Revenge of Lamarck: New study casts doubt on Mendelian genetics?

Epigenetics is the new frontier in junk science-based health and environment scares. You read it here first.

A new study purports to be the first experimental research to validate the emerging field of epigenetics in terms of longevity — i.e., a process by which organisms modulate their gene expression in response to environmental cues without changing the underlying sequence of their DNA, in this case to extend lifespan.

This, of course, is Lamarckism, which was superceded by Mendelian genetics.

As summarized at Wikipedia:

Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring (also known as heritability of acquired characteristics or soft inheritance). It is named after the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829), who incorporated the action of soft inheritance into his evolutionary theories. He is often incorrectly cited[citation needed] as the founder of soft inheritance, which proposes that individual efforts during the lifetime of the organisms were the main mechanism driving species to adaptation, as they supposedly would acquire adaptive changes and pass them on to offspring.

After publication of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, the importance of individual efforts in the generation of adaptation was considerably diminished. Later, Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology. Despite this abandonment, interest in Lamarckism has recently increased, as several studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation. In a wider context, soft inheritance is of use when examining the evolution of cultures and ideas, and is related to the theory of memetics.

So the new study is quite noteworthy for its claim of validating epigenetics and Lamarckism.

Epigenetics will be important to the field of junk science as health and environmental scaremongers will claim that exposures to targeted substances and conditions cause changes in gene expression that affect the health of offspring. They are, in fact, already doing so.

We will need more time to digest this study, but one point to note about it already is that the purported epigenetic effects are fleeting down generations.

Click here for the study.

The text of the media release is below:

Propensity for longer life span inherited non-genetically over generations, Stanford study shows

STANFORD, Calif. — We know that our environment — what we eat, the toxic compounds we are exposed to — can positively or negatively impact our life span. But could it also affect the longevity of our descendants, who may live under very different conditions? Recent research from the Stanford University School of Medicine suggests this could be the case.

Blocking or modifying the expression of any of three key proteins in a laboratory roundworm increases the life span of not only the original animal, but also that animal’s descendants, the researchers found. This occurs even though the original modification is no longer present in the descendants. The finding is the first to show that longevity can be inherited in a non-genetic manner over several generations.

It’s tempting to translate the findings to humans, who share similar proteins with those studied in the worms in this work. While much more investigation is needed, the research at least hints at the possibility that modifications that occurred in your great-grandparents, perhaps as a result of diet or other environmental conditions, will affect your own life span.

“In some ways, this work relates to the idea of inheritance of acquired traits, which is almost heretical because it has long been discounted by the laws of Mendel,” said associate professor of genetics Anne Brunet, PhD. “But we show in this study that the transgenerational inheritance of longevity does occur in roundworms via modulations of proteins that normally add epigenetic modifications to chromatin.”

Brunet is the senior author of the study, to be published online Oct. 19 inNature. Former graduate student Eric Greer (now a postdoctoral scholar at Harvard Medical School) is the first author.

The term epigenetics describes a process by which organisms modulate their gene expression in response to environmental cues without changing the underlying sequence of their DNA. Chromatin, the tightly coiled complex of DNA and proteins called histones that keeps the genetic material firmly packed in the cells’ nucleus, can be modified in an epigenetic manner by addition or removal of chemical tags on histones or DNA itself. Although most chromatin modifications are reset between generations during the process of reproduction, this study suggests that such reprogramming is incomplete in some cases.

The current research builds on a previous study from Brunet’s laboratory that showed that mutations in several chromatin regulators can increase the life span of a laboratory roundworm known as Caenorhabditis elegans by as much as 30 percent. Interestingly, these chromatin regulators control life span by functioning at least in part in the worm’s reproductive system, or germ line. That research was published in Nature last year.

Greer and Brunet wondered whether the effect on life span of these chromatin regulators would be conveyed to the worms’ descendants, even when the mutations were no longer present. To answer this question, Greer individually mutated each of the genes encoding three proteins — ASH-2, WDR-5 and SET-2 —involved in the chromatin regulatory complex that adds methyl groups to a specific histone in chromatin. The methyl groups work to lock chromatin in an open configuration that is accessible for gene expression.

Greer then bred the worms in such a way that their descendants would no longer have the mutations. He found that the descendants with normal levels of expression of these three proteins (but with ancestors that were deficient for them) still lived longer than descendants from un-mutated ancestors. This longer life span persisted, in some cases for up to three generations, but did eventually disappear and the worms reverted to a normal life span. When he compared the gene expression profiles of long-lived descendants of mutant ancestors with those of control worms, Greer found several hundred genes whose changes in expression were also inherited.

“We still don’t know the exact mechanism of this epigenetic memory of longevity between generations,” said Brunet. “We hypothesize that when the parental generation is missing key components that normally regulate chromatin, epigenetic marks are not completely reset from one generation to the next in the germ line, thereby inducing heritable changes in gene expression. It will be very interesting to understand how this happens.

“We are also curious as to whether environmental factors that can affect longevity, like calorie restriction, could also affect subsequent generations,” she said.

About these ads

6 responses to “Revenge of Lamarck: New study casts doubt on Mendelian genetics?

  1. The mechanism makes no sense.

    Grandpa worm was given a mutation to make him deficient in some protein. He lives a really long time.
    Daddy worm doesn’t have the low-protein gene, but he has a long life.
    Jr Worm has

    It seems that there is likeley a different gene than the protein-supression gene that the extend life. It makes more sense than the nonsense they are coming up with.

  2. The mechanism makes no sense.

    Grandpa worm was given a mutation to make him deficient in some protein. He lives a really long time.
    Daddy worm doesn’t have the low-protein gene, but he has a long life.
    Jr Worm has a long life but no low-proteins as well.

    It seems that there is likely a different gene than the protein-supression gene that grants the extend life. It makes more sense than the nonsense they are coming up with.

  3. I’m not quite sure if they are talking about genetic mutations that can be passed down or the kind of stuff Lysenko promoted in the Soviet Union during Stalin’s days. Check this out!

    Let Me Tell You about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko

    http://paradigmsanddemographics.blogspot.com/2009/12/let-me-tell-you-about-trofim-denisovich.html

  4. Sounds to me like they got the wrong protein

  5. “New study casts doubt on Mendelian genetics?” In a word, no.

  6. “New study casts doubt on Mendelian genetics?” In a word, YES. Previously such examples were suppressed as “not in accordance with the general notion of ACCEPTED biology”, but now just can’t be able to do that due to internet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s