It's very hard for a non-expert in the field to estimate the correlation vs. causality fallacies in a study like this.
How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
71–80 of 94 posts
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#72It's very hard for a non-expert in the field to estimate the correlation vs. causality fallacies in a study like this.
This is an example of the sort of cases in which I worry that experts become clouded by zealotry; I think it's more likely that a generalist-at-a-distance will poke the right holes in the methodology of these kinds of studies.
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#73IIRC DNA methylation (sp?) is used in blood tests to determine the rate at which you are aging biologically. This article does claim that the children who are touched less develop at a slower in addition to having a lower DNA methylation. So in a sense, the less a child is touched, the slower the child ages biologically according to this marker and observation. Anecdotally, there are environmental situations where an…
That would make a good sci-fi - an army of sociopaths that live until they’re 200 years old.
Except babies die if you don't touch them.
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#74Even if this result is real (I smell bad statistics), it's completely useless. All cells in our bodies have the same genome. But a hepatozyte and a neuron are very different cells, aren't they? The difference is that cells specialize, and they do so by selectively methylating their genome (not the only mechanism, but an important one), thereby modifying the expression of genes. So a liver has a very different epigeno…
Can you back up your implication that the saliva epigenome has no other meaningful and impactful correlates?
Why do you expect me to prove a negative? These "scientists" (really just tinkerers) need to argue for their implicit claim first.
But they don't. They take the (correct, but hardly useful) statement "methylation generally increases with age" and instead say "with maturity" to make it sound impactful.
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#75The epigenome isn't some mystical thing, it's just a manifestation of the environment on cellular function. These kinds of sensationalist articles are exquisitely frustrating as a genomicist.
How long are epigenetic changes supposed to last? Do changes caused by trauma last longer than slower changes?
Every single specific thing that a differentiated cell does (which are most cells in the organism) are technically due to "epigenetics". Epigenetics just means that there are mechanisms to activate some genes and deactivate others. This is the essential core process in differentiation, as well as in many other processes in the body.
It is like asking how long do differences between your skin cells and neurons is supposed to last?
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#76Not too surprising that earliest experiences in life are going to color an individual's expectations of the world, and how to respond to it. "consequences on the epigenome" as the article so charmingly puts it.
> "consequences on the epigenome"
Indeed such a stupid phrase. Any dynamic activity in the body, every process or change which happens due to dynamic actions during life is technically a consequence on the epigenome, because it requires some cells/organs to change some chemical reactions, produce more of this stuff and less of that stuff - it requires activating some genes and deactivating other genes. You drink tea - it has consequences on the epigenome. You think happy thoughts instead of sad ones - it has consequences on the epigenome... You excercise - it has consequences on the epigenome...
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#77IIRC DNA methylation (sp?) is used in blood tests to determine the rate at which you are aging biologically. This article does claim that the children who are touched less develop at a slower in addition to having a lower DNA methylation. So in a sense, the less a child is touched, the slower the child ages biologically according to this marker and observation. Anecdotally, there are environmental situations where an…
That would make a good sci-fi - an army of sociopaths that live until they’re 200 years old.
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan is basically this.
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#78Hmm... I have three children - and all are intelligent, beautiful well adjusted kids. 5, 7, and 15. One thing I made a point of as each was born - I maintained as much physica contact with each immediately after birth. I didnt allow them to leave or be examined without me there, touching them. I did it not for the posted reasons, but just beacuse it felt right to me. ALso - I would hum and sing to them a tune while t…
Our 8 week old will cry if she is not held 24/7. Whilst it is incredibly tiring and hard work, we've found a way to make it work.
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#79It's very hard for a non-expert in the field to estimate the correlation vs. causality fallacies in a study like this.
I have some background to understand this (bioinformatics Honours), but am not an expert. What I can say is that the study at this point, if based on DNA methylation, does not even suggest that the effect is of physical contact is positive (to be Devil's advocate, the DNA methylation from physical contact could have a negative effect).
The study does ask for indicators (crying, behaviour, etc.) but with those parameters you can already try to correlate a lot of physical contact vs. less contact.
They are trying to tell whether methylation is worth studying (at all) in the context of more vs. less contact with your child. Personally, for the purposes of raising a child, I don't think these studies say anything at all. It's more important to stop panicking about nonexistent threats that social media wackos will try to convince you of.
Epigenetics is a very interesting field of study and is like a downtuned Lamarckian inheritance all over again. Things like chronic inflammation are still far from well understood. The body is like having 2 000 000 000 years of Wikipedia and all its edit history crammed into one string of DNA letters. And now we learn that apparently metadata (the DNA methylation) is also crammed into the whole thing and even that changes all the time.
By the way, for that matter, what constitutes "affectionate physical contact" quantitatively is not clear to me. I think each child's particular emotional need at any time is really difficult to pinpoint. I had a great childhood and parents, but I think that I always had a sort of angst (maybe competitive angst?) that really can't be said to be anyone's fault. These days if you feel funny and go the psychologist they will probably say: "Don't worry. It's just appropriate affect. If you spend 15 hours a day on Instagram then you are supposed to feel funny."
Re: How much a baby is touched leaves measurable effects on DNA methylation (2017)
#80It's very hard for a non-expert in the field to estimate the correlation vs. causality fallacies in a study like this.
This is an example of the sort of cases in which I worry that experts become clouded by zealotry; I think it's more likely that a generalist-at-a-distance will poke the right holes in the methodology of these kinds of studies.
I wonder why they don't have independent statisticians review each paper doing statistics? Seems weird and abusable that only people from the same subfield reviews the papers.