Scientists Discover That Exercise Changes Your DNA 56
HughPickens.com writes The human genome is astonishingly complex and dynamic, with genes constantly turning on or off, depending on what biochemical signals they receive from the body. Scientists have known that certain genes become active or quieter as a result of exercise but they hadn't understood how those genes knew how to respond to exercise. Now the NYT reports that scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm have completed a study where they recruited 23 young and healthy men and women, brought them to the lab for a series of physical performance and medical tests, including a muscle biopsy, and then asked them to exercise half of their lower bodies for three months. The volunteers pedaled one-legged at a moderate pace for 45 minutes, four times per week for three months. Then the scientists repeated the muscle biopsies and other tests with each volunteer. Not surprisingly, the volunteers' exercised leg was more powerful now than the other, showing that the exercise had resulted in physical improvements. But there were also changes within the exercised muscle cells' DNA. Using technology that analyses 480,000 positions throughout the genome, they could see that new methylation patterns had taken place in 7,000 genes (an individual has 20–25,000 genes).
In a process known as DNA methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene like microscopic mollusks and make the gene more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body. In the exercised portions of the bodies, many of the methylation changes were on portions of the genome known as enhancers that can amplify the expression of proteins by genes. And gene expression was noticeably increased or changed in thousands of the muscle-cell genes that the researchers studied. Most of the genes in question are known to play a role in energy metabolism, insulin response and inflammation within muscles. In other words, they affect how healthy and fit our muscles — and bodies — become. Many mysteries still remain but the message of the study is unambiguous. "Through endurance training — a lifestyle change that is easily available for most people and doesn't cost much money," says Sara Lindholm, "we can induce changes that affect how we use our genes and, through that, get healthier and more functional muscles that ultimately improve our quality of life."
In a process known as DNA methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene like microscopic mollusks and make the gene more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body. In the exercised portions of the bodies, many of the methylation changes were on portions of the genome known as enhancers that can amplify the expression of proteins by genes. And gene expression was noticeably increased or changed in thousands of the muscle-cell genes that the researchers studied. Most of the genes in question are known to play a role in energy metabolism, insulin response and inflammation within muscles. In other words, they affect how healthy and fit our muscles — and bodies — become. Many mysteries still remain but the message of the study is unambiguous. "Through endurance training — a lifestyle change that is easily available for most people and doesn't cost much money," says Sara Lindholm, "we can induce changes that affect how we use our genes and, through that, get healthier and more functional muscles that ultimately improve our quality of life."
What does this mean...? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. The genes are already present. They only get activated when you exercise. Therefore, you should leave your basement and walk or run around your block for 45 minutes a day or alternatively walk or cycle to the pizza or Chinese place instead of delivery any you have the same improvement. However, if you do not desire a healthy and long life, and a more optimistic view on the world then please don't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
So could changing ones thinking, behavior, or environment also change which genes are expressed?
Yes. That is the interesting bit about DNA methylation. Lots of 'transient' things can change the structure of DNA. If you think about it a bit, it makes sense. The 'Central Dogma' (which for years has been barking up the wrong tree) states that DNA makes RNA which makes Protein and DNA loops back and makes itself. While certainly true, it is too coarse of an approximation to be really useful. DNA changes in response to the environment (the topic here), RNA amplifies and interferes with pretty darn ne
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. The genes are already present. They only get activated when you exercise. Therefore, you should leave your basement and walk or run around your block for 45 minutes a day or alternatively walk or cycle to the pizza or Chinese place instead of delivery any you have the same improvement. However, if you do not desire a healthy and long life, and a more optimistic view on the world then please don't do it.
The study shows that the genes activate. It does not show that the activation results in a healthy and long life.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, the summary headline saying that it changes your DNA is downright incorrect as no nucleotide sequences seem to be altered.
Re: (Score:2)
I just read the wikipedia article about DNA methylation, and while much of it is over my head, the pedant in me seems to accept that the accept the language that the DNA is "changed". It doesn't change the sequence of the DNA, but it seems to change the composition of the individual nucleotides.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense to me. The nucleotides are one of a pair of adenine/thymine, or guanine/cytosine yielding four possibilities for that nucleotide at protein transcription. If you changed the composition (i.e. flipping and/or replacing one) then you are changing the sequence.
I only took college biology, so I'm not *that* adept at it, but I don't see how that can be considered "changing" the DNA. As far as I can tell it just activates certain genes that previously weren't activated (while still remaining u
Re: (Score:2)
We are all a little dumber for having read that comment.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Your balls are not hollow containers, and they are not emptied no matter how many times in a row you masturbate. Sperm are produced in the testes, but are stored in the prostate. 2. Men produce new sperm constantly, but the genetic mutations increase with age, as do the rates of things like schizophrenia or autism in children of older men,
Re: (Score:2)
This almost correct. Tadpoles swim to the epididymus, then are mixed with seminal fluid in the seminal vesicles (which are part of the prostate).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite. Sperm (in humans) are stored in the epididymus [wikipedia.org].
This post brought to you by the National Association of Biological Pedants.
Re: (Score:3)
No it is a Nurture in the Nature vs Nurture debate is still very creditable.
A lot of people like to put a lot of effort into Nature, because it means stuff that you are good at is because you yourself are unique enough to have such attributes, and any fault isn't your fault it was because you got the short straw in the gene pool.
We don't like Nurture because it means we are responsible for ourselves and others. I am smart because I had good parents and teachers, and I choose to work hard at it. Not that I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Random samples of people.
Classify them in groups of similar genetic attributes.
Track development of these groups over time, record environmental differences.
Correlate the environmental differences with final outcome.
Re:What does this mean...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I am smart because I had good parents and teachers, and I choose to work hard at it. Not that I got the smart gene.
Or maybe you got the gene that responds better to instruction than others? Maybe others have genes that favour shorter attention spans, or favour hyper activity so can't sit still in a classroom, and hence aren't as equipped to learn complex subjects ?
Or I have a few extra pounds on me because I chose to eat that cupcake when I should have picked an Apple,
Or maybe your gene for triggering pleasure from sugar is stronger than others?
or decided not to go to the gym.
Lacked the gene that gets pleasure triggered by exercise
It is easier to say I have the Fat gene.
Easier, or maybe something like that actually exists?
I personally think Nurture is a larger influence in nature.
I think free will is over-rated.
Sure some factors my natural colors, gender, height and perhaps chances to get some generic conditions. I may not control, but if I went out more my skin would be darker, or stayed in more it may be lighter. When growing up if I exercised a different amount or had a different diet I may an inch taller or shorter.
All illusions of free will. All your thou
The relevant term is "epigenetics" (Score:2)
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
If anyone was curious.
Re: (Score:2)
The DNA 'change' in exercised muscles is probably an altering in (or activation of) cell-division behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not,
I may be wrong, ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) but the spermatogonium you start out with duplicate themselves through your life and the only mutations come from copy errors during the mitosis and meosis stages; toxic chemicals, radiation and so on.
I don't believe the methylation of DNA in muscle (or any other) cells can migrate to the spermatogonium. Nor can any other DNA change that occurs elsewhere in the body migrate into the reproductive cells.
Summary needs to bring up the interesting parts. (Score:5, Informative)
Meh, the summary doesn't bring up any of the new stuff.
We *know* that exercise has an effect on the body. We *know* that exercising increases concentrations of growth hormones, anti-inflammatory responses, and metabolic rate adjusting factors. We *know* these adjustments are made through methylation patterns over enhancers/promoters.
Furthermore, there is no *change* in the DNA. Any alterations that occur do so on the back-chain of the DNA, which is normal behavior as the backchain is modified by ALOT of different factors. No nucleotides are being mutated or swapped by exercising (unless you imbibe strange and unhealthy body building substances).
Last, the adjustments made to the exercised cells are in *response* to the exercise rather than proactive as the summary suggests. It would after all be really freaky if your body started building up muscles *before* you started working out. That would actually freak me the hell out.
Re:Summary needs to bring up the interesting parts (Score:4, Informative)
True, this isn't particularly earth shattering, but you are incorrect in stating that there is no change in DNA. Methylation [wikipedia.org] covalently (stably) alters DNA. So it actually does create a different nucleotide, one that is recognized by the cell as different from the original. This COULD result in germ cell (ie, heritable) changes.
There is absolutely no data to suggest that this particular set of methylation events has anything to do with reproduction or reproductive fitness, but mechanistically, it's possible. We are still pretty much working out the importance and scope of DNA methylation. In this particular instance, it is not at all clear that it does anything except alter gene expression - and we know that exercise causes gene expression changes. Those new biceps didn't just magically pop into being (unless you are photoshopped).
Not really a suprise (Score:2)
It doesn't change your DNA (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientists Discover That Exercise Changes Your DNA
In a process known as DNA methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene like microscopic mollusks and make the gene more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body.
Clearly it doesn't. It merely changes the expression of your DNA.
Re:It doesn't change your DNA (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. A more accurate headline would be .Scientists Discover That Exercise Doesn't Change Your DNA, Which We Already Knew.
Re: (Score:3)
This would be news... (Score:3)
Only if the changed DNA could be passed on. Lysenko would be proven right!
Re: (Score:3)
Not really news (Score:4, Informative)
WTT (fuck the title) (Score:1)
Genetic changes as a result of development (Score:2)
....aren't we skating a hairsbreadth from Lamarckism?
I recognize that the article doesn't imply that these genetic changes have any impact on the reproductive genes, but is it absolutely impossible that these methylation changes have some impact - if even only generally, for example on overall fitness of the offspring - that would almost be Lamarckian?
IANARG - I am not a reproductive geneticist - but as my amateur understanding is that a woman's ova are all in-place early in life, while a man's sperm are ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda depends on how you look at Lamarkian inheritance. While not the major driver in evolution, epigenetic changes (through, for example, DNA methylation) can do exactly what Lamark [wikipedia.org] hypothesized.
Re: (Score:2)
Except being inheritable. Which was his whole point, such as it was.
yoga study a few days ago (Score:2)
... haaaa, veery interesting: wasn't there an article on slashdot very recently that said that yoga apparently is a better cardiovascular work-out than aerobic exercise? and wouldn't it be fascinating if yoga activated DNA in different [much more beneficial] ways from aerobic exercise. meditation [deep breathing included] is *also* a form of exercise. wouldn't it be fascinating to find that there are actual *real* physiological benefits - at the cellular level - to all this so-called "mumbo jumbo" spiritu
Re: (Score:2)
an individual has 20-25,000 genes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)