Slashdot Mirror
Dads Pass On More Than Genetics In Their Sperm (smithsonianmag.com)
According to two complementary studies, sperm change their cargo as they travel the reproductive tract, which can have consequences on the viability of future offspring. Smithsonian reports: The legacy of a dad's behavior can even live on in his child if his epigenetic elements enter an embryo. For instance, mice born to fathers that experience stress can inherit the behavioral consequences of traumatic memories. Additionally, mouse dads with less-than-desirable diets can pass a wonky metabolism onto their kids. Upasna Sharma and Colin Conine, both working under Oliver Rando, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, were some of the researchers to report such findings in 2016. In their work, Sharma and Conine noted that, in mice, while immature testicular sperm contain DNA identical to that of mature sperm, immature sperm relay different epigenetic information. It turns out that sperm small RNAs undergo post-testes turnover, picking up intel on the father's physical health (or lack thereof) after they're manufactured, but before they exit the body. However, the exact pit stop at which these additional small RNAs hitch a ride remained unknown.
To solve the mystery, Sharma, who led the first of the two new studies, decided to track the composition of small RNAs within mouse sperm as they fled the testes and cruised through the epididymis. She and her colleagues isolated sperm of several different ages from mice, including those about to emerge from the testes, those entering the early part of the epididymis and those in the late part of the epididymis. Sharma was surprised to find that many small RNAs seemed to be discarded or destroyed upon entering the early epididymis; then, the newly vacated sperm reacquired epigenetic intel that reflected the father's state of being, boasting a full set by the time they left the late epididymis. There was only one possible source for the small RNA reacquisition: the cells of the epididymis -- which meant that cells outside of the sperm were transmitting information into future generations. [...] Colin Conine, who led the second of the two new studies, next tested if using immature sperm would have noticeable effects on the offspring of mice. He and his colleagues extracted sperm from the testes, early epididymis and late epididymis and injected them into eggs. All three types of sperm were able to fertilize eggs. However, when Conine transferred the resulting embryos into mouse surrogates, none derived from early epididymal sperm -- the intermediate stage devoid of most small RNAs -- implanted in the uterus. The least and most mature sperm of the bunch were winners -- but somehow, those in the middle were burning out, even though all their genes were intact. The only other explanation was that the defect was temporary. If this was the case, then perhaps, if fed the right small RNAs, the early epididymal sperm could be rescued.
To solve the mystery, Sharma, who led the first of the two new studies, decided to track the composition of small RNAs within mouse sperm as they fled the testes and cruised through the epididymis. She and her colleagues isolated sperm of several different ages from mice, including those about to emerge from the testes, those entering the early part of the epididymis and those in the late part of the epididymis. Sharma was surprised to find that many small RNAs seemed to be discarded or destroyed upon entering the early epididymis; then, the newly vacated sperm reacquired epigenetic intel that reflected the father's state of being, boasting a full set by the time they left the late epididymis. There was only one possible source for the small RNA reacquisition: the cells of the epididymis -- which meant that cells outside of the sperm were transmitting information into future generations. [...] Colin Conine, who led the second of the two new studies, next tested if using immature sperm would have noticeable effects on the offspring of mice. He and his colleagues extracted sperm from the testes, early epididymis and late epididymis and injected them into eggs. All three types of sperm were able to fertilize eggs. However, when Conine transferred the resulting embryos into mouse surrogates, none derived from early epididymal sperm -- the intermediate stage devoid of most small RNAs -- implanted in the uterus. The least and most mature sperm of the bunch were winners -- but somehow, those in the middle were burning out, even though all their genes were intact. The only other explanation was that the defect was temporary. If this was the case, then perhaps, if fed the right small RNAs, the early epididymal sperm could be rescued.
Those that claim to have lived past lives, I've often though those were memories coded in our genetic material, passed on to try to help the survival of the species. Now recalling that you are a person from some bygone era isn't necessarily helping but I think it is a side effect of the innate instincts that are passed on from generation to generation in a lot of species.
Much too the embarrassment of the child.
Couldn't you just cut your balls off?
Maybe, you should not have forwarded that to your female colleagues with the note: "I am very fit and in good mood today!"
regardless of the path in front of me that day, I am happy that my chosen profession doesn't involve giving tiny hand jobs to mice.
The research excluded and discriminated against female mice under a wrongful assumption that female mice can't produce sperm.
This cis-normative, vaginaphobic attitude to patriarchal research in male-dominated society is expected but should be criticized as problematic and bigoted.
The social construct which guided the alt-right pseudo-scientists in assuming female mice can't produce sperm should be demolished and a new, more vibrant and happy, idea of fluidity should take its place.
Nope. Does not modify your genetic code but how it is expressed (proteins, RNA, ...). It just says that the initial condition are important i.e. the condition in which the gametes are produced. This is not really a surprise to any biologist. The effect seems to support some Lamarckism but the mechanism are purely Darwinist.
You got downvoted because simply using SJW terms is hilarious.
Anything that easily mocked is brain-damaged.
So, I was not aware that all the mice dads were in the drive-thru at McDonald's and ordering Domino's while playing Nintendo on the couch. What news that is!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Today, 30th August 2018. Bbc.com, front page (check it if you don't believe me). The 5 stories that you see immediately are:
1. Elections after Mugabe [photo: woman with a child]
2. Slap video of harassed woman shocks France
3. Why Hunt's gaffe over wife's nationality is so embarrassing
4. Heathcliff and literature's greatest love story are toxic
5. Mansplaining explained in one simple chart
Read them all, I beg you! You will see that no matter what is the subject, even the one about the elections that I would think is rather important for both sexes in Zimbabwe cannot miss to bash ALL men. The one about Heathcliff and mansplaining are soooooo ludicrous that it is not funny anymore. Not even remotely. More like fucking tragedy....
So yhea, your post reads like a classical "exaggerate reality for comic effect" tease....unfortunately you did not exaggerate at all....
There is a theory of fast evolution that says 'stress' can cause more rapid 'random assortments'. It says that, essentially, in times of great duress evolution operates more rapidly and diversification seems to increase in the species that is being stressed. It could be that this is the mechanism for that part of evolutionary theory.
The notion that traits are passed through the mechanisms mentioned in the studies is not at all supported by the studies. Phrases like "state of being" are not precise and are meaningless as traits are concerned and indicate to me that science writers have spliced their misunderstanding on these studies. Both studies only address fertility directly. While one may surmise that small RNAs may do many things, these studies do not show that. They only show that small RNAs can vary as sperm travels through the male reproductive tract and that this can affect fertility. That's it. No nonsense about stressed males passing on their stress or giraffes passing on their try hard stretching of necks or any other unsupported nonsense.
Calling what sperm acquire as they pass through the tract "intel" may have a basis if seen in a neutral fashion but in the context of the unsupported assertion by the writers about fatherly stress and such the use of the word "intel" is highly loaded and unsupported. Of course there is epigenetic "information." There is non nuclear material in sperm. Duh. What is shown in the studies is that this material changes as sperm travel through the male reproductive tract. Nothing about lifestyle choices, stress, Lamarkian crap, Jesus, Voodoo or any other baloney. Just some very interesting studies showing a mechanism affecting sperm in very specific ways with very limited assertions about what this means.
The article mentions possibilities of these studies helping with future fertility understanding. In fact, that is ALL that these studies directly offer. The bizarre "fathers pass traits extragenetically' through sperm is not addressed in the studies at all and are just bad science reporting. If the researchers asserted such things then their studies did nothing to support such assertions.
The 2016 study DOES show the possibility that small RNA provided by sperm may cause differences in phenotype metabolic rate in embryos. But this is not the same as showing that a trait will be passed to to birthed or mature creature(mouse). Having some RNA bits affect some gene expression when there aren't many cells is completely different than having this sperm RNA continue to have lasting effects. That would require a great deal more assertion and support than the 2016 study shows.
So the provocative parts of the reporting were actually only possibly applicable for a two year old study and not actually supported AT ALL by that two year old study. And the provocative parts of the reporting were not supported or even addressed by the two studies mentioned as being current.
Crap science reporting. Somebody getting drunk at a bar and asking some drunk assistant what the studies mean could result in a tide of speculation, but none of the Lamarkian nonsense is supported at all. It MAY be possible, but finding out if it actually IS will require work that has not been reported in the article.
I tried to read the mansplaining one yesterday.
To me the whole article seemed like a lot of "womansplaining".
The one about Heathcliff and mansplaining are soooooo ludicrous that it is not funny anymore. Not even remotely. More like fucking tragedy....
So yhea, your post reads like a classical "exaggerate reality for comic effect" tease....unfortunately you did not exaggerate at all....
The poster was a true Poe. I've read virtually identical work, the only difference was that the other screeds I've read were serious.
The only real clue to differentiate between Poe and Serious Feminist Academic was that it was posted as AC.
Heathcliff - srsly? Takes a special kind of weak to be damaged by that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We might call it Neo-Lamarckism
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
So there is something to Frank Herbert's concepts?
We used to have a wonderful gender-free word for this; condescending. And everyone does it from time to time, consciously or not.
But the Western world, the US in particular, can't leave well enough alone and started segregating words and ideas by sex and race (categorizing things is their passion) so now you don't have anything important to say unless you are a condescending woman of colour.
Drops mic and so-forth.
I get redirected when I try to read bbc.com but I can check the international version of .co.uk. Seems to me you are being selective.
Top story: High turnout in first post-Mugabe poll (photo of mixed line of voters)
India strips four million of citizenship (photo of woman)
Germany gripped by #MeToo racism debate* (photo of man)
Trapped hiker descend quake volcano
Deadly California wildfire growing
Foreign cyclists killed in Tajik 'attack'
Video sidebar:
Georgia's rave revolution (photo of mixed ravers)
Evidence of torture in Russian prison (photo of two men)
Nailing it: Art right on your fingertips (photo of female hand)
A Nicaraguan spring? (photo of male doll)
Ahed Tamimi release from prison (photo of her)
Weaving a livelihood in Kenya (photo of woman)
* This is a story about racism, not sexism.
Seems like coverage a wide range of news with photos appropriate to the story. And this is a year where the BBC is supposed to be making a conscious effort to cover more women's stories. Seems like they got the balance about right.
Don't see any man hating in there, but if it exists provide a link and I'll happily report this misuse of my licence fee and demand an explanation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You win the Internet today.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
If that helps you feel better about yourself.. sure.. okay?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I think you're being too hopeful about this as an explanation. Many epigenetic changes are not adaptive, and many others are only arguably adaptive. E.g., what benefit do you ascribe to the kink that some cats get in the tip of their tail from epigenetic modifications? I understand that the stress is the lack of some particular vitamin (or proteing? Can't quite remember.), but it doesn't seem to confer any adaptive advantage, and arguably a slight disadvantage.
I suspect that the major part of the mechanism for "fast adaptation" is the wide diversity of "neutral DNA" carried by most species, that are usually irrelevant in expression, or even unexpressed, but which can become relevant in altered circumstances. It's like a hill-climbing optimization problem where every member of a species is started at the foot of some hill or other. Many will get caught in local maxima, but you're climbing from millions of different starting points.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
There is a memory code waiting to be discovered, much like the genetic code. The idea that long term memory is recorded in synapses is already crumbling, it appears instead that the synapses are under the control of RNA within the cell, which invites the question: how does memory map to the four letter genetic code?
It is obvious that a few billion nucleotides in the human genome is far too little to encode the innate abilities we are born with. Think of it in terms of game model assets: how detailed a world can you model with 10 GB of data? Compress it, do whatever you like. The world we are born with is way more detailed than that. So there must be other channels of inheritance than DNA, with far more total volume than DNA. How does RNA encode a memory symbol, or a relationship between symbols? Somebody is going to get a Nobel for that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
"We used to have a wonderful gender-free word for this; condescending."
Tru dat. Then we realized that men do this to women at a much higher rate than any other combination, and so we realized that 'condescending' wasn't quite getting the job done.
Given that the top two 'Editors Picks' on the front page of bbc.com are the mansplaining and 'Heathcliff is toxic' articles, I'd say it's a valid criticism. If their mission is to have more women's stories, that's great, there's plenty of women doing amazing things in this world they can report on. Instead they post nonsense like mansplaining and why a great romance in literature is toxic.
What "job" is that? Because just from what you said, you'd be reducing the signal quality even more.
Normally, the job of a word is to mean the same thing that it meant yesterday.
That's just the front page of a television network.
You might have intended instead to read the news section, click on "news" and that will change about half the words on the page.
Seems like coverage a wide range of news with photos appropriate to the story.
Every time I see the news there is something about Trump. I'm over it. I'm counting the days to 2024 when I never have to hear about that clown ever again...