Epigenetics

I saw that segment on Nova a while ago. I think it is amazing! And I have wondered if the exploding instances of children diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum recently is due at least in part to something we are exposing our children to, and that this exposure is turning off genes or turning on redundant genes causing the Autism.

I think it may also explain the extremely high rate of obesity especially in the US. Because those of us who struggle to lose weight know that what we eat is only 50% of the battle, and that there definitely is a genetic component that makes some people carry more weight and also makes it harder to lose weight than some other people.

I think that this research may just change medicine and the world as we know it. I'd love to see this utilized in my lifetime.

Ahnimus wrote:

This topic should make for an interesting discussion. At least Jeanie and Scubascott will probably find it interesting.

Check out this short 13 min video from PBS Nova

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I wonder what we can expect in terms of treatments and FDA regulations.

watching now. I'll be back.

Jeanie wrote:

The video is really interesting. And I have to say a bit exciting too, especially if they are able to apply the same therapy to other diseases. I'm a bit disappointed that the guy in the video seems focused on what people are doing to themselves and not giving any airplay to what doctors do that might make people sick, but hey it's the medical profession.

You are absolutely correct. As a "medical professional" myself, I am highly against immunizations in children. As mentioned in an earlier post, from my studies, I have concluded that the increase in Autism, Aspergers and ADHD are directly linked to the shots given routinely to kids. There are many doctors jumping on this bandwagon. I am also highly against soy products. We are poisoning ourselves from birth on.

This research is thrilling because it offers a solution rather than a bandaid to illness. All too often we simply treat the symptoms in medicine rather than the cause. Epigenetics is offering a much better answer to treatment of disease. The future looks promising.

Medicine is big business though. So don't hold your breath on this, it will be a long arduous struggle to become mainstream. Anything non-traditional is often bawked at by the medical community as a whole.

Take for instance Chiropractors and Holistic medicine. Two wonderful options to treating the body rather than the symptom. Yet modern medicine turns a blind eye to it because it works differently than the "norm".

My advice for medical treatment is always to be "open minded". Don't conclude that something is right simply because the majority agree.

I for one would NEVER get chemo. Poisoning the entire body to rid it of a few mutant cells makes absolutely no sense. There are better ways to accomplish the same goal. Epigenics is proof of that.

Ahnimus wrote:

By "The Guy" do you mean the host Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

I find he tends to take a mild devil's advocate approach to most issues outside of Astrophysics. He may have come up a bit short on this video, of course he's at the mercy of the PBS Nova producers.

Sorry, no I meant the geneticist or epigeneticist. Hang on I'll get his name. EDIT: Yeah, I think it was randy jirtle the guy that conducted the mice experiments. I'm just checking now.
He made reference to what individuals are doing to change their markers by the lifestyle they're living which is standard doctor/scientist speak these days. I was just commenting that I was disappointed that he didn't include environmental factors so much or make mention of the things that people do under medical supervision at the initiation of their doctor that could change these genes. Like there was no mention of the impact that pharmacology could play. That's what I was getting at.

Ahnimus wrote:

Ah, well, I think pharmacology is more strictly regulated than open market substances approved by the FDA. The research methods are pretty solid, that's not to say that there aren't drugs out there doing bad stuff to people. There probably are, but they will be caught eventually. On the other hand, everyone knows smoking is bad, yet many still do it, myself included. If tobacco were a pharamceutical it would have been instantly pulled from the shelves. Since it's a recreational substance, people are free to kill themselves with it and we continue to do so.

no no I'm not saying that the research is flawed or disagreeing that people do things to themselves, because we all do. I was just really thrilled with the video but disappointed that the researcher was coming from that view point, or not that he was coming from that view point but that he ONLY pointed out what people do to themselves, mentioned it a couple of times, but didn't make much of the "outside" or "external" factors that can effect people and would probably also produce the outcomes of his research. The only reason I mention it is because it's not a small factor so I'm wondering if he's coming from the "what people do to themselves" pov if this will skew his perspective. That's all. I mean he's not alone. It seems to be a fairly prevelant attitude to hold these days in medicine. A sort of "blame the patient" mentality. I'm not saying that is what he's doing, just wondering based on what he said or didn't say.

Mestophar wrote:

The reason so many kids are fat is because they are fucking lazy and eat too much damn sugar and fatty foods. Quit blaming things on other far-off reasons when you can look in the mirror at your fat ass and quickly figure out that the mc burger in your hand is likely the cause. Do you really think an expanding into pill popping is gunna help? No, get off your ass and do some activity and stop eating whole pizzas in one sitting.

Harsh presentation, but very true.

We live in a society of blame. With health care a good, healthy lifestyle is the biggest asset one has against disease. But most people don't want to accept that route because it is too much work.

While I find this to be utterly true, I do also think that genetics play a significant role in our health. So the whole field of epigenetics is very promising in that aspect.

I couldn't get the video to play . Epigenetics is very interesting stuff!

Anyway, for those who don't know, epigenetics means 'outside of the genes': heritable information that is not encoded into the nucleotide sequence of the genome, such as X-chromosome inactivation and gene silencing.

With a study I remember from college, I wasn't sure if what we observed were effects of epigenetics, or effects of nurturing. For example: rats who are licked a lot by their mother as an infant were lickers themselves, whereas rats that were not licked alot (due to stress of the mother) weren't lickers themselves. Conclusion: licking is heritable, or is it learned behavior? I believe it was a cross-fostering study. I guess the clue was that no matter what the foster mother does, the litter is more likely to take on the behavior of the biological mother. But on the other hand it was said that the action of the mother imprints the behavior of the litter by released hormones during the licking, so it is a bit fuzzy.

For anyone interested in an overview on epigenetics with links to an issue of Science with more detailed articles, follow this link:http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/plus/sfg/resources/res_epigenetics.dtl

MahoganySouls wrote:

You are absolutely correct. As a "medical professional" myself, I am highly against immunizations in children. As mentioned in an earlier post, from my studies, I have concluded that the increase in Autism, Aspergers and ADHD are directly linked to the shots given routinely to kids. There are many doctors jumping on this bandwagon. I am also highly against soy products. We are poisoning ourselves from birth on.

This research is thrilling because it offers a solution rather than a bandaid to illness. All too often we simply treat the symptoms in medicine rather than the cause. Epigenetics is offering a much better answer to treatment of disease. The future looks promising.

Medicine is big business though. So don't hold your breath on this, it will be a long arduous struggle to become mainstream. Anything non-traditional is often bawked at by the medical community as a whole.

Take for instance Chiropractors and Holistic medicine. Two wonderful options to treating the body rather than the symptom. Yet modern medicine turns a blind eye to it because it works differently than the "norm".

My advice for medical treatment is always to be "open minded". Don't conclude that something is right simply because the majority agree.

I for one would NEVER get chemo. Poisoning the entire body to rid it of a few mutant cells makes absolutely no sense. There are better ways to accomplish the same goal. Epigenics is proof of that.

Sorry I've been trying to get back to reply to this one since last night.

Anyway, I guess I wanted to make a few points. I agree that the effects of immunization have not been fully investigated and should be, but I'm not sure we want a return to the bad old days of small pox epidemics and the like. So in my view immunization is a personal choice that parents make on behalf of their children, and those that choose not to immunize need to be very careful that their children are not exposed or expose others. Having said that, I fully support peoples right to choose either way. Of course it goes without saying that I would want that to be a fully informed choice. Regarding the autism, I also thought it has been linked to a variety of causes included foetal alcohol syndrome, and lack of folate in the mother during pregnancy. And I can't find a bloody link because my memory is too vague, but I'm sure I saw something recently that had something to do with the absorption of some nutrient in the gut of mothers during pregnancy which was also contributing to the increase in both autism and adhd. I'll keep hunting around in my "internal filing cabinet" and see if I can remember enough to hunt for the research.
I have a huge interest in the effects that the increased medical intervention in hormones and hormone treatments is having on world health in general both in those ingesting the hormones and their offspring. So I'm not a big fan of too much soy or too many phytoestrogens in general, well particularly for younger women. I truly believe that the long term effects of medicines is not studied for long enough, having said that I also understand the urgency in making things available to those who would benefit. At some point people have to inform themselves and decide if they are willing to be a "guinea pig" in return for any possible benefits they may garner from treatments.

The great thing about this research is that, like stem cells, it offers a way for a person to heal "themselves" so to speak with their own cells. And I'm all for that. The bad thing about it is, like so many things that are highly beneficial and great advances in medicine, it's probably going to be hijacked by big business and will take years before, if ever, it is available as treatment for the general majority, not to mention that like most treatments it will be subjective and bureaucratic. When it comes to treatment, I never hold my breath because I'm well aware of how the system works. When it comes to the medical profession, I have no qualms about agreeing or disagreeing to the treatment options offered to me as I don't hold medical practitioners "above" me. They are doing a job and I may or may not agree with their methods or suggestions so we discuss it and they are there to ensure that I am given all the best available information and options and then ultimately, my body, my choice. All of my doctors and specialists are aware this is my attitude and I thorougly recommend that others adopt it as theirs. Blindly following anyone, even when you're sick can get you killed or worse.

With regard to the chemo, it's vile stuff, BUT it afforded my grandmother another 4 years that she would otherwise not have had with us, and I support her and anyone else that wants to use it as a treatment option. Ultimately it's personal choice, so if it's not your thing, that's cool, I'm just not sure what my decision would be regarding chemo if the situation arises for me.

And finally to alternative therapies. Always my attitude to my health is to inform myself and try and/or utilize the best possible treatments for me. So this would apply to alternative therapies in some cases. I am guided by what works for me and my instincts. When it comes to your health the best thing you can do is know yourself and your body as best you can.

Jeanie wrote:

He made reference to what individuals are doing to change their markers by the lifestyle they're living which is standard doctor/scientist speak these days. I was just commenting that I was disappointed that he didn't include environmental factors so much .................

Hi Jeanie! I couldn't play the video on my computer, but your comment got me thinking. The body responds to environmental factors all the time; we have to in order to maintain homeostasis. Once those factors are detected by the appropriate receptor-containing cells, signal transduction pathways lead to gene regulation so the cells respond appropriately. In other words, gene expression is regulated by a lot of molecules within a cell, so when some external signal is received by an appropriate type of receptor on the cell, the receptor recruits in a variety of other molecules, and a cascade of molecular reactions and/or interactions occurs in the cytoplasm of the cell. Some of those molecules can get into the nucleus, and either directly act on chromosomes to change the rate of transcription (increase or decrease the expression of that gene) of some target genes. Which target genes are affected depends on special parts of the genetic sequence known as promoters, where the transcription factors "dock." People make careers out of studying just one pathway. But we definitely interact with our environment, so there must be ways for environmental signals to influence gene expression.