Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paternal Stress Is Passed To Offspring (arstechnica.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the everybody-chill-out dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Researchers have discovered that stress experienced by male mice can be passed on to their offspring. "In earlier work, these scientists exposed male mice to six weeks of alternating stressors like 36 hours of constant light, a 15-minute exposure to fox odor, exposure to a novel object (marbles) overnight, 15 minutes of restraint in a 50 mL conical tube, multiple cage changes, white noise all night long, or saturated bedding.

Then the scientists allowed the mice to breed (abstract). Adult offspring of these chronically stressed dads had reduced hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal stress axis reactivity; when they themselves were restrained for 15 minutes, they did not make as much corticosterone as mice sired by relaxed dads. This is relevant, and problematic, because blunted stress responses in humans are associated with neuropsychiatric disorders like depression, schizophrenia, and autism."

50 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Poor mice by captaindomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a pretty barbaric test on the subjects. I know, for the greater good and everything etc. etc., but at some point where do we draw the line and say this isn't humane to perform?

    --
    Just because I can hook a shark from a boat, I do no offer to wrestle it in the water.
    1. Re:Poor mice by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those mice still are better off than cows and pigs.

    2. Re:Poor mice by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyway, compare that to the stresses imposed by society on humans. Alarm clocks, driving to work, job stress and anxiety, family matters, bills to pay, house and mortgage, etc. It's different but since we have a longer lifespan I'd say we have it worst than the mice.

      Also, since this is Slashdot, I'll add that at least those mice were allowed to have sex.

    3. Re:Poor mice by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Human meaning humanity, meaning empathy and compassion. Something you seem to lack since you jumped at the dictionary definition instead of being human.

    4. Re:Poor mice by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      They don't even seem different from stresses on humans. Most of those are things that a significant part of first-world humanity deals with on a daily basis.

    5. Re:Poor mice by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      You should probably read this article, from America's Finest News Source. It explains everything.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    6. Re:Poor mice by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Humans are animals too, no matter what you may reply with.

    7. Re:Poor mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Seems like a pretty barbaric test on the subjects. I know, for the greater good and everything etc. etc., but at some point where do we draw the line and say this isn't humane to perform?

      When it stops helping people.

    8. Re:Poor mice by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, god will make more mice.

    9. Re:Poor mice by Nyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, this is inhumane to do to mice. We should just start making clones of humans so we can do the experiments on them.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    10. Re:Poor mice by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Oh no, exposure to marbles!

    11. Re:Poor mice by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      All the great new drugs are tested on mice first... some of those mice are like, totally trippin' man... know what I mean?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    12. Re:Poor Mice by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      That rat just ate it's own shit and fucked it's mother in the cage. I guess we aren't more intelligent and superior?

      There are websites that you can find to show that some humans do exactly the same sort of thing. On the other hand, mice don't watch reality TV shows so that's a win for them!

    13. Re:Poor mice by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      The real purpose of the study is to find alternatives to waterboarding at Gitmo, but so far prisoners don't seem to be all that bothered by marbles or fox odor. Hopes were high when 96% of mice tested eventually admitted to having ties to extremist factions.

    14. Re:Poor mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Animal cruelty in scientific testing presents a moral dilemma. We need the knowledge. If we choose not to do the tests, then we choose to remain in ignorance, which could result in suffering and death for uncountable numbers of people.

      The means of gaining life-saving knowledge is before us. But it requires us to inflict a lot of suffering on animals. So it is a tough call.

    15. Re:Poor mice by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Human meaning humanity, meaning empathy and compassion. Something you seem to lack since you jumped at the dictionary definition instead of being human.

      Humane, like the cake, is a lie.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Poor mice by Radish03 · · Score: 2

      It's actually the withdrawal symptoms with that one. Have you ever seen a mouse who's lost his marbles?

    17. Re: Poor mice by Falos · · Score: 1

      Apparently it should have been framed in reverse as an implicit umbrella - "even [working class] first-worlders" - to avoid affecting the more sensitive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal glands in the audience.

      Then again, some stressors are exclusive to the subgroup - third worlders don't have to tiptoe around said SJW glands.

    18. Re:Poor mice by Falos · · Score: 1

      > obvious
      I must be less familiar with epigenetics than you. At any rate, science will happily rely on "obvious" to choose studies, but doesn't recognize it as a valid metric in formal conclusions. Mad rigogs, yo.

  2. epigenetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    tag

  3. That explains it by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    Fearful parents have crazy kids

    Suddenly the Middle East makes sense.

    And certain political groups.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:That explains it by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      So maybe we need to stop putting people into tiny fabric boxes and subjecting them to annual "performance review" torture processes. As a recent dad I am struck how much rearing kids in a good environment is a low priority in this and many other countries.

  4. Re:And to think someone got paid for this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If a dude works out a lot, their kids won't be born with super massive muscles, no matter what you might think from watching Dragon Ball Z. Genetics doesn't work that way.

    So, no, it isn't "obvious - common sense" when we do discover new things that we would think won't be passed on, but in actuality, do get passed on.

  5. Was Darwin partially wrong then? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 1

    It seems like stress can have an impact on our genetic system that can be passed down to the offspring. Seems like an evolution not just based on natural selection but also based on the parent gene's experience as well. This is just a long shot, I am not an expert on this by any means!

    1. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Informative

      Darwin just wasn't aware of epigenetics, but that doesn't make him wrong. Like many other scientific theories, we do additional studies and and refine the theories when we find results that they fail to explain or results that contradict our hypotheses. This isn't something completely new, but we're just scratching at the surfaces of how it works.

      Here's one particular study in the area that's particularly interesting. What the researchers found was that people who's grandparents had suffered through a famine had lower mortality rates for certain diseases. What we're learning is that our DNA has some feedback mechanisms to environmental responses and isn't just a simple matter of passing along traits through genes. It's some really fascinating stuff.

    2. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by parallel_prankster · · Score: 1

      Is this a genetic trait passed down ? Or is this a mutation that just happens to affect the next in line?

    3. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's really pathetic how so many young, enthusiastic, pro-science kids know so little about the stuff they champion. They'll scream for hours own end about people needing to get educated about the subject because they're on some sort of political tirade and have decided that the subject is an "issue" that their political party of choice depends on. Yet they can't tell you the first fucking thing about the issue beyond the talking points in their memo.

    4. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Inheritance of acquired characteristics, not very long ago, was scientific heresy. There was evidence for it, but was lambasted and dismissed. (International politics may have played a role here.) There's a real danger in elevating things like this to sacred truths.

      Darwin just wasn't aware of epigenetics, but that doesn't make him wrong.

      On the contrary, it would appear that he was wrong. He went out of his way to deny just about everything Lamarck put forward. On the Origin of Species is not a holy book, sacred text, or any other similar thing. We've long moved beyond it. It was not the final word, nor is it (or Darwin) infallible.

      What you really want to say is something obvious like "this doesn't mean evolution isn't true". That's fine, but why not just say that instead of some silly, indefensible, nonsense like this?

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    5. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It seems like stress can have an impact on our genetic system that can be passed down to the offspring. Seems like an evolution not just based on natural selection but also based on the parent gene's experience as well. This is just a long shot, I am not an expert on this by any means!

      Not likely Natural selection is natural selection. Ignoring th efact that Darwin didn't even know about genes, teh question isn't relevant to him. More likely (though I do nopt know at this time) the stress has an effect on the genetic makeup of the father's sperm.

      Another similar thing is a "maybe" link between obesity issues, possibly caused by exposure to estrogen mimic plastics, that may be pased to future generations.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

      Now DES is a mimic that has been already linked to birth defects.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      And bispnenol-A was yanked for being a mimic. That was in a lot of childrens drinking bottles.

      A long, but good paper on xenoestrogens and the problems they cause.. Xenoestrogens's links to obesity

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... But here is where it gets even more interesting. http://www.technology.org/2013...

      Now scientists may indeed tie the two together. Too much estrognen mimic substances causeing male birth defects and obesity, being passed down to offspring by way of damaged genes. These damaged genes might be (un) natural selection in reverse. Not so good.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Was Darwin partially wrong then? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Who is suggesting a conspiracy? I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I was suggesting that politics/nationalism is one reason that it remained a heresy, despite the existing evidence.

      Did I really need to explain this?

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
  6. Flynn effect by avandesande · · Score: 2

    This could explain the Flynn effect, which still exists when controlling for nutrition. I've often thought this is why problems can persist in children of extreme poverty and can persist over generations.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  7. Relevant for humans? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Unless humans women are breeding with male mice, I don't see this as being immediately relevant. Something to test for, to be sure, but there are some minor differences between the species.

    1. Re:Relevant for humans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here:

      http://www.livescience.com/32860-why-do-medical-researchers-use-mice.html

      Fifth paragraph.

      You're welcome, although you did not deserve it.

    2. Re:Relevant for humans? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Unless humans women are breeding with male mice

      I'm sure that there is a Tube for that, but you'll have to google it yourself.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Just have to love epigenetics... by digitus2001 · · Score: 1

    "Another investigation highlighted that a sharp change in food availability in paternal grandmothers' resulted in an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality in granddaughters adults' life" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_study)

    Not only what you do can be passed to you children, but maybe also what your parents did!

  9. How long would it take to filter out the stress? by Sowelu · · Score: 1

    Suppose this applies to humans the same as mice. How long do you think it takes for the effects of stress to show up in RNA, and how long does it take for it to be cleared? Of course there's there's some delay because of sperm production, but I didn't see any other info about the time required in that abstract. (Probably makes sense that it would be a study of its own.)

    Depending on how rapid the onset and falloff are, it might be pretty reasonable to say "yeah, that was a pretty bad couple weeks, let's put off trying for kids for a month".

  10. Immigration by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Modern common sense (which is often wrong), believes that:

    1) First generation immigrants work very hard, but rarely become successful themselves. They live a very high stress life, but do manage to send their kids to college...

    2) Second generation immigrants succeed far beyond their parents, becoming doctors, lawyers, and other upper class positions. By the time they father children, they usually have made it, and live with less stress than their parents.

    3) Whereupon their children have no stress and become wastrels,

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Immigration by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I think all this depends on the behavior of the male mice . . .did they stay around to take care and nurture their offspring? Did they pass off the stress to the mouse mother, who in turn, passed it off to the mouse child . . . ?

      The behavior of a human male, after the birth of a child has more affect on the baby, then anything that happened before the birth.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Immigration by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Actually, many first-generation immigrants are quite successful, at least by their own standards. They have much better lives than they would have had if they'd stayed home, and are able to send their children to college, something that they'd never have dreamt of doing in the Old Country. Just because they don't end up in the 1% doesn't mean that they're not a success.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  11. Re:And to think someone got paid for this.... by x0ra · · Score: 3, Informative

    We're talking epigenetics here, so environmentally driven gene expression in the father might be passed down to the kid. Beside, a father working out is more likely to have a proper nutrition and saner lifestyle (better sleep pattern, less partying / drinking, less overall stress), and thus give good habit to his kid giving him key to succeed..

  12. What doesn't kill you makes your kids weaker? by __aasehi2499 · · Score: 1

    What doesn't kill you makes your kids weaker?

    1. Re:What doesn't kill you makes your kids weaker? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. It causes your kids to seek a less stressful environment and move to a hippie commune where they can commune with nature.

      Or hermits.

      That is the takeaway message from this study.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Re:This makes me stressed by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm bearing a lot of stress from the implications of this new finding. The prospect of passing this stress to my child stresses me.

    In that vein, when you do have a child, don't be surprised if the poor little thing starts crying practically the moment it's born.

  14. Same thing happens with humans by koan · · Score: 1

    It's called epigenetics.
    https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  15. Lysenkoism? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    After 60 years, we've turned around and decided discredited Russian biologist Trofim Lysenko was actually right??

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Lysenkoism? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      After 60 years, we've turned around and decided discredited Russian biologist Trofim Lysenko was actually right??

      I hope you are joking.

      Lysenkoism It was a politically based movement - one that reminds me of denialists, that believed that things like wheat and barley could spontaneously transmute to each other, and many other odd beliefs. It's right up there with the idea that if your hand was cut off, your children will be born without one of their hands.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  16. Darwin was right by tomhath · · Score: 1

    He theorized that organisms adapt to their environment. If the environment causes stress in the parents you should expect to see changes in the offspring as a result.

  17. Paternal Stress Is Passed To Offspring by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    (in mice)

    Typical headline soundbite bullshit.

  18. 65% by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2

    Is this one of those unduplicateable experiments?

  19. Like many things do, this story reminds me of ... by timothy · · Score: 1

    the "I learned it by watching you!" anti-drug commercial of the '80s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    It is amazing how things that aren't obviously genetic can be so linked to parentage ... I can understand hair color, facial structure, height, etc, but some behaviors like facial expression, or posture, or even complex behaviors like hoarding that I used to assume were entirely learned just seem too spookily similar from one generation to the next for them to be only imitation. Of course maybe they *are* just imitation anyhow, but I like to hope not ;)

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5