DNA May Carry a Memory of Your Living Conditions From Childhood 252
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian and British scientists have found that how rich your family was when you were a kid — as judged by wealth, housing conditions and occupation of parents — has a huge impact on your current DNA. 'This is the first time we've been able to make the link between the economics of early life and the biochemistry of DNA,' says Moshe Szyf, professor of pharmacology at McGill University. The study did not show whether the DNA changes identified are passed on to offspring, but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
Methylation (Score:5, Informative)
The changes in DNA are due to methylation of the DNA, not changes in sequence. This can lead to more or less of a given gene being expressed, but won't lead to any actual changes in the genes.
Re: (Score:2)
Right different living conditions trigger different expressions of the genes. If a chromosome switched on somebody early in life... oh boy lol. Not quite x-men grade there.
Yes.... (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, presumably you understand this, unless you're able to talk about methylation solely from reading the article, but I don't want anyone to get the impression that 'only' changing the way DNA is expressed is a small feat.
Expression is *everything*. Almost nothing can be accomplished in any eukaryotic organism without deliberate changes in expression like this; basal transcription (the rate at which your genes are used entirely because the right parts randomly came together with nothing else - like methylation - helping or preventing them) accomplishes almost nothing.
The human genome is a lot like a computer in that way: almost nothing happens without something specifically telling it to work, and these guys just discovered a whole damn code library.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating thing about DNA was that any sequence could be transcribed in six different ways. Because three combinations of the four letters C,T,A,G, are required to encode each possible amino acid (codons) ie. |CTA|GGA|GAT|, they could be offset by zero, one or two letters as well as being reversed ie. |TAG|AGG|ATC|. Known as codons, there is also an end codon, which indicates the end-of-sequence.
Then cells are known to cache those genes that are actively in use. Cell nucleii are known to mask off those ge
Re:Methylation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Methylation (Score:4, Informative)
Nature, Sep 29 2011.
Scientists show that the protein, Tet3, is responsible of wiping of the male pronucleus methylation patterns after fusion between sperm and egg.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/nature10443.html [nature.com]
As for the maternal DNA, demethylation, as far as I know, is unknown but occurs as well.
I'm curious if the disease that arises from these poor conditions is related to epigenetic changes that IMPRINT (are not demethylated, and thus passed through generations). As many are finding out, epigenetics are much more intricate and important than previously conceived.
Re: (Score:2)
While they only looked at methylation, there's also phosphorylation, acetylation, and a few others I'm not familiar with. Each of which can be inherited, and sometimes they are erased. Also changes to histones are 1/2 inherited(usually).
Also, base changes to the DNA is actually pretty common, which is the reason the sperm cells are heavily protected(not from blunt force however) and generated on a daily basis, and egg cells are even more protected in a female body. You're DNA won't be an exact match but wil
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. However the very unscientific interpretation by media and dogma-hogs provides for the separate-unequal public and private education in the USA and any other agenda (political, economic, religious ...) that maintains separation between rich folks and poor folks is nature (not nurture).
More fodder for US bullshit and crap eaters of politicians, C*Os, clergy ....
Look in the mirror: (Score:2)
I agree. Scientific results shouldn't be used just for making political points and name calling.
Like you immediately do with it in a slightly back door way.
Re: (Score:2)
"slightly back door way" was intentional to make a point and express an alternate view.
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't only be used for making political points, but using scientific results to make political points is one of the most valid uses for them.
In fact, I would say one of the biggest problems in the current political milieu is the lack of scientific results to make political points.
And it makes me very uncomfortable when people try to state which uses for scientific results are valid and which are not. If I have d
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're a troll, but I find this an interesting topic so I'm going to point out that IQ does not, and never has, measured intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Shunning racists who believe it matters.
And those who use prepositions to end sentences with. Not because of any absolute rule about ending sentences with prepositions, because there is none, but because its overuse is a sign of low IQ.
May be an advantage, not a burden? (Score:5, Interesting)
"but if so, repeat cycles of poverty could be putting poor children at a serious disadvantage for heart disease, diabetes and lung disorders."
What is this based on? Perhaps extra robustness is built in for exactly the reason that you may run more risk? So having poor parents may actually give you an advantage...
Re:May be an advantage, not a burden? (Score:4, Informative)
Yep. From TFA.
============
The study did not show:
specific disease effects linked to these areas of DNA methylation differences
or indeed whether there were positive or protective effects
or whether these changes might be passed on to offspring.
The study was not designed to look at these areas.
============
I imagine the answer is even that "it depends"
Presumably extreme poverty to the point of malnutrition would be more harmful than positive.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're more focusing on is that even if conditions in life later improve, they are still saying your at risk for the same diseases. I think...
Otherwise... no shit malnutrition is harmful? They're saying even when your all nice and rich in your plush down bed, your still in trouble cause you grew up poor. I don't think any of the diseases mentioned are triggerable without external factors present at the TIME of the disease, so this would be a challenge to that train of thought, ex. you get a heart at
Re: (Score:2)
There have been studies that the strength of the stress response is largely set in early life. What you stress out over is up to you, but once you stress, the biochemical response is largely based on early trauma.
So, if you get a heart attack from stress, it's because you were stressed as a child AND your job is killing you.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is a review, targeted at noobs. If you require something more technical in order to consider it 'worthy' of being read, then pursue the primary literature.
Not even a little bit (Score:2)
They're saying that the DNA changes, and it makes these people more likely to die of heart disease. If those changes are permanent and affect their germ cells, then their children will also be more likely to die of heart disease.
If those changes aren't permanent, then their children are only as likely to get heart disease as they were before they lived in a shitty childhood ho
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, also from TFA
========
âoeThe adult diseases already known to be associated with early life disadvantage include coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and respiratory disorders,â said author, Chris Power
========
But, this study does not link the two. It just notes there are epigenetic changes. It doesn't even, at least as far as TFA seems to say, examine sequences associated w/ any particular disease.
So, possible, sure, but not the point of the study.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is based on decades and decades of social experiments throughout history. Scientists have studied the adults who were born during the 1918 influenza epidemic and have seen they have a lifetime of cognitive and health issues. We also see these adverse health effects from the Dutch famine of 1944 [wikipedia.org] and the Romania Abortion Ban [memexplex.com] that led to an unsustainable influx of children to poorly-supplied orphanages, and even more recent studies of children who were in utero when their mothers encountered the stress of [nih.gov]
Revising evolutionary theories (Score:2)
If anything, it will only make evolution a lot more impressive. I don't think we'll be seeing X-men level mutations ever, but
So in a nutshell... (Score:2)
... you are (rewired by) how you live, to twist the cliche. Your offspring might be somewhat rewired by how you lived, too.
I'm betting the latter is demonstrated eventually, given the clues presented by epigenetics and newfound roles of RNA. I read years ago that the behavior of kittens can be largely predicted by that of the father, even if the father was not present after birth; humans are likely affected by the same mechanisms.
Quality of life through nutrition? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what I should make out of these findings but couldn't it be that kids coming from a "richer" background are fed more nutritiously than maybe a "poor" kid? Couldn't that have an impact on the "appearance" of the genetic material? DNA and life style are such different things that I am not convinced that a correlation between these two are any meaningful at this point.
Certainly. TFA is pointing out a plausible (and somewhat unexpected ) mechanism for same. The 'conundrum' the authors were trying to solve was why early environmental conditions should affect health later in life. Their research shows that DNA methylation patterns are stable over time. They conclude that it is POSSIBLE that such changes are deterministic, but other explanations can, and likely do, exist.
I'm off to sue my parents now! (Score:2)
My parents deprived me when I was a child. I can prove it now since it's all recorded in my DNA!
(yes, this is a joke. laugh.)
Lucky for J. Lo (Score:2)
More tracking (Score:2)
Great, just another privacy violating way that everything in our life is tracked.
Who's going to sue God for this clear violation of privacy?
epigenetics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Also, Grandparents Health affects Grandchildren (Score:2)
That was from an earlier study 1-2 years back by memory.
The indication seems strong that environment plays a big part in gene expression and it is absolutely fascinating.
I wonder what they mean by "rich" (Score:2)
I read TFA, and it seems vague what they mean by "rich". I grew up on a farm. We were dirt poor. We got a lot of exercise, as one does on a farm, where whether you eat or not depends on whether you got your chores done. Being on a farm, we ate fairly far down the food chain, commonly fresh foods with almost no processed foods, which we couldn't afford. (This is probably why I never really developed a taste for candy or for overly processed foods.) Sometimes we ate what my dad hunted. (I never did lea
Re: (Score:2)
So, what health risks did I suffer, as opposed to someone who is rich
More exposure to environmental irritants and pathogens?
Re: (Score:2)
I may give you that for pesticides and fertilizers and such, but being on the farm, I lived in the country, and rich tend to live downtown. Doesn't living in a big city have its own collection of environmental irritants and pathogens?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you're talking inner city, not necessarily low socioeconomic as such. There's a big wide stretch of country (generally the part that Nancy Pelosi is afraid to fly over) between the coasts with their big cities, where you can be dirt poor and still have fresh milk in the morning. Of course, you have to get up at dawn and milk the cow yourself.
Muddled definitions (Score:2)
This is how quantum physics gets turned into new-age philosophy, and biomechanics gets turned into healing resonant vibrations.
Re: (Score:2)
memory in itself is just a linger effect from a previous experience.
Easy there Lamarck (Score:2)
Germ line cells are sequestered. (Score:2)
Multiple generations (Score:2)
Iceland has the oldest running birth register in the world. From it researchers found that birth weight was affected for a few generations after events such as famine.
Another experiment involved transferring DNA from one cat into the egg of another, one black and the other white. (Though I can't remember what colour cat they inseminated.) The result was a patchy black/white cat.
The point I'm making is that we're not purely the product of our main DNA, but also that which triggers DNA to be run (yeah, loo
The Future of Prisons, Maybe? (Score:2)
Superintendant Andrews: "We're 25 prisoners in this facility. All double-Y chromos. All thieves, rapists, murderers, child-molesters. All scum." - Alien 3
Re:So...what's the answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor.
No, that just results in everyone being poor, except for those who get to choose how to hand out the money. See the Soviet Union or any other communist nation, for example; the commie fat-cats get their Zil limos while the majority have to wait fifteen years to be allowed to buy a Trabant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Food, shelter, clothing, basic healthcare and education.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, and TV. And heat. And a playstation. And hot water. And air conditioning. And alcohol. And a replacement for all of those when I get plastered and break everything.
As soon as you guarantee that everybody gets some minimum, there's an effort to increase the minimum, and a lack of care by many who have the minimum to preserve what they have, because they're guaranteed it no matter how bad their behavior.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I grew up poor. I got meat on my table for the cost of a bullet and dodging the game warden in the off season. I got vegetables on my table because we gleaned the commercial fields to gather what was left over from the combine harvesters before it spoiled. We had bread because my mother was willing to buy hogs feed, mill it herself and bake it. I grew up in a house with a dirt floor and no insulation in rural Montana. I grew up getting a grand total of 2 cheap toys a year, 1 for my birthday and 1 for Christ
Re: (Score:2)
You have just made a case for Capitalism. In an ideal Capitalist society, the rich will get richer, but the poor will get richer as well. Since "richness" is relative, rich people would no longer be filthy rich.
Re: (Score:2)
"Everyone can't be rich, but with a little work, everyone could not be poor."
Wrong, what the market gives with one hand it takes with the other via inflation. Until the poor get some say over pricing of their bills (relative to their income). The poor will not escape poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Except poor people tend to have more kids, so they have more influence on the gene pool than rich people.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, evolution in action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
all-volunteer force (Score:2)
Having an all volunteer force pretty much assures public indifference to the war (IMHO)
Yes, there does seem to be an attitude of "well, those in the military did sign up for it, they should know what you're getting into."
Some anti-war types see military volunteers as part of the problem (as well as or instead of seeing the common soldier as amongst the victims of war)
I figure some do enlist with misconceptions about the military (thanks to salesman behavior from recruiters?). Educational efforts to clear up these misconceptions do make sense.
Lieutenant (Score:2)
Yes, Lieutenant is a commissioned officer rank. However, maybe there's an analogous point since Lieutenant is the lowest of the commissioned officer ranks.
ROTC is college+training then active service, as opposed to the GI Bill route of training,active service,college
Re: (Score:3)
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
Re:So...what's the answer? (Score:5, Informative)
Fail.
Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today. Relative poverty refers to lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor has a well defined floor, though. If you have food, shelter, and clothing security, there's no need to consider you poor.
Not saying you're wrong, but there are people who want to define "poverty" as "not being able to afford to participate in society". I.e, in order not to be poor, you need to afford education, afford basic information technology tools (like a phone and Internet access), afford to travel to where there is work, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
It means you need to not have serious doubts about whether you are going to have anything to wear tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that there are plenty of people who don't even have those three. Maybe we come up with a new definition of poor after we fix that, but until then ....
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/destitute [reference.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree, destitute is a more precise word, but it's not me that's responsible for using poor and destitute interchangeably in the media, with the preference for using poor to represent this state of being.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I've never seen that usage of 'poor'. The liberals are in my experience much more concerned with inner city blacks with no hope of escape.
Re: (Score:2)
I interpreted sexconker's post as sarcasm about Occupy Wall Street or maybe that type of left-winger in general.
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood me, I was not suggesting that it was the poor who needed to do the work. It's the rich who could eliminate the poor by giving enough to ensure that everyone's basics are covered. And make no mistake: there is enough to go around that if the rich gave up enough of their wealth, the poor would not be poor any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. Between 1930 and 1970, the Soviet economy was one of the fastest growing economies ever. Only China has been more effective in eradicating poverty in such a short window of time. It just hit a ceiling and stagnated.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is in much dispute, but just for grins I found http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls [usda.gov] . Take a look at the economic growth percentages of the former Soviet Union compared to almost any other industrialized country. Now look at the numbers after they shifted to a market-based economy. So no, they didn't start out rich -- but they sure avoided getting there!
Actually, in your graph, what it shows is that USSR was doing pretty well until dissolution (peaked in 1990 at almost $6k), then it goes downhill from there in the 90s -- which was the peak of "wild west" capitalism in post-Soviet Russia - and then starts recovering under Putin, and finally overcomes USSR at around 2006. But Putin's Russia is the epitome of "state capitalism", where big business and government are effectively one and the same, run by literally the same people.
But then, I honestly don't know
Re: (Score:2)
If by "wealth" you mean only durable consumer goods like refrigerators, and not things like housing security or health care, you are right. Because of the trade imbalance, we have a back-stock of durable consumer goods that can be obtained cheaply on Craigslist. They do not easily convert to food, housing, health care, education, or basic utilities.
Re:So...what's the answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're confusing nature with modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. The idea of an "alpha leader" has no relevancy to this discussion...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think so....think of the individual, each person is blessed with gifts...mental, physical strength, height, eyesight.
Not everyone starts on the same 'playing ground' even at the most basic of things in life.
I mean, hell...no matter how hard I tried, even if from birth, there is no way I'd have made it as an athlete in the NBA, or ever got close to that caliber.
That that's not even taking
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, before modern society in primitive cultures, people with deformities likely were left out to die quickly.
Or to betray their people to the Trojans.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had modpoints... yeah yeah, mod me redundant...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When one defends the current economic system by comparing it to ones in which the infirm were left to die of exposure, you know they're running out of ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Crippled or what now? Besides being completely wrong (we have evidence that even Neanderthals looked after the old, weak and infirm), technologically and economically we have the ability to provide a decent standard of living for everyone in the world, as in car, house, education and so on. This is entirely seperate from the idea that some people are smarter or stronger than others. Bluntly, we've been kicking nature's ass for a while now, that's why we're the apex predator, which is why social Darwinism is
Welcome to the 1890's (Score:2)
At least I don't see any eugenicists spouting off. Although I do see people arguing that not abandoning the crippled to die of exposure constitutes some massive leap forward in social good.
That's what I like to hear people say in a dense, irreversibly interdependent global society: that merely not letting people die is the extent of our social responsibility.
Jesus Christ this place is depressing.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich is relative. By the standards of say roman Gaul everybody in the USA is RICH.
I like living in a country were one or 'poor' peoples problems is obesity.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich is relative. By the standards of say roman Gaul everybody in the USA is RICH.
I like living in a country were one or 'poor' peoples problems is obesity.
I don't like living in a country where privileged people (if you are reading this, that almost surely includes you) think that obesity is the big problem for the truly impoverished and not the lack of access to reasonable health care, transportation, and education (among many other things) that are all REQUIRED for meaningful participation in this society. When you set the bar at Roman Gaul it's easy to pat yourself on the back for the catastrophic results of our economic system, but for anyone who thinks
Re: (Score:2)
Lets not forget that to eat HEALTHY food you need to spend about 300x what you would spend on unhealthy food. And you can't be working two jobs to make healthy food because it requires preparation. Processed food is way cheaper, and ready to consume, which is exactly what poor people are driven to consume since they often work far more hours, multiple jobs, both spouses working (if together at all), etc etc.
I'd like to subsidize veggies and protein, but all we get is more frikkin corn syrup.... My kid has
Re: (Score:2)
"HEALTHY food you need to spend about 300x"
nope.
I can get a burrito at TacoBell for a dollar, are you saying if I wanted to make one at home it would cost my 300 dollars?
The difference isn't that great,but you need to know how to manage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice I meant to say 300%, and corrected that later.
To poor people, spending 200 dollars or 600 dollars is a big big difference. 600 dollars means there is no electricity or gas in the house, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
300%, not 300x. Sorry about that.... 3x or 300% was what I intended. Slashdot! y u no edit?
Re:So...what's the answer? (Score:4, Insightful)
With appropriate measures, the minimum standard of living can be made good enough to not result in a permanent health effect.
The haves will always write off disparity of wealth as "oh well, just one of those things" right up until the poor start camping in their front yard.
Re: (Score:2)
I've already written once today (in partial jest) that there are two ways to obtain a benefit you haven't earned: through social programs and through inheritance--let's kill both.
There's a raging debate going on in the discussion thread at Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies [ted.com]
I'm an R programmer IRL. I don't have much formal training in statistics, but when I need a second opinion, my bookshelf is stacked with t
s/profits/prophets (Score:2)
Damn spell checker. My fingers do that one all the time, and my subconscious doesn't ring the mail chime until five minutes later.
Re: (Score:2)
"benefit you haven't earned: through social programs "
Don't be an idiot. Social prgram are paid nito. When I had to go onto the EBT(food stamp) program, I had been working and paying taxes for 25 years.. So don't tell me I didn't earn it.
And everything after 2 million in inheritance should be taxed. remember, the 'death tax' is a tax break for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And everything after 2 million in inheritance should be taxed.
An arbitrary dollar amount is less appealing than, for example, a specific weight of gold. Dollars are manipulated by the Federal Reserve; gold has maintained its value for thousand of years. (In Greek/Roman times, one could purchase the finest robes and accessories for an ounce of gold. Today, the same applies (one ounce of gold being about $1700 today) -- versus dollars, which have lost 98% of their value in the past 100 years.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure "the way of nature" is way too broad to apply to human society. The "way of nature" for bees is different from the "way of nature" for lions and the way of nature for ants is different from the way of nature for vultures. Is it the way of nature to poison a water supply in order to be able to drive bigger vehicles? Well, maybe.
Let's not forget that human beings are also "nature" and so any way we
Re: (Score:2)
I knew this was coming. When all those things you describe are purchased on credit, you have mortgaged your future. That's poor.
Yes, you can have all those things and be poor. Poverty is not a measurement of how many things you have, but how many choices.
In the United
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that in most of the western world you can be considered "poor" and still own a car, a flatscreen, an iPhone, and are more likely to suffer from obesity rather than starvation, arguably nobody is.
I have a close friend that grew up wealthy and thought very much like you. She argued that no one made minimum wage, since in her well to do neighborhood even the fast food clerks made above minimum wage. To her poor was having japanese cars instead of european, or having to decided between the pool or the tennis court in the back yard.
Then one day, her firm sent her to deposition a client in New York city, and she found herself at the corner of Bedford and Stuyvesant. She came back and told a tale that cou
Re: (Score:2)
Mandate all rich people give poor people everything every other generation?
[rolls eyes]
No, not every other generation. Every generation.
Inheritance is the primary cause between the divide between rich and poor, and only by abolishing it completely can we ever hope to have a society in which everybody have equal opportunities according to their abilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Sieg Heil!
Re: (Score:2)
Kids grow up fast.
But the whole "First Five" campaign is a joke. A person's future or personality is in no way set in stone by too much tv, too few "I love you"s, a lack of socialization, etc. (If you don't believe me, go look at dogs, chimps, horses, any other domestic animal, and yes, people.)
The intense focus on early childhood development is all about giving parents the illusion of control in an increasingly disconnected society. It used to take a village to raise a child, now it takes a government p