Slashdot Mirror


How Dad's Stresses Get Passed Along To Offspring (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: A stressed-out and traumatized father can leave scars in his children. New research suggests this happens because sperm "learn" paternal experiences via a mysterious mode of intercellular communication in which small blebs break off one cell and fuse with another. Carrying proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, these particles ejected from a cell act like a postal system that extends to all parts of the body, releasing little packages known as extracellular vesicles. Their contents seem carefully chosen. "The cargo inside the vesicle determines not just where it came from but where it's going and what it's doing when it gets there," says Tracy Bale, a neurobiologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. To probe the inheritance of such changes at the cellular level, Bale and co-workers performed a series of mouse experiments.

In one set of experiments [Jennifer Chan, a former PhD student that was part of the study] stressed a group of male mice, let them mate and looked at stress responses in the pups. The clincher was a set of in vitro fertilization -- like experiments in which she collected sperm from a male mouse that had never experienced induced stress. Half his sperm went into a lab dish with vesicles previously exposed to stress hormones. The other half was cultured with vesicles that had no contact with stress hormones. Chan injected sperm cells from each batch into eggs from a non-stressed female, then implanted the fertilized eggs -- zygotes -- into the same foster mom. The pups from non-stressed zygotes developed normally. Pups from stress-exposed zygotes, however, showed the same abnormal stress response as those whose dads had experienced stress before mating. That showed extracellular vesicles act as the conduit for transmitting paternal stress signals to the offspring, Chan says.

3 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Lamarck's revenge by blindseer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everything old is new again. Lamarck had his theory of evolution and Darwin had his, and for the longest time Darwin was thought to have cracked the code. I guess just like how Newton figured out physics on the macro scale there's more to be seen when one looks closely enough to see where the theory doesn't explain it all.

    I recall seeing an interesting TED Talk from a man explaining how homosexuality was not genetic but epi-genetic. That is "epi-" meaning "above" or "beyond". Epi-genetics means that environmental factors placed upon the parents produce something very much like genetics on the child, as in inherent to their "code" or "being", that cannot be undone after the child is conceived. In this TED Talk the man used his son as an example of this in that the stress he and his wife had in their life produced a homosexual son because in prior times, and through many iterations of evolution taking place, there is a survival benefit of the clan or species in having homosexual men in times of stress. Things like war and famine might be where a "pause" in further offspring would be beneficial.

    This fine article performed the experiment on mice and seemed a bit vague on the behavior they observed. If experiments like this can tell us more on human behaviors then there could be a lot on how we could improve society for the future. Since I already stepped on the landmine that there is a theory, not proven by the way but merely an educated guess by a man that seems convinced of the science, where stressed parents produce homosexual children then I feel like stepping on another will not be any worse.

    There's the theory that a stressor that is thought to lower intelligence and raise tendencies to criminal behavior, that is children conceived out of marriage. Women being pregnant without the biological father around (or other male stand in) is stressed in a way that evidence shows might be epi-genetic. There's other possible reasons for this, like such stress in childhood upon the child will bring an adult that is aggressive and poorly educated and therefore likely to exhibit anti-social (or just plain criminal) behaviors. Or that women in such a situation will not have the time for breastfeeding (shown to be far healthier than formula), time for bedtime stories (shown to improve education later), or time for making a proper meal with any regularity. Children raised in a low stress environment tend to become well behaved adults.

    Will reduced stress in society mean no more gays and criminals? Well, that would be an interesting theory to test. I don't know how we'd do that without getting into telling parents how to raise their children. Epi-genetics or not there's plenty of evidence on how a downward spiral in society can be broken by one generation of children raised in a healthy family structure. Lamarck may not have got it all right, but he wasn't all wrong either.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Lamarck's revenge by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sounds like you are projecting some personal test onto other people.

      It sounds like you are trying to read my mind and psychoanalyze me base on a few paragraphs.

      It is hard to take you seriously when you combine these arguments as both can be subjective.

      Then don't take me seriously. I'm merely pondering on where epi-genetic research might lead us.

      If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.

      That's not my argument. My argument is that if stresses on the parents means poorly behaved children then it would be to our benefit to reduce stresses on parents.

      I've been watching some interesting videos lately on how IQ correlates to financial and other success in life, as well as what factors contribute to IQ. The most recent video I saw was on "McNamara's Folly" or Project 100,000, by someone that wrote a book on this and who's name I don't recall right now. I don't have the link to the video as I found it on a different computer than I'm using right now but here's the Wikipedia page on that project:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Other videos I've seen were from Dr. Jordan Peterson where he describes how the US military has a large database of how people scored on their version of an IQ test and how well the people performed in their job. Dr. Peterson and others I've seen describe various possible contributing factors to IQ, and therefore future success. This simply fascinates me. There's some dispute on how genetics influence IQ, but no dispute that IQ is influenced by genetics. Maybe genetics contributes 80% to IQ, maybe only 50%. So, what contributes the rest? Can this be explained by epi-genetics? If so, then how much? Then comes the question of real importance, if epi-genetics influence future success then what should we do with this information?

      I don't want everyone in the same place since that means, as you point out, communism where everyone has an equal share of the misery. I want people to reach their greatest potential. If stresses on the parents means lowered chances of success for the children then we, as a society/nation/species/community, should do what we can to lower this stress. If epi-genetics means nothing then we should still be excellent to each other but know that such efforts may not be rewarded in better behaved children. That is we'd be no better rewarded than we already know with things like well fed children leading to healthy adults, as opposed to malnourished children leading to adults being stunted in physical and mental development.

      I mentioned the TED Talk on a possible link of epi-genetics to homosexuality as something this article reminded me about and shows possible effects on humans. Homosexual tendencies are "bad" in that the species cannot propagate with these tendencies. If homosexual behavior is genetic then one could assume that it is unlikely to have survived to today. This then leads one to think about how it might propagate, since a genetic trait that's counter to propagating the species should fade in time. There must be something beneficial to this, and there must be a mechanism for it to exist in following generations. This is perhaps no different than anti-social behavior (or rather what we define today as such) being beneficial to the species. There's little doubt that stressed parents lead to aggressive children, what might be left unexplained is the mechanism behind it. A stressed parent might need aggressive children since war is a stressor and aggressive people tend to be more successful in war. There's now another layer to the nature vs. nurture debate and it's called epi-genetics.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Lamarck's revenge by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lamarck is wrong and epigenetic does not salvage Lamarck in any way. What Darwin's Theory is not about is where sources of variation come from, but how they persist. Epigenetic traits do not last more than a few generations and cannot contribute to speciation. It is still the genes that are selected on.

      The rest of what you write is just dribble. Part obvious - raise children well, who would have thought - and part nonsense, "therefore epi-genetics and evolution".

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.