Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Epigenetics: Organisms’ diet affects their DNA sequence

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
image of DNA/DigitalGenetics, Fotolia

From ScienceDaily:

In a study on two groups of parasites, the team detected differences in DNA sequences that could be attributed to the composition of their food.

‘We found that different levels of nitrogen in a parasite’s diet contributed to changes in its DNA. Specifically, parasites with low-nitrogen, high-sugar diets had DNA sequences that used less nitrogen than parasites with nitrogen-rich, high-protein diets.’

The study involved groups of eukaryotic parasites (Kinetoplastida) and bacterial parasites (Mollicutes) that infect different plant or animal hosts.

The results, based on novel mathematical models developed by the researchers, reveal a previously hidden relationship between cellular metabolism and evolution. They provide new insights into how DNA sequences can be influenced by adaptation to different diets. Paper. (public access) – Emily A. Seward, Steven Kelly. Dietary nitrogen alters codon bias and genome composition in parasitic microorganisms. Genome Biology, 2016; 17 (1) DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1087-9More.

MUFFINS
Always have muffins for breakfast.

The team hopes to test the thesis on more complex organisms. Like foodies, for example?

It would be good to have some serious nutrition information for once, instead of all the scams and scares fronted in popular mags.

See also: Epigenetics: Aeon writer says Darwin’s theory is “incomplete”

and

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

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Well, that's not what the paper says. And I'm not really sure how that would be epigenetic, if that word still means anything.wd400
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
It appeared to me to be looking at the epigenetic effect of nitrogen content on mutational bias - beyond what mutation and selection produce on its own.Silver Asiatic
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
I don't what you guys think this paper says. But it's pretty clear it's about DNA sequences (so not epigenetics) and the result of mutation and selection (so pretty standard evolutionary biology).wd400
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
PaV and Silver Asiatic: Since you're in this discussion thread, you may want to take a look at this related paper: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-620756Dionisio
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
wd400: I just looked at the article itself, and it looks like they're saying that the composition of the "nucleotides" changes; that there is a higher content of nitrogen found 'within' the nucleotides themselves, and the codons by extension. My reading of the article is that the actual DNA sequence hasn't changed. If that's correct, then my statements above are only marginally correct, at best. This looks more like a change in the construction of the codon backbone, influenced by diet.PaV
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Here's this from Science Daily:
The results, based on novel mathematical models developed by the researchers, reveal a previously hidden relationship between cellular metabolism and evolution.
As you know from prior discussions, this was not anything 'hidden' to me: only the Darwinists.PaV
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
You do not admit that it is NOT neo-Dawinian? Did I get that right? If I do have it right, then what is your explanation. Please.PaV
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Always have muffins for breakfast.
I had just a plain blueberry today, even though I realize the frosted kind with cherry on top is much more ideal.Silver Asiatic
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
PaV
You have to admit, this isn’t neo-Darwinian evolution.
Let me guess ... wd400 will say, as Aeon writer says: "Darwin’s theory is incomplete”. So, it's still neo-Darwin evolution, but a 'more complete' version of it. :-) Hey, even if some were to admit that it's not neo-Darwinian, they'll shift to some other terminology that means unintelligent design did it. But I accept it's a battle of inches. Maybe the process will cause some to abandon unintelligent design entirely - so it's worth the effort even just to kill of NDE.Silver Asiatic
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
PaV @2:
You have to admit, this isn’t neo-Darwinian evolution.
Of course! Isn't this about flexible/robust built-in adaptation mechanisms, ingeniously embedded within the biological systems? From the same paper:
Specifically, adaptation [how?] to low nitrogen availability results [how?] in reduced nitrogen content in nucleotide sequences.
Better ask your politely-dissenting interlocutors how* we got those built-in adaptation mechanisms embedded within the biological systems to begin with. Just don't hold your breath while waiting for a serious answer. We don't want you to turn blue. :) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-620748 (*) we should get back the humble sense of wonder we had as children, which somehow we lost as we grew older.Dionisio
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
I do not.wd400
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
wd400: From the abstract:
Taken together, these results reveal a previously hidden relationship between cellular metabolism and genome evolution and provide new insight into how genome sequence evolution can be influenced by adaptation to different diets and environments.
You have to admit, this isn't neo-Darwinian evolution.PaV
November 17, 2016
November
11
Nov
17
17
2016
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
"epigenetics.... DNA sequence" You have to pick one, I'm afraid.wd400
November 16, 2016
November
11
Nov
16
16
2016
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply