6 ms·
Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance
- ClimatePaywall 11mo ago[dead]
- terminalshort 11mo agoIf it's inheritable wouldn't that make it by definition genetic?
- nabla9 11mo agoNo. If the change happens without altering the DNA (or RNA) sequence it's not genetic it's epigenetic. epi- = outside
- ykonstant 11mo agoBetter translation of epi- : on top of.
- NotGMan 11mo agoGenetic would mean that genes get modified. But there might be other ways that some traits get inherited, eg by changing the cellular environment in the sperm/egg itself which could affect the offspring while keeping the genes the same.
- agumonkey 11mo agoMaybe he's trying to go to the earliest idea of "gen-es" aka the reasons for the traits of an individual. The idea existed before the discovery of cells kernels and DNA right ? so in a way, if there are other mechanisms involved in passing traits to children, it could be termed as gen-something
- shevy-java 11mo agoYes, that depends on the definition. Lamarck could fit into it, but he had no clue about DNA, genes and so forth; neither had Darwin. He babbled about gemmulae. Even the definition of a gene is not very accurate. Many important sequences yield a miRNA or another RNA. Only few sequences yield a mRNA. Some "genes" are just integrated viruses/phages/transposons etc... that were modified. One of the most fascinating one was the retrovirus in regards to the mammalian placenta: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4332834/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4332834/ but there are many more examples. We are all DNA hybrids at the end of the day. The whole species concepts makes very little sense these days, IMO. I can see the use case for eukaryotes, but it makes no sense to me for bacteria yet alone viruses.
- Aurornis 11mo agoEpigenetic inheritance is a mechanism whereby traits could be passed from one generation to the next without modifying the underlying genetic DNA. The mechanism would alter the expression of different parts of DNA. It’s a very young field with a lot of open questions. The concept has been adopted and abused in the mainstream so you have to be careful to separate the science from the pseudoscience.
- shevy-java 11mo ago> It’s a very young field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Definitions That depends on the definition. But, if we use the modern definition, it emerged (or re-emerged) in the 1990s. It's not old, indeed, but I also would no longer call it "very young". It's soon 40 years in the modern definition, and much older if we include prior discussions.
- quesera 11mo agoA young field can be immature, regardless of age. E.g., I would regard computer science as a very young field.
- the__alchemist 11mo agoCould you restate this? I believe "genetic" usually refers to only the sequence of linear bases, while epigenetics refers to histone acetylation, and base methylation (And other things perhaps). These are also heritable, and regulate protein expression in a way that, like genetics, affects phenotype.
- shwaj 11mo agoIt’s not a tautology. Check out the work of Michael Levin (easily accessible on YouTube) for examples of non-genetic heritability.
- __MatrixMan__ 11mo agoI think that nowadays "gene" refers only to a subset of a nucleic acid. Sequences of ACTG (or ACUG in the case of RNA) only, and only in that organism's chromosomes. If you inherit a virus from your mother, for instance, I think most would call that non-genetic inheritance, even though viruses have genes too. Same goes for methyl and acetyl markers, transcription factors, nutrients, toxins, and whatever else comes along for the ride in the meiotic cell.
- terminalshort 11mo agoGot it. I had thought that actual genes were only a part of what was considered "genetics."
- __MatrixMan__ 11mo agoBack in the day when they didn't know which cellular chemical was responsible for the majority of heritability I think the usage was indeed more general. But now we have "the central dogma of biology" which puts nucleic acids on a pedestal. Convenient to have rules so you can keep track of their many exceptions.
- RobotToaster 11mo agoIt's genomic, technically.
- Aurornis 11mo ago> While the Murphy group consistently observed this attraction in their assays, the Hunter group generally did not (Kaletsky et al., 2025). The Vidal-Gadea group also observed that worms that had not been exposed to PA14 were initially attracted to it, suggesting that this is an important piece of the puzzle (Akinosho et al., 2025). Indeed, when tested directly, the Murphy group did not observe attraction using the temperature-shift method (Kaletsky et al., 2025). However, whether the omission of azide alone explains the discrepancy between the studies is not clear. In a handful of assays, the Hunter group used azide but failed to see the initial attraction to PA14, or to observe learned avoidance in the F2 generation. Every time I look into epigenetic inheritance studies I run into a lot of finicky experiments like this, where the outcomes appear to be highly dependent on several variables that aren’t fully understood. One group of researchers claims to have pinned down the results, but as someone outside of this world trying to interpret the studies it’s hard to know how well they’ve really controlled these finicky experiments to isolate the single effect (epigenetic inheritance) that they claim explains everything.
- shevy-java 11mo agoIt can be simplified to this question: - Do C. elegans offspring show a modified behaviour unrelated to a changed genome sequence? That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. You always have to distill complicated papers that babble about things to a minimum statement.
- ambicapter 11mo ago> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. This hardly follows.
- chrisweekly 11mo agoAgreed. Also, "simple isn't easy".
- capitol_ 11mo ago> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. "Is P equal to NP" is also a simple question.
- shevy-java 11mo agoSo Lamarck wasn't entirely incorrect either. Darwin would have been fascinated by these results.
- nabla9 11mo agoIn Lamarkian evolution features that organisms use either accentuate or attenuate. That's not how epigenetics works in general.
- macleginn 11mo agoThere has been aruably a more serious blow to the pure Darwinian evolution (this is all epigenetics, after all): non-random occurrence of useful mutations in populations exposed to particular diseases. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40854136/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40854136/
- ch4s3 11mo agoI don’t really see that as anti-Darwinian. Those genes successfully attach themselves to a new organism and provide advantages such that they are selected for in the population.
- macleginn 11mo agoThe selection is classical, but the mutations are supposed to be random, not skewed towards more useful genetic variants. One can speculate that a purely random (and otherwise neutral, say) prior mutation led to this directionality, but the actual resulting mechanism is AFAIK still unknown.
- rolph 11mo agoplasmids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmid
- ch4s3 11mo agoNatural selection has nothing to do with randomness per se, it’s merely differential selection based on environmental fitness. The fitness function of a given environment can even narrow a range of existing genes without any mutation occurring during the period where the new fitness function is applied. The classic example of this is peppered moths shifting toward the darker range of their preexisting color range during the Industrial Revolution. Horizontal gene transfer is another way organisms can acquire new traits.
- mmaunder 11mo agoThis relates to policy because it addresses the question of whether we carry epigenetic baggage from prior generations. For example, trauma that our parents, or grandparents experienced could lead to behavior modifications and poorer outcomes in us. If that is the case, it has profound public policy implications.
- gopalv 11mo ago> trauma that our parents, or grandparents experienced could lead to behavior modifications and poorer outcomes in us The nurture part of it is already well established, this is the nature part of it. However, this is not a net-positive for the folks who already discriminate. The "faults in our genes" thinking assumes that this is not redeemable by policy changes, so it goes back to eugenics and usually suggests cutting such people out of the gene pool. The "better nurture" proponents for the next generation (free school lunches, early intervention and magnet schools) will now have to swim up this waterfall before arguing more investment into the uplifting traumatized populations. We need to believe that Change (with a capital C) is possible right away if start right now.
- underlipton 11mo agoI would think it's the opposite. Intervention is preventative of further sliding. The alternative - genocide - is expensive; they're generally a luxury of states benefiting from a theft-based windfall.
- morkalork 11mo agoThe consequences could be terrible if it were intentionally weaponised by a government looks at the Russian empire.
- throwaway2562 11mo agoAn absurd take. The ‘trauma’ people, baggage handlers de nos jours, have already weaponised the phenomenon for political points, before we even know definitively if it exists. Hey ho. Incidentally, nobody yet I see has suggested that epigenetics could lead to better outcomes. I wonder why?
- anamexis 11mo agoHonest question: isn’t all inheritance transgenerational?
- margalabargala 11mo agoSure, but epigenetics is inheritance that does not have an associated genetic sequence change. The DNA sequence is identical.
- perlgeek 11mo agoThere's also horizontal (intergenerational) gene transfer, though you might not call that "inheritance".
- tsimionescu 11mo agoNo, you may have certain inheritance mechanisms that can only last for one or two generations. This is typically related to the fact that female mammals are born with all of the egg cells that they will ever have. So, any direct stressor applied to the mother during her life could affect her children & grandchildren (intergenerational), but it won't affect subsequent generations (transgenerational). The way this can work is that stressors to the mother's organism can affect the development of children, especially stressors to a pregnant mother - so transmission to the next generation is clear (e.g. a starving pregnant mother may have more sickly children). Then, for daughters, their eggs may be directly impacted by this stressor, so that their own children, which come from those egged, may be impacted. However, these children won't carry any trace of that stressor, unless it is genetic in nature.
- uhhuhnwhatdoes 11mo ago[flagged]
- roughly 11mo agoEpigenetics is one of those things that seems wild until you pull the camera back a bit. A cell is affected by and responds to its surroundings - this is not controversial. In eukaryotes, this is usually done by way of altering gene expression - up- or down-regulation by means of chemical markers on the cell’s DNA which are created or removed by enzymes which are activated or deactivated by certain substances in the cell or its environment - in other words, the cell’s environment affects gene regulation within the cell by traceable mechanisms*. All cells, save at least one, are descendent of other cells, and cells split by meiosis, in which the chemical environment within and without the cell is shared by the “descendent” cell - so of course this happens with human embryos as well. Of course the expression of your genes is affected by what happened to your parents (well, your mother, at least), because gene expression is affected by what happens to a cell and you are made up of a lineage of cells descended from your mother’s cells. If you ask how one organism could be affected by something it didn’t experience, sure, that could be a quandary, but looking at a line of cells and wondering how later ones could be affected by environmental pressures on earlier ones isn’t nearly as much of a mystery, and we’re all just extended cell lineages. (As if first time mothers didn’t have enough to worry about - stop stressing so much, it could lead to long-lasting irreversible changes to your fetus!) * Standard biology disclaimers: this is not the only way this happens, this varies across species and time, nature has no master plan. “Some of the time some genes have some amount of their expression modified somewhat by some mechanisms that are somewhat responsive to some part of the cell’s environment sometimes.”
- unwise-exe 11mo ago>>> (As if first time mothers didn’t have enough to worry about - stop stressing so much, it could lead to long-lasting irreversible changes to your fetus!) This is plainly not plausible. "Irreversible" doesn't play well with the length of time humans have been a thing.
- roughly 11mo agoAsk a parent what they hear when they hear “irreversible” in conjunction with their child. I promise nobody mistook that for “until the heat death of the universe,” but I can add a note if you really think it’s warranted.
- dash2 11mo ago1. Pretty obviously, epigenetics in bacteria provides only very weak support for epigenetics in humans. 2. The case against epigenetics in humans is laid out nicely by Razib Khan: https://www.razibkhan.com/p/you-cant-take-it-with-you-straight https://www.razibkhan.com/p/you-cant-take-it-with-you-straig... 3. I've been to a few conferences which mixed geneticists with (human) epigenetics guys, and I have never been impressed with the quality of their work. Lots of different measures of "biological clocks". Lots of multiple hypotheses without much correcting for them. No clear theory. I ended up being very skeptical.
- rolph 11mo agohere is some reading for you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780128198346000033 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/... https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12204592/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12204592/ https://sciencevivid.com/epigenetics/ https://sciencevivid.com/epigenetics/
- JumpCrisscross 11mo agoThrowing out a fundamentals text is valid. But you need to point out where OP made a mistake that's so elementary it requires going back to the basics for it to not come across as low dismissal.
- rolph 11mo agothe entire OP displays a lack of knowledge regarding epigenetic mechanisms, as well as a lack ot knowledge base required to make an informed appraisal. the knowledge base required, is extensive for a non biologist, and made difficult to attain without experience interpreting decades long synthesis. thus the fundamentals are provided, should anyone desire breadcrumbs pursuant to independant edifiction.
- dash2 11mo agoI'm a scientist with about four published papers in genetics - not a geneticist myself, but I coauthor. I'm simply reporting my experience with the field.
- Vera_Wilde 11mo agoWorms are great, but they're not your grandma. So one thing missing from the excitement around this line of work: how little these worm effects generalize to mammals. C. elegans has very unusual biology — direct soma→germline communication pathways, minimal nervous systems, and short generational cycles. Epigenetic inheritance is much easier to observe there than in mice or humans, where mechanisms differ and dilution across meiosis tends to erase these “marks.” This means that, even if the PA14 avoidance effect replicates, it’s not evidence that humans inherit learned behaviours. It’s evidence that worms are an interesting edge-case system.
- perlgeek 11mo agoThe article is about how difficult it is to study the effect in very simple organisms, and your criticism is that it's not yet studied in much more complicated organisms. Guess we need a few more decades (or centuries)...
- crocowhile 11mo agoSo what? Not everything has to be about humans.
- Danjoe4 11mo agoNo. Science is inherently human-centric. If a line of academic research has no conceivable way of benefitting humans, at least indirectly, it is eventually halted.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- nickpsecurity 11mo agoIn God's Word (Bible), we see hints of human epigenetics. There's also a strong theology of how our behavior influences our children's. Atheists and individualists strongly opposed this until it was largely pushed out of mainstream consciousness. I believe that caused a lot of damage because sins that could damage one's children or society for generations are downplayed as personal flaws or choices with limited effect. "The LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, “The LORD! The LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abundant in loving kindness and truth, keeping loving kindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and disobedience and sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the children’s children, on the third and on the fourth generation." (Exodus 34:6-7) His wrath often works by simply letting us have the consequences of sinful choices. Examples I've encountered include wreckless driving putting a person's head into a tree, sexual immorality leading to STD's, and greed leading managers to break people's bodies in.the workplace. What jumped out at me here was three or four generations. Would there be a natural explanation for that? From there, one would look for two things: whether behavior can be passed down at all; whether behavior can change things, like DNA, that are passed down. On the first, there are sins that seem to move across families. Anecdotally, I've found this is often true even when the child hated that behavior in their parents which should reduce its recurrence. (I'd like empirical data on that.) Tue best evidence was that identical twins seperated at birth also had a startling amount of similar behaviors, down to names they liked. So, we do pass behavior down which has implications for individuals, future parents, and using or evaluating sperm/egg donors. The other issue is whether one's choices can change DNA. An underlying premise would be whether or not environmental effects can chnage DNA. Stressors like famine or toxic chemicals were confirmed to do this. Both are often caused by sins, like not taking care of one's body or others' greed (eg ruthless capitalism). There's some evidence lifestyle choices can do this, too. I saw one study showing a mechanism for how behavior is transmitted in men which the Bible night imply by putting it on Adam and his bloodline. Those studies need more replication and validation, though. The last thing was that many countries got worse and worse over time. The specific sins increased until everyone, from adults to children, only did evil. God ordered Israel to wipe out entire people groups, even the children, while listing the sins they committed (including burning their children alive). As I try to understand the morality of it, it would make more sense if our behavior is passed down genetically because some groups could be corrupted beyond all repair. In fact, sparing just one kid later led to Haman in Xerxes' Persia nearly killing all Jews because that bloodline passed its hate and habits down. So, the data in the long-term has heavily supported the Biblical positions that (a) behavior is passed down, (b) godless, selfish worldviews wreck countries down to the genetic level, (c) it can get to a point of no return, (d) individual choices can reduce or reverse this in large enough numbers, and (e) we therefore should repent and follow Jesus Christ and His Word as a country to receive the blessings, supernatural and natural, that come with it.