Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

elifesciences.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#11

Post by shevy-java »

Aurornis wrote: post #6
terminalshort wrote: post #2

If it's inheritable wouldn't that make it by definition genetic?

Epigenetic inheritance is a mechanism whereby traits could be passed from one generation to the next without modifying the underlying genetic DNA. The mechanism would alter the expression of different parts of DNA. It’s a very young field with a lot of open questions. The concept has been adopted and abused in the mainstream so you have to be careful to separate the science from the pseudoscience.

> It’s a very young field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Definitions

That depends on the definition. But, if we use the modern definition, it emerged (or re-emerged) in the 1990s. It's not old, indeed, but I also would no longer call it "very young". It's soon 40 years in the modern definition, and much older if we include prior discussions.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#12

Post by shevy-java »

agumonkey wrote: post #9
NotGMan wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genetic would mean that genes get modified. But there might be other ways that some traits get inherited, eg by changing the cellular environment in the sperm/egg itself which could affect the offspring while keeping the genes the same.

Maybe he's trying to go to the earliest idea of "gen-es" aka the reasons for the traits of an individual. The idea existed before the discovery of cells kernels and DNA right ? so in a way, if there are other mechanisms involved in passing traits to children, it could be termed as gen-something

Yes, that depends on the definition. Lamarck could fit into it, but he had no clue about DNA, genes and so forth; neither had Darwin. He babbled about gemmulae.

Even the definition of a gene is not very accurate. Many important sequences yield a miRNA or another RNA. Only few sequences yield a mRNA. Some "genes" are just integrated viruses/phages/transposons etc... that were modified. One of the most fascinating one was the retrovirus in regards to the mammalian placenta: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4332834/ but there are many more examples. We are all DNA hybrids at the end of the day. The whole species concepts makes very little sense these days, IMO. I can see the use case for eukaryotes, but it makes no sense to me for bacteria yet alone viruses.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#14

Post by mmaunder »

This relates to policy because it addresses the question of whether we carry epigenetic baggage from prior generations. For example, trauma that our parents, or grandparents experienced could lead to behavior modifications and poorer outcomes in us. If that is the case, it has profound public policy implications.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#15

Post by nabla9 »

shevy-java wrote: post #8

So Lamarck wasn't entirely incorrect either. Darwin would have been fascinated by these results.

In Lamarkian evolution features that organisms use either accentuate or attenuate. That's not how epigenetics works in general.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#16

Post by ambicapter »

shevy-java wrote: post #10
Aurornis wrote: post #3

> While the Murphy group consistently observed this attraction in their assays, the Hunter group generally did not (Kaletsky et al., 2025). The Vidal-Gadea group also observed that worms that had not been exposed to PA14 were initially attracted to it, suggesting that this is an important piece of the puzzle (Akinosho et al., 2025). Indeed, when tested directly, the Murphy group did not observe attraction using the t…

It can be simplified to this question: - Do C. elegans offspring show a modified behaviour unrelated to a changed genome sequence? That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. You always have to distill complicated papers that babble about things to a minimum statement.

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too.

This hardly follows.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#17

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

terminalshort wrote: post #2

If it's inheritable wouldn't that make it by definition genetic?

I think that nowadays "gene" refers only to a subset of a nucleic acid. Sequences of ACTG (or ACUG in the case of RNA) only, and only in that organism's chromosomes.

If you inherit a virus from your mother, for instance, I think most would call that non-genetic inheritance, even though viruses have genes too. Same goes for methyl and acetyl markers, transcription factors, nutrients, toxins, and whatever else comes along for the ride in the meiotic cell.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#18

Post by capitol_ »

shevy-java wrote: post #10
Aurornis wrote: post #3

> While the Murphy group consistently observed this attraction in their assays, the Hunter group generally did not (Kaletsky et al., 2025). The Vidal-Gadea group also observed that worms that had not been exposed to PA14 were initially attracted to it, suggesting that this is an important piece of the puzzle (Akinosho et al., 2025). Indeed, when tested directly, the Murphy group did not observe attraction using the t…

It can be simplified to this question: - Do C. elegans offspring show a modified behaviour unrelated to a changed genome sequence? That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. You always have to distill complicated papers that babble about things to a minimum statement.

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too.

"Is P equal to NP" is also a simple question.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#19

Post by gopalv »

mmaunder wrote: post #14

This relates to policy because it addresses the question of whether we carry epigenetic baggage from prior generations. For example, trauma that our parents, or grandparents experienced could lead to behavior modifications and poorer outcomes in us. If that is the case, it has profound public policy implications.

> trauma that our parents, or grandparents experienced could lead to behavior modifications and poorer outcomes in us

The nurture part of it is already well established, this is the nature part of it.

However, this is not a net-positive for the folks who already discriminate.

The "faults in our genes" thinking assumes that this is not redeemable by policy changes, so it goes back to eugenics and usually suggests cutting such people out of the gene pool.

The "better nurture" proponents for the next generation (free school lunches, early intervention and magnet schools) will now have to swim up this waterfall before arguing more investment into the uplifting traumatized populations.

We need to believe that Change (with a capital C) is possible right away if start right now.

Re: Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: the story of learned avoidance

#20

Post by chrisweekly »

ambicapter wrote: post #16
shevy-java wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be simplified to this question: - Do C. elegans offspring show a modified behaviour unrelated to a changed genome sequence? That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. You always have to distill complicated papers that babble about things to a minimum statement.

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too. This hardly follows.

Agreed. Also, "simple isn't easy".
Post reply on HN