4 ms·

> If someone had a genetic disease that was somehow overcome with, say, genetic modification in some future time would her future eggs also carry the updated ge

> If someone had a genetic disease that was somehow overcome with, say, genetic modification in some future time would her future eggs also carry the updated genetics? The answer is almost certainly yes, if the cells used to create the gametes had their DNA modified. The really interesting question is whether the epigenetic code changes in these cells. The discovery of epigenetics had huge implications in human development. If women are born with all of the eggs they will ever have, that would mean children are affected by the decisions made by their grandmother. If grandma lived through a famine, her grandchild might be predisposed to obesity due to epigenetic factors, regardless of what mom does.

sambe 10y ago
What do you mean by "epigenetic code"? Epigenetic means not encoded in DNA. Heritability is hotly debated (and anything positive in that area tends to be overstated in the media). Wiki has a few links on contested terms and taking caution vs enthusiasm of eg Chopra. There have also been several stories like this http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-interpreted-epigenetics-study-of-the-week http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-inte... over the last months.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic. I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant role in gene expression. To say otherwise would be foolish. I know heritability of epigenetic traits is limited. I didn't claim epigenetic traits are being passed down between generations. If women are born with all of their eggs, the DNA in her eggs would DIRECTLY be affected by the environment of her mother. There is strong scientific evidence epigenetic traits are reliably inherited by each of the daughter cells during mitosis. Thus it is fully plausible the epigenetic code of a child could be affected by their grandmother. If what you know about epigenetics comes from Wikipedia, you are probably about as informed as "the media". As a formally trained lab biologist, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that biology is one of the worst scientific fields to learn about from Wikipedia, especially when it comes to discoveries in young fields like epigentics.
  - photogrammetry 10y ago
    They are encoded in DNA. They are patterns in the physical structure of DNA beyond the raw A,T,G,C etc. Please be accurate in HN comments, and don't oversimplify for 'clarity' or 'readability,' especially for a topic as complex as the heritability of epigenetic traits. Additionally, Wikipedia [0] is a quite satisfactory source for information on epigenetics. Your casual dismissal of it suggests that you don't even know the basics of the topic, and shouldn't be mocking 'Joe Average' or the media for what you perceive to be their ignorance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
    - Declanomous 10y ago
      Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account? My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wikipedia page before commenting. That article, like many articles on Wikipedia, provides a great overview of the topic. However, it isn't a substitute for an actual education in the field. I stand by my claim that being able to read Wikipedia puts you on about the same level as the average media correspondent. I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me. You and the other comment I replied to are clearly over-estimating your knowledge, especially regarding terminology. Nowhere did I simplify anything for clarity or readability. I deliberately chose not to use jargon for readability, however my comment would have been clear and unambiguous to another biologist. Both of your comments were based on a pedantic reading of my comment that a trained biologist never would have made. Yes, the parts that make the epigenome are coded in DNA. However, the epigenome is not part of the genome. If I say "epigentic code" I'm specifically referring to the part of gene expression controlled by the epigenome. I'm not referring to the bits that end up making the epigenome (such as histones, etc) that end up making the parts of the epigenome. You each chose an incorrect interpretation in each case, when the alternative was perfectly obvious and correct.
      - photogrammetry 10y ago
        I refuse to offer a reasonable response to an ad-hominem attack.

sambe 10y ago

What do you mean by "epigenetic code"? Epigenetic means not encoded in DNA. Heritability is hotly debated (and anything positive in that area tends to be overstated in the media). Wiki has a few links on contested terms and taking caution vs enthusiasm of eg Chopra. There have also been several stories like this http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-interpreted-epigenetics-study-of-the-week http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-inte... over the last months.

Declanomous 10y ago
I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic. I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant role in gene expression. To say otherwise would be foolish. I know heritability of epigenetic traits is limited. I didn't claim epigenetic traits are being passed down between generations. If women are born with all of their eggs, the DNA in her eggs would DIRECTLY be affected by the environment of her mother. There is strong scientific evidence epigenetic traits are reliably inherited by each of the daughter cells during mitosis. Thus it is fully plausible the epigenetic code of a child could be affected by their grandmother. If what you know about epigenetics comes from Wikipedia, you are probably about as informed as "the media". As a formally trained lab biologist, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that biology is one of the worst scientific fields to learn about from Wikipedia, especially when it comes to discoveries in young fields like epigentics.
- photogrammetry 10y ago
  They are encoded in DNA. They are patterns in the physical structure of DNA beyond the raw A,T,G,C etc. Please be accurate in HN comments, and don't oversimplify for 'clarity' or 'readability,' especially for a topic as complex as the heritability of epigenetic traits. Additionally, Wikipedia [0] is a quite satisfactory source for information on epigenetics. Your casual dismissal of it suggests that you don't even know the basics of the topic, and shouldn't be mocking 'Joe Average' or the media for what you perceive to be their ignorance. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account? My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wikipedia page before commenting. That article, like many articles on Wikipedia, provides a great overview of the topic. However, it isn't a substitute for an actual education in the field. I stand by my claim that being able to read Wikipedia puts you on about the same level as the average media correspondent. I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me. You and the other comment I replied to are clearly over-estimating your knowledge, especially regarding terminology. Nowhere did I simplify anything for clarity or readability. I deliberately chose not to use jargon for readability, however my comment would have been clear and unambiguous to another biologist. Both of your comments were based on a pedantic reading of my comment that a trained biologist never would have made. Yes, the parts that make the epigenome are coded in DNA. However, the epigenome is not part of the genome. If I say "epigentic code" I'm specifically referring to the part of gene expression controlled by the epigenome. I'm not referring to the bits that end up making the epigenome (such as histones, etc) that end up making the parts of the epigenome. You each chose an incorrect interpretation in each case, when the alternative was perfectly obvious and correct.
    - photogrammetry 10y ago
      I refuse to offer a reasonable response to an ad-hominem attack.