their offspring.
When something happens to a living being, the Flying Spaghetti Monster transfers the sensation down His appendage to the offspring.
RAmen!
See, Lamarck was just like Tesla - a genius ahead of his time! Darwin/Edison gets all the glory but finally science catches up to the genius of Lamarck/Tesla.
I predict Rube Goldberg is next - his designs just seem insanely complicated, but it will turn out that a mousetrap really is a required step in every mechanical process...
It's a HUGE jump from finding that traumatic events can alter DNA to finding that training can used to pass specific behaviours through DNA.
Did they have a group where the sperm was collected prior to the learning?
;-)
Did they differentiate between a living vs dead parent?
You know 'cause it could be non-physical phenomena until that's ruled out.
Laugh all you want, but there are people who would consider that possible and it may as well be ruled out while killing all these mice. Right? Because they don't actually know the mechanism at this time.
These "scientists" suggest that the "DNA" of the offspring was modified.
In fact, the Invisible Pink Unicorn has modified their results to look this way.
The truth is that Her Sacred Horn touches each living being and their offspring.
When something happens to a living being, the Invisible Pink Unicorn transfers the sensation via her horn to the offspring.
Pinkamen!
I got my good nose for bullshit from my dad.
Animus coming soon
The grandkids had enhanced receptors for that particular smell. They specifically did not test for, and point out in the paper that they do not claim that the AVERSION was passed on, only that F1 and F2 had structures in the brain that are enlarged compared to control, and that are associated with the sense of smell for the chemical that was used to prime the F0 generation.
Much better science-savvy writeup by my cousin on the Nat Geo blog:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/01/mice-inherit-specific-memories-because-epigenetics/
FTFA: "They showed a section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was made more active in the mice's sperm." Oh. Gotcha. THAT section of DNA. Amazing that there are sections of DNA presumably responsible for 'sensitivity' to every possible scent, sound, and visual pattern. Either this is the worst bit of scientific journalism or the worst bit of science I've read in years.
Everybody knows that mice inherit the smell of cheese.
But the successful ones avoid it, unless it comes with the smell of dead mouse.
That's why they say:
The second mouse gets the cheese.
I've found a truly wonderful proof that mousetraps are the universal operators of mechanics, but the lameness filter is too small to contain the proof! :(
The rough draft goes something like this: Assume mousetraps are required for every mechanical process (given by parent). Every mechanical process that's not a mousetrap can be sub-divided into two or more mechanical processes, each of which requires a mousetrap. The recursive subdivision only terminates at mousetraps, so any mechanical process can be constructed entirely from mousetraps. Therefore, if you can prove your conjecture, then I can prove mine using your proof as a step. :-)
But I'm a bit doubtful that your proof would be valid, since I'm at a loss for how one would construct a self-resetting loop of mouse traps... mouse traps mouse-trapped onto bigger mouse traps? That way when you trigger the biggest mousetrap, it pulls all the levers on the little ones and then hits the triggers on some other mousetraps that fling the catch bars into place? Or maybe you're using have-a-heart traps or something?
My brain hurts just thinking about this; I think it might be easier to use gears as the universal mechanical operator and then somehow find a reduction from a mousetraps to gears.
p.s. I'm glad you didn't suggest that a popped balloon, since it's kinda hard to unpop one of those.
Are dumb.
Instead they should have created an aversion against rotating
iron wire objects and mazes.
Although I don't have any evidence (this is /.), it seems clear that this is probably simply yet another manifestation of DNA methylation.
As I understand it, most of the genome is modulated and/or inactivated by DNA methylation of primarily CpG sites (aparently to prevent junk dna from running amok like in cancer, but also to control differentiation/specialization and). Although the mechanisms and pathways for this are currently not well understood, it seems likely that the proteins that governed the response to this stimulus was effectively coded in the DNA already, but inhibited by DNA methylation. By changing the methylation in the DNA of the gametes this response was able to be passed through to the offspring.
The bigger question is how the methylation is done. If it is done by environmental exposure (e.g, the brain and the gamete cells are over-exposed to the same stimulus from the bloodstream and respond the the same way by changing the methylation pattern to favor a response to that stimulus), that seems fairly straightforward. If, however, the brain can create simulation that causes specific methylation in the gamets, that is a whole nuther ball of wax...
In this experiment they targeted a specific olfactory pathway in the mice (Olfr151) and trained them with a behavior. Apparently, in later generations there was less methylation of the gene corresponding to this pathway providing a more enhanced response to this smell and apparently learned to distinguish this smell better. To me that isn't transferring a memory, it's really more like pre-conditioning to match a learned state.
The difference is subtle, but one way to look at it it like earning money vs inheriting it where the memory is the "how-to-make-money" part and the dna-methylation pattern is the "money". Although the offspring still have money, their behavior is not necessarily the same as the parents.
From the Vatican...eventually. Will the scientific community be more eager to do the same with LaMark?
BTW: Both Darwin and LaMark were correct. Genes' expression, dictated by experience and culture, can be passed on, activating an otherwise inactive gene in later generations.
Yes, I know you had kidding on your mind. I just wanted to get the science straight.
A Google search on "discredited soviet era biologist" produces, as its top match, a link to info on Lysenko...who pretty much got Stalin's blessing by touting a genetic theory, reviled and rebutted ever since, that such things are as now reported in mice could be used to change organisms...like Mensheviks. Ooops!
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Vivisection is Medical Fraud
When an agency like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) throws about $15 billion each year—nearly half its entire research budget—at thousands of experiments on animals, it's impossible for the public to keep track of all the cruel and useless projects for which its tax dollars are being squandered to cause animals pain and suffering.
And even though public opposition to experiments on animals is greater than ever, there is apparently no project too trivial or too stupid for NIH to throw money at.
Case in point: Right now, NIH is funding dozens of bizarre, stomach-churning sexual behavior studies in which animals have the sexual pleasure area of their brains damaged and their genitals mutilated. Animals are sexually stimulated by experimenters, observed having sex, and subjected to other twisted procedures.
NIH has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on these sex experiments, and these five are just some of the most upsetting projects currently receiving funding:
1. Mice and rats electrically stimulated after penises mutilated and injected with chemicals
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Experiments: Experimenters cut all the skin off the penises of live mice and rats, electrically stimulated their penises with electrodes for up to five minutes, and injected their penises with various chemicals to see if they'd sustain an erection. The animals were then killed, and their penises were cut apart.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,792,144
2. Mice's sex drive tested after brains burned
Location: Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Experiments: Experimenters locked female mice into restraint devices, drilled holes into their skulls, and burned lesions into their brains. The females were then presented with urine samples from castrated and intact males, and the amount of time they spent sniffing each urine sample was recorded. In a subsequent experiment, the females were placed with males and the females' sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. All of the mice were killed and dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,505,173
3. Rats' sex drive tested following Prozac injections and removal of ovaries
Location: Texas Woman's University, Denton, Texas
Experiments: Experimenters injected female rats with antidepressant drugs and placed them with male hamsters. The females' sexual receptivity, as indicated by the downward arching of their backs, was observed and measured. The experimenters then manipulated the female rats, surgically removing their ovaries and injecting sex hormones, and again observed the rats' sexual behavior.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,024,949
4. Hamsters' sex drive tested following brain damage
Location: University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Experiments: Experimenters cut into the skulls of female hamsters and implanted tubes into their brains and pumps into their scalps. Saline or hormones related to sexual behavior were pumped into the females' brains, and the animals were videotaped as they were able to see, smell, and hear—but not touch—a male hamster. The sexual receptivity of the females to male hamsters was measured through their vaginal scent markings. Experimenters used brushes to stimulate the female hamsters, and the extent of sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. The animals were then killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,817,502
5. Rats' interest in drugs tested following brain damage and sex withdrawal
Location: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Experiments: Experimenters measured the time taken for male rats to mount females, insert their penises, and ejaculate. The experimenters then restrained the rats, cut into their skulls, implanted tubes into their brains, and pumped in a chemical that would block the rats' ability to process sexual pleasure. The experimenters then watched the rats having sex, withheld sex from the rats for seven to 28 days, and noted the rats' increased interest in an amphetamine reward. All the animals were killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $4,547,605
I can't believe this wasn't mentioned in the article... seems like a repeatable experiment to prove its existence.
love is just extroverted narcissism
There is a lot about the world which humans with all their arrogance don't yet understand.
How can you explain the "instinctive" response of various animals to dangers they have
never seen before ? I believe the possibility exists that many "memories" which are important
for survival are passed on via some sort of mechanism which involves encoding at the genetic
level. I think smell is only one of numerous mechanism which allows information to be transmitted from one
generation of organism to the next, and that some day science may actually find a biochemical
basis for what many would call a "soul". Sure, all this is laughable now, but go back in time 200
years and tell someone that in your time you have a box you can hold in your hand which enables
you to talk to someone who is thousands of miles away and you'd be burned as a witch.
Humanity may at this time only know a fraction of all there is to know. I personally believe that
is pretty damned cool. Of course all that we see may just be a simulation, too, but if it is a simulation
it is one hell of a good one.
.
> I think smell is only one of numerous mechanism which allows information to be transmitted from one generation of organism to the next, and that some day science may actually find a biochemical basis for what many would call a "soul" ..
This is a technology site, we don't believe in Woo-ism here ..
> I think smell is only one of numerous mechanism which allows information to be transmitted from one generation of organism to the next, and that some day science may actually find a biochemical basis for what many would call a "soul" ..
This is a technology site, we don't believe in Woo-ism here ..
I wrote the original post to which you replied.
I find it amusing that you presume to speak ( "we" ) for everyone on this site. That reveals
nothing so much as a personality flaw on your part which involves a profound
lack of self-knowledge regarding your own limitations as a single human being.
Others might choose to explain such behavior as a symptom of immaturity, which would also
make sense, because usually those who have reached what could be properly called
adulthood know better than to presume to speak for everyone else.
In any case, you missed my point entirely, and ironically your assumption regarding "Woo-ism"
could not be further from what I was trying to say. Over the span of hundreds or in some
cases thousands of years, much of what had once seemed unfathomable and mysterious
to humans has been revealed to have a basis in processes which are now understandable on a
logical scientific basis. I suspect this will continue to be the case with stuff which is even now
unexplainable with the current state of human knowledge. This has nothing to do with what
you call "Woo-ism" and everything to do with the continued advancement of human knowledge.
Some people prefer to consider phenomena which science cannot explain as the sort of thing
which is only understandable by some sort of god, but I prefer to consider such phenomena
as proof of gaps in human knowledge. So I am not a "Woo-ist", but YOU are a douche bag with
your snarky punkass attitude which some day may well earn you a well deserved ass-whipping.
.
.
This is big news, if you think about it. Really big news. For a long time I've heard the term "genetic memory", but it didn't make sense that such a thing would exist. Yet, when you work with dogs, there are certain breeds which seem to know exactly what their job is and how to do it. It is amazing to see a herding-breed dog, for instance, which has never seen sheep before, start herding them within a few minutes of being introduced to the animal. Intuitively, people have always seemed to know that learned behavior can be passed down to offspring. And now we've found a mechanism by which it can happen.
Proverbs 21:19