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.''"

21 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Take that Darwin by Flyskippy1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Score one for Lamarkian evolution. (And epigenetics). I knew Darwin was wrong...

    1. Re:Take that Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong? Darwin wrote about Natural Selection. Sounds pretty right to me.

    2. Re:Take that Darwin by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's make sure it can be repeated before celebrating.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Take that Darwin by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko, thou art avenged!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Take that Darwin by Flyskippy1 · · Score: 2

      Yes, I'm trying to be funny. :) Lamarckian evolution (sorry for misspelling it in the original post) is pretty much completely discredited. Though at the time it was a good theory, it lacked a reasonable mechanism. While epigenetics displays some Lamarckian behavior, it doesn't completely fulfill the ability to pass on "acquired traits" and doesn't give the long term changes needed for species differentiation.

      And of course Darwin was wrong in some respects. He was just much more correct than anyone before him.

    5. Re:Take that Darwin by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Celebrating?

      As opposed to what? Bemoaning the fact that we used to be so happy in our ignorance?

      You do understand that this finding makes biology as a science much harder?

      Yes, well, unfortunately the truth doesn't care how easy you'd like life to be. Science is the pursuit of truth. Yes, the road ahead now looks a little more rubble-strewn, but when there's only one road, stopping to complain isn't going to speed the journey.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Take that Darwin by Prune · · Score: 2

      Wrong! The study does NOT support Lysenkoism (which itself is a rip-off of the older Lamarckism, though the damned Russophiles don't like to admit precedence to a Frenchman even in regards to the fraudulent pseudoscience derivative they promulgate) See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4510525&cid=45578265 for why the study does not support what you claim it does.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  2. eureka by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:eureka by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)? The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.

    2. Re:eureka by umafuckit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)? The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.

      There are plenty of other, less far-fetched, explanations for the Flynn effect. This is "only" a correlation but it brings up some important issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IQatWoN_GDP_IQ.png

      Don't forget that intelligence is hard to define and test. The IQ test probes some correlates of intelligence, but it can be gamed and you can train for it (which is another reason to be cautious about the Flynn effect--conventional education effectively "trains" people for IQ tests and nowadays more people spend more time in education. The Flynn effect is tailing off in many 1st world countries, which is consistent with this explanation.). e.g. Digit span (forward and backward) is tested in an IQ test. Without training, most people have a hard time reaching ten digits. However, with training you can recall 100 or more digits. You haven't become smarter, you've just trained once particular thing. Ditto with other aspects of the test. This is why those "brain training" games are pseudo-scientific bollocks. They make you better at the game, they don't make you smarter. It's possible that regularly "using" your brain will stave off dementia, and experience in life counts for a lot, but nobody has shown that you become "smarter" through training.

    3. Re:eureka by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)?

      Didn't get as far as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Proposed_explanations , then? Hint: Lamarckian inheritance is not required to explain the Flynn Effect.

      The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.

      That's not a logical conclusion to draw. The Flynn Effect is a broadly average trend in populations, not a simple case of individual children being more intelligent than their specific parents. It's more memetics than genetics.

      Pretty much everyone's general understanding of, say, the laws of the universe is much better today than it was 100 years ago, but that's no reason to conclude it got passed down in sperm and eggs.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:eureka by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So why are IQ scores getting higher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect)? The more we use our brain, the smarter our offspring get.

      Show me an IQ test that has stayed the same over time -- I think you'll find that as people get better training to score well on IQ tests, IQ tests also shift to be more "fair" to the population in general. I remember administering a "traditional" IQ test from the 50's to someone a few year's back -- they scored abysmally because the test assumed they'd understand concepts and turns of phrase that have completely left our society today. IQ tests used to be very male WASP-centric. Now the same test has a wider population base that it can sample from, making more North Americans score higher than they used to.

      (Older IQ tests assumed people had a basic sense of animal husbandry, farm crops [eg the difference between hay and wheat] and other non-urban things. Also, they assumed that a telephone was "dialled" via a rotor. These are just a few of the more obvious examples).

      Oh yes, and because IQ tests are supposed to be normalized, a proper IQ test will have the same distribution over a population year-over-year. You can't measure an increase in intelligence with IQ.

    5. Re:eureka by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      From the wikipedia article on the Flynn effect:

      one way to see changes in norms over time is to conduct a study in which the same test-takers take both an old and new version of the same test. Doing so confirms IQ gains over time. Some IQ tests, for example tests used for military draftees in NATO countries in Europe, report raw scores, and those also confirm a trend of rising scores over time.

      Exactly... but my point is that that's how you'd expect things to work out, based on the set of people under the normalized curve reaching into more global societies. It's just the IQ test methodology bumping up against the global society. IQ tests are known to test how well you score on IQ tests, and also test how well the test makers plotted the questions to the selected curve. They are about as strong an indicator of intelligence as a shotgun clustering is of marksmanship. I say this as someone whose IQ score has continually risen over the decades from its starting low of 138 :)

      I'm not discounting the Flynn effect; I'm saying that the results of it are encoded right in to the original process of how IQ tests are created. The effect is exactly what you'd expect, and has nothing to do with actual intelligence shifts.

  3. Re:I wonder, by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Funny

    (looks around...)

    Yes.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. Right Conclusion, Wrong Mechanism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  5. They did not pass "aversion" to their grandkids by belphegore · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

    1. Re:They did not pass "aversion" to their grandkids by NonSequor · · Score: 4, Informative

      The premise seems to be:

      1. There is a gene associated with a brain pathway responding to the smell.
      2. The more this gene is expressed, the more the stronger the pathway.
      3. Brain functions that depend on this pathway have a feedback mechanism that result in hypomethylation of the gene in at least sperm cells (egg cells weren't mentioned). This increases expression in the descendants. From what I understand, hypo methylation does not entail any alteration of base pair sequences.
      4. As the parent post mentioned, this doesn't mean passing on aversion/affinity, but potentially increased sensitivity which may aid in speed of learning these traits.

      That's based on my reading of the abstract. The abstract didn't mention any kind of known or discovered chemical signal for the brain activity to result in the hypomethylation in the sperm. My question would be if anything else in the experimental protocol could have triggered this in a manner not directly caused by the brain activity. My next question would be if this work can be reproduced with a different chemical pathway.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  6. Re:Mod parent up. by invid · · Score: 2

    It still won't work for giraffes stretching their necks.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  7. DNA methylation by slew · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:Mod parent up. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Just to clarify, that is what the research is claiming:

    They showed a section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was made more active in the mice's sperm.

    Both the mice's offspring, and their offspring, were "extremely sensitive" to cherry blossom and would avoid the scent, despite never having experiencing it in their lives.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Re:Mod parent up. by psithurism · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just to clarify, this is epigenetics. They don't believe they are altering DNA, this just changes the way the traits already encoded in the DNA are expressed.

    Nothing is being passed through DNA.