Closing in on how early life stress changes epigenetic markers

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 23, 2021

Epigenetics, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The good news from this mouse study is that if epigenetic stress is recognized, it can be reversed. That means, presumably, that it won’t be passed on:

In a study published March 15 in Nature Neuroscience, researchers found that early-life stress in mice induces epigenetic changes in a particular type of neuron, which in turn make the animals more prone to stress later in life. Using a drug that inhibits an enzyme that adds epigenetic marks to histones, they also show that the latent effects of early-life stress can be reversed.
“It is a wonderful paper because it is really advancing our ability to understand how events that happen early in life leave enduring signatures in the brain so that they influence what we do as adults,” says Tallie Z. Baram, a child neurologist and developmental neurobiologist at the University of California, Irvine, who wasn’t involved with the study.
Asher Jones, “Early-Life Stress Exerts Long-Lasting Effects Via Epigenome” at The Scientist

All the more reason to blow clear of Darwinian determinism about genetics.

The paper is open access.

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Comments

Translation of Kairosfocus at 148: “Those who have the audacity of not accepting the truth of my assertions is further proof that they are wrong. “Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

CC, it is interesting that you too are failing to address the tellingly buried lead in the Lancet article as linked:
2] Linked, as a key 2012 Lancet Article admitted against interest and with buried leads, a commonly associated sexual practice (now widely promoted esp. through the addictive, morally undermining porn plague) is a major at-risk factor for exposure to HIV/AIDS, thus, other diseases. The obvious vector is, tissue damage and the potential for infections crossing into the blood stream.
ET has a serious point on abuse of bodily organs. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

JVL, you used loaded language to insidiously dismiss a straightforward philosophical case. In so doing, yet again you have demonstrated how Ciceronian first duties of reason are inescapable and so self-evident. To underscore the point, consider what would happen for cause to those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [sociopathy, high machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. I trust the point is clear enough, and why I am led to conclude that objectors [who invariably appeal to what they would dismiss] simply inadvertently further demonstrate the force of the point. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

JVL You claim (and reverently think) you have a handle on some other universal truths. Despite the fact that many of us have asked you to defend some of those beliefs you always just end up asserting they are true.

Okay, then come up with a reason you find 2000 year old arguments relevant and compelling.
I have bad news for you : reason alone is helpless in finding the Truth. God set a trap for the "smart" ones and the only way to end this vicious circle is to became fool. PS: this advice is not from my intelligence it's plagiarized from an 2000 year "old" book . :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

ET: Wrong. Only the mentally unstable say that the anus is useful for sex. Biology does not say that. Gawd. Hehe, this is about the dumbest thing I've ever seen on UD. "Biology" speaks! At it hates anal sex! And those who disagree are "mentally unstable." "Biology" is a human study of bioforms without any moral judgement. Lots of human bioforms like anal sex. "Biology" recognizes this dispassionately. No scientific evidence that those who like anal sex, whether male or female, are any more "mentally unstable" as a group than any other group. If you're going to objectively argue against anal sex, you'll have to do better than that. Your non-rational, religious commitments are not scientific/biological evidence.Concealed Citizen_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: Beyond, you will note that many solid (and too often, sadly neglected) truths are found in rather old books. That one tells truth or correctness by the clock is a common progressivist, year zero reset fallacy. One that forgets that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, dismiss or reject such, doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. Math truths are always true. Physics truths are pretty strong and might still apply forever in a limited sense. Chemistry . . . probably also universal unless we discover the rules of physics change for certain regions and certain times. You claim (and reverently think) you have a handle on some other universal truths. Despite the fact that many of us have asked you to defend some of those beliefs you always just end up asserting they are true. Based on some old books which you find compelling. BUT, if the rest of use don't have the same compulsion to accept your precepts as givens then . . . How do we move forward? Given that some of us are not going to just accept that you are correct?JVL_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

EDTA: The truth is always timeless. Or as Margaret Thatcher put it, “The truth is always the same old thing.” There’s no use trying to denigrate the Bible as an “old book” or any other other myriad comments thrown at it. We see right through it. Okay, then come up with a reason you find 2000 year old arguments relevant and compelling.JVL_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

EDTA, very good synopsis. I would only raise one caveat. Comparing WWII era to Vietnam era is complicated. Yes, during WWII there appeared to be greater unity than during Vietnam era. But is the extent of this difference real, or perceived? He who wins, writes the story. Before WWII there was no unity about going to war, even though the war had been raging for a couple years. It took an attack on American soul by a foreign power to galvanize this unity. It was also complicated by the fact that we were just coming out of the depression. With Vietnam, there was no attack. Add to this the unprecedented level of uncensored media access to the battlefield, complicated by the draft, and it is no wonder that there was no unity. For 9/11, we were attacked on our own soil, and I think there was unity around the idea of punishing those who planned and implemented the attack. The lack of unity on how to respond was complicated by the fact that it wasn’t the official act of a foreign power, as was the case with Pearl Harbor.Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

- I should have mentioned philosophical/religious unity also. People who worship together (or attend Dawkins speeches together I suppose) are less likely to start fighting each other. (I said less likely; it still happens.) But when people differ on such fundamental things as whether there is a God, which affects things like whether it's OK to kill human fetuses, it's hard to have blind trust there. You simply don't know what the other person is capable of doing, because there is no adequate common moral foundation.EDTA_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

JVL, you need to ponder the buried lead public health facts documented in my comment above, as err, ahm, um . . . a public health issue:
2] Linked, as a key 2012 Lancet Article admitted against interest and with buried leads, a commonly associated sexual practice (now widely promoted esp. through the addictive, morally undermining porn plague) is a major at-risk factor for exposure to HIV/AIDS, thus, other diseases. The obvious vector is, tissue damage and the potential for infections crossing into the blood stream.
Beyond, you will note that many solid (and too often, sadly neglected) truths are found in rather old books. That one tells truth or correctness by the clock is a common progressivist, year zero reset fallacy. One that forgets that the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, dismiss or reject such, doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. KF PS: Linked, the point of a self-evident truth is, its universal jurisdiction. That is, it transcends subjectivity, culture, geography and the tyranny of either locked in, unwarranted traditions [such as cultural marxism, radical secularism and linked evolutionary materialistic ideologies] or empty headed, year zero fashion-flitting.kairosfocus_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

It is interesting above to see the comments about "no golden age of unity" quickly turn to the mistreated minorities in each era. We can always think of such exceptions. And each minority will tend to look at the question from their own personal or in-group perspective. I propose that unity be looked at a little differently. The unity of a nation has to be measured on many _levels_, because different crises call for different kinds of unity: - If attacked militarily, how unified would we be in going to war? Or would we acquiesce and surrender? Would any attempt at self-defense be met with overwhelming protests to stop any response? Would people boycott the military in some fashion and guarantee defeat? Would the type and degree of response be agreed upon? - In an economic crisis, how much help would go out to the poor? Would that help depend on how close people were to us culturally and politically? How likely are we to favor the same political solution to a problem as our neighbors, and would we support it? Would we be willing to skip welfare payments so others could get those welfare payments? Would people volunteer to help the homeless, or let them suffer? Would the rich forego income to keep their companies afloat, or grab the cash and run? - At a cultural level: If a straight or gay marriage was in crisis, what would be our response? Would it vary by which kind it was? Would we step in and try to get them to counseling/reconciliation? Or would the response be, "well, that's too bad"? All these things and more are forms of unity (or the lack thereof), which add up to our national strength. They're very related to social capital. As such, they're hard to measure. But I think it could be approached from a sociological standpoint by sampling pairs of people, and asking, "In this situation, would you pitch in with, or sacrifice for, or be in agreement with, or support this other person? Or turn your back on them?" Ask this question for common and extreme situations, over many random pairs from the population as a whole.* Each person would know the race/political beliefs/religious beliefs/etc. of the other person, i.e. ,be fully aware of who they might be helping. Tally up the totals, and measure over time, possibly weighting the more serious situations (calls to war, economic depressions, e.g.) more heavily. Based on this, I would say that 1930-1950 was probably our peak, although 1900-1930 wasn't bad. Monotonically downhill since the 50s. We were extremely unified in fighting WWII, and making the greatest sacrifices of all (lives and money--sustaining ourselves at Depression-levels of poverty until after the war). We have not had a similar-magnitude war since that time, but after 9/11, the US was split 50/50 on whether there should even be any response at all! And of course, remember Viet Nam. Today the division is sufficient to cause some seriously consider a coup. (*This means that minorities would be represented proportional to their % of the population. So a very tiny but mistreated minority would not have a large effect on national unity. However, if their mistreatment caused a response in the larger population, then unity would take a larger hit. All statistical measures of national sociological things have this problem. But we're going for a total measure of unity here. And if the majority pulled together in a crisis, the minority would hopefully be carried through.)EDTA_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

JVL, > Or has some old book told you what to think? The truth is always timeless. Or as Margaret Thatcher put it, "The truth is always the same old thing." There's no use trying to denigrate the Bible as an "old book" or any other other myriad comments thrown at it. We see right through it.EDTA_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

ET: Wrong. Only the mentally unstable say that the anus is useful for sex. Biology does not say that. I know a very sensible, dependable member of her local community who prefers anal sex. ET is clearly an anal-phobe; the whole idea scares the poop out of him. Clearly you are a cowardly pathological liar. Clearly you care way too much about what consenting adults get on with in where you can't see. Why is that do you think? Did someone in the military get a bit too chummy with you? Or has some old book told you what to think? Why do you care so much to rail against something that doesn't affect you in the slightest? Hating something is caring about it you know.JVL_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Clearly he’s horrified and appalled by the notion that someone might get small particles of faeces on their penis.
Clearly you are a cowardly pathological liar.ET_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

CC:
Um, well, yeah, but, “biology says” that for some people, the anus/rectum is useful for sexual pleasure. (And not just homosexual sex, but hetero sex too. )
Wrong. Only the mentally unstable say that the anus is useful for sex. Biology does not say that.ET_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Good thing those animals can have anal sex without fear of having a mental disorder.
If you want to compare homosexuals with ignorant, uneducated animals, that is on youET_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

If you are not interested in discussing the ethical applications of the research described in the OP, I can’t force you.
What ethical applications? There aren't any specific ethical questions. Let's take a simple example. Suppose it is shown that homosexuality in woman and men is epigenetic. Then what? Suppose it is shown that this epigenetic effect takes place during pregnancy. Then what? Suppose ti is shown that this epigenetic effect takes place as a result of diet. Then what? Suppose it is shown the epigenetic effect because of diet can be avoided. Then what? We are just down one of a thousand possible paths that could be possible. So are we to comment on each possible path? It's a game that leads nowhere until there are specifics being discussed. Aside: the last place I would trust to have an honest discussion of this is at an ethics committee. Aside2: If a specific diet was identified as the source of the epigenetic cause of homosexuality during pregnancy and changing it had no adverse effects, then I would support the diet that did not cause this effect. But my guess is that it would not be that simple.
But this OP is about epigenetics and the research into reversing its effect. I would rather not go off topic.
I find this comment ironic after #1.jerry_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Jerry "You haven’t a clue about any of this. Only that some unknown procedure with some unknown effects may be discovered. Yet you want a pronouncement on these hypothetical situations for which you or no one else knows anything about." I know a little about ethics committees at research institutes. And, yes, they do look at the ethical implications of applications that can be developed from the research long before the possible applications are known. It seldom stops the research but it gives government science advisors a head's up. Forewarned is forearmed. "Are you prepared to force or deny ahead of time the availability of unknown treatments with unknown effects? Such a discussion is at best irresponsible. That is “Wow.”" Where did I suggest this? Most lines of research have both positive and negative implications. Only the negligent would not not look at the possibilities long before any practical applications are realized. For example, research into clinical applications of epigenetics could have morally acceptable applications such as reducing the risk of certain types of cancer, but they could also have morally "questionable" applications. It is the latter that need discussion long before we extend research into these areas. As the OP is about the possibility of reversing epigenetic effects, this type of discussion is very relevant. Where do we draw the line? The more we look, the more we see that epigenetics appears to play a far bigger role in biology that previously believed. What I am interested in, if you are interested, is the epigenetic roles in the development of the CNS and subsequent behaviour. This paper gives a good high-level overview. https://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6789 "We have seen how immorality plays out with C19. If you want to discuss morality here is something that is front snd center here and now that we know a lot about and could be used as a framework on how to look at something based on morality. We have specifics not hypothetical hypotheticals." But this OP is about epigenetics and the research into reversing its effect. I would rather not go off topic. "By the way I am definitely not pushing for such a discussion here. It has already been done on others threads." If you are not interested in discussing the ethical applications of the research described in the OP, I can't force you.Steve Alten2_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

re 129, KF writes, "VL, SA2 et al, it is clear that you do not recognise the distance between genes, other molecular level phenomena and rational, responsible, significantly free behaviour. If you argue for molecular determinism or even exceedingly strong influence, you are undermining the rationality and duties that you appeal to in your own arguments" (The rest is just repetitive rhetoric.) There are limits to what we can freely will. We are a complex biological organism in which billions of biochemical things happen all the time that are outside of our conscious awareness, much less control. When a girl starts puberty, she doesn't freely choose to start growing breasts and body hair, and she doesn't freely choose to start having sexual feelings, including the experience in some girls that those feelings are stimulated by other girls. Surely, KF, you recognize this difference "between genes, other molecular level phenomena and rational, responsible, significantly free behaviour", and so do I. For all of us, what we freely choose takes places in the context of aspects of ourselves that we can not freely choose. I understand that difference.Viola Lee_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Unity can only be achieved by the spirit. The national spirit, in this case the American spirit, is based in the emotions of people. People invest in the national feeling, and the national spirit then chooses what people do. Choices are made out of emotion, and emotions can only be identified with a chosen opinion. There is the formal unity of decisionmaking processes, in the system of elections and government . And the informal unity of a portion of the decisionmaking processes of individuals being devoted to the national spirit. Any national spirit is usually childlike. It exists next to the mainline mature spirit of the individual. Obviously, it helps to have basic understanding of emotions and personal opinion in order to be able to foster a national spirit. Emotions and personal opinion are inherently creationist concepts.mohammadnursyamsu_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Wow! All I have done is stated that the implications of applying the research described in the OP casts some ethical and moral questions. You either agree or disagree.
You haven’t a clue about any of this. Only that some unknown procedure with some unknown effects may be discovered. Yet you want a pronouncement on these hypothetical situations for which you or no one else knows anything about. Are you prepared to force or deny ahead of time the availability of unknown treatments with unknown effects? Such a discussion is at best irresponsible. That is “Wow.” We have seen how immorality plays out with C19. If you want to discuss morality here is something that is front snd center here and now that we know a lot about and could be used as a framework on how to look at something based on morality. We have specifics not hypothetical hypotheticals. By the way I am definitely not pushing for such a discussion here. It has already been done on others threads.jerry_{March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

VL, SA2 et al, it is clear that you do not recognise the distance between genes, other molecular level phenomena and rational, responsible, significantly free behaviour. If you argue for molecular determinism or even exceedingly strong influence, you are undermining the rationality and duties that you appeal to in your own arguments, starting with self-referentiality. That was Haldane's point long since, and it is why Crick's astonishing hypothesis falls apart. Beyond, I simply point to the issue of enshrining a crooked yardstick: what is straight will never conform to crookedness and is liable to be rejected, e.g. it is excluded from the oh so broad minded scope of tolerance, which refuses to attend to plumb lines that are naturally straight and upright. Isaiah long since spoke to such moral inversion in his famous woes, calling darkness light and light darkness. His analysis pointed to the fatal disaffection, spreading corruption of justice, addictive behaviour and inability to stand in the day of battle that come from it. Fatal disaffection. So far as I can see, there is not even a willingness to recognise an in progress 4th gen civil war, now at the stage of a Reichstag fire incident. I do have a better hope than for 1933, but that is hope, I could be wrong and the USA can plunge as the cliff's edge crumbles underfoot. KFkairosfocus_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

Viola Lee “ I thought of that. Except perhaps during the World Wars you might be hard pressed to find unity encompassing blacks,...” Except there wasn’t even unity here. Blacks were not incorporated into all units until Korea and Vietnam. During WWII they were largely limited to non-combat duties. To say nothing of the fact that homosexuals were not wanted. And I am pretty sure that Japanese Americans moved to internment camps in the US were not in unity with the rest of the country.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Sev asks, "When was this golden age of unity?" I thought of that. Except perhaps during the World Wars you might be hard pressed to find unity encompassing blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, Chinese, poor people, gay people, etc. I'm wondering what era EDTA is thinking of?Viola Lee_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Steve Alten2/117
There is a theory that epigenetics may be linked to same sex attraction. If this proves to be true, and if the research in this paper is correct, it might be possible to prevent the expression of same sex attraction, or reverse it.
It might be possible and it would be a topic worthy of further investigation from a scientific perspective. From an ethical perspective, however, if there is no disorder then there is no need for any treatment.Seversky_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

EDTA/112
My personal opinion is that there is no strategy or guideline to follow to bring us back to unity like we once had in the US, i.e., no practical/voluntary/democratic means of getting it back.
When was this golden age of unity?Seversky_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 123, Wow! All I have done is stated that the implications of applying the research described in the OP casts some ethical and moral questions. You either agree or disagree.Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Why are you so resistant to it?
Because no one has a clue what they are talking about. Especially anyone who comments on this site. I said it’s best speculation on speculations. The interesting question is why are you so aggressive in trying to get opinions on a subject few if any in the world know anything about.jerry_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

SA
Jerry, I am not talking about putting a moratorium on research. What I am talking about is simultaneously discussing the implications on society of the possible applications of the research.
Sounds reasonable to me.count of crisco_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Jerry, I am not talking about putting a moratorium on research. What I am talking about is simultaneously discussing the implications on society of the possible applications of the research. This is being done all of the time. Universities and research institutes have committees that do nothing but do this. Why are you so resistant to it?Steve Alten2_{March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply