2-3 stars Required further work

Research needing further work

The persistence of epigenetic marks in Type 1 diabetes

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics, Memory, Stress , ,

This 2016 California human study found:

“A persistency of DNA methylation over time at key genomic loci associated with diabetic complications. Two sets of DNAs collected at least 16–17 years apart from the same participants are used to show the persistency of DNA-me over time.

Twelve annotated differentially methylated loci were common in both WB [whole blood] and Monos [blood monocytes], including thioredoxin-interacting protein (TXNIP), known to be associated with hyperglycemia and related complications.

The top 38 hyperacetylated promoters in cases included 15 genes associated with the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB) inflammatory pathway, which is strongly associated with diabetic complications.”

The researchers built on a series of studies that showed how subjects with early intensive interventions didn’t develop further complications, whereas subjects with later intensive interventions:

“Continued to develop complications, such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and macrovascular diseases, at significantly higher rates.

This persistence of benefit from early application of intensive therapy, called ‘metabolic memory,’ is an enigma.”

These researchers needed to also consider a point of Enduring memories? Or continuous toxic stimulation? that:

“The lasting epigenomic effect would not be due to memory, but continuous stimulation by persistent pathogens or persistent components.”

Other studies that involved specific genes of this study include:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/21/E3002.full “Epigenomic profiling reveals an association between persistence of DNA methylation and metabolic memory in the DCCT/EDIC type 1 diabetes cohort”

A limited study of parental transmission of anxiety/stress-reactive traits

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Immune system, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress , , , , ,

BehavioralTraitsThis 2016 New York rodent study found:

“Parental behavioural traits can be transmitted by non-genetic mechanisms to the offspring.

We show that four anxiety/stress-reactive traits are transmitted via independent iterative-somatic and gametic epigenetic mechanisms across multiple generations.

As the individual traits/pathways each have their own generation-dependent penetrance and gender specificity, the resulting cumulative phenotype is pleiotropic. In the context of genetic diseases, it is typically assumed that this phenomenon arises from individual differences in vulnerability to the various effects of the causative gene. However, the work presented here reveals that pleiotropy can be produced by the variable distribution and segregated transmission of behavioural traits.”

A primary focus was how anxiety was transmitted from parents to offspring:

“The iterative propagation of the male-specific anxiety-like behaviour is most compatible with a model in which proinflammatory state is propagated from H [serotonin1A receptor heterozygote] F0 to F1 [children] females and in which the proinflammatory state is acquired by F1 males from their H mothers, and then by F2 [grandchildren] males from their F1 mothers.

We propose that increased levels of gestational MIP-1β [macrophage inflammatory protein 1β] in H and F1 mothers, together with additional proinflammatory cytokines and bioactive proteins, are required to produce immune system activation in their newborn offspring, which in turn promotes the development of the anxiety-like phenotype in males.

In particular, increase in the number of monocytes and their transmigration to the brain parenchyma in F1 and F2 males could be central to the development of anxiety.”

The researchers studied transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes. Due to my quick take on the study title – “Behavioural traits propagate across generations..” – I had expectations of this study that weren’t born out. What could the researchers have done versus what they did?

The study design removed prenatal and postnatal parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes as each generation’s embryos were implanted into foster wild-type (WT) mothers.

The study design substituted the foster mothers’ prenatal and postnatal parental environments for the biological parents’ environments. So we didn’t find out, for example:

  • To what extents the overly stress-reactive F1 female children’s prenatal environments and postnatal behaviors induced behaviors and/or epigenetic changes in their children; and
  • Whether the F2 grandchildren’s parental behaviors subsequently induced behaviors and/or epigenetic changes in the F3 great-grandchildren.

How did the study meet the overall goal of rodent studies: to help humans?

    1. Only a minority of humans experienced an early-life environment that included primary caregivers other than our biological parents.
    2. Very, very few of us experienced a prenatal environment other than our biological mothers.
    3. The study’s thorough removal of parental behavior was an outstanding methodology to confirm by falsifiability whether parental behavior was both an intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance mechanism.
    4. Maybe the researchers filled in some gaps in previous rodent studies, such as determining what is or isn’t a “true transgenerational mechanism.”

As an example of a rodent study that more closely approximated human conditions, the behavior of a mother whose DNA was epigenetically changed by stress induced the same epigenetic changes to her child’s DNA when her child was stressed per One way that mothers cause fear and emotional trauma in their infants:

“Our results provide clues to understanding transmission of specific fears across generations and its dependence upon maternal induction of pups’ stress response paired with the cue to induce amygdala-dependent learning plasticity.”

How did parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits and epigenetic changes become a subject not worth investigating? These traits and effects can be seen everyday in real-life human interactions, and in every human’s physiology.

But when investigating human correlates with behavioral epigenetic changes of rodents in the laboratory, parental behavioral transmission of behavioral traits is often treated the way this study treated it: as a confounder.

I doubt that people who have reached some degree of honesty about their early lives and concomitant empathy for others would agree with this prioritization. The papers of Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance week show the spectrum of opportunities to advance science that were intentionally missed.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160513/ncomms11492/full/ncomms11492.html “Behavioural traits propagate across generations via segregated iterative-somatic and gametic epigenetic mechanisms”

A study of genetic imprinting and neurodevelopmental disorders

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Epigenetics , ,

This 2016 UK human study assessed the roles of genetic imprinting on diseases that may originate from a certain interval on chromosome 15:

“The 15q11.2-q13.3 region contains a cluster of imprinted genes, which are expressed from one parental allele only as a consequence of germline epigenetic events.

The importance of epigenetic status of duplications at this interval was further underlined by analysis of a number of families. Duplications in two unaffected mothers had a DNA-methylation pattern indicative of being paternally derived, whereas their offspring, who possessed a maternally derived duplication, suffered from psychotic illness.

We clearly implicate 15q11.2-q13.3 interstitial duplications of paternal origin in the aetiology of DD [developmental delay], but do not find them at increased rates in SZ [schizophrenia], which is significantly associated only with duplications of maternal origin.

This study refines the distinct roles of maternal and paternal duplications at 15q11.2-q13.3, underlining the critical importance of maternally active imprinted genes in the contribution to the incidence of psychotic illness.”

The researchers analyzed other studies for better estimates of paternal involvement:

“We show for the first time that paternal duplications are pathogenic. One reason why paternal duplications have been regarded as non-pathogenic in the past is their rare occurrence in patients. Here we demonstrate that they are also rare in the general population as a whole.

Paternal duplications should be less efficiently eliminated from the population by negative selection pressure, due to their lower penetrance for neurodevelopmental disorders. Secondly, some maternal duplications will change to paternal when transmitted from male carriers.

We now suggest one further explanation for their rarity: male patients with SZ and other neurodevelopmental disorders have lower fecundity. Men suffering with SZ have only half the number of offspring compared to women with SZ.”

I would have liked further discussion of the “germline epigenetic events” that apparently contribute to the studied problems. These epigenetic abnormalities may have the potential to be prevented or treated, or at least used as early biomarkers.

The reviewers instead focused on:

“This work will have tangible benefits for patients with 15q11.2-q13.3 duplications by aiding genetic counseling.”

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1005993 “Parental Origin of Interstitial Duplications at 15q11.2-q13.3 in Schizophrenia and Neurodevelopmental Disorders”

Does childhood trauma influence offspring’s birth characteristics?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics ,

This 2016 Swedish human study investigated the effects of one specific childhood trauma, parental death:

“Parental (G1) death during (G2) childhood predicts prematurity and lower birthweight in the offspring generation (G3). This response is dependent on G2 gender, G2 age at exposure and G3 parity, but not on G3 gender.

Offspring of women who lost their parent at the age of 0-2 or at the age of 13-17 had an increased risk for prematurity.

Offspring of men who lost a parent at ages 8-12 had an increased risk of prematurity.

For women exposed to a parent’s death at age 0-2, there was no significant deficit in their offspring’s birthweight in any parity class. For women exposed at later ages we observed a deficit in birthweight.

Among children whose fathers experienced parental loss..experiencing parental death at ages 8-12 in particular, or at ages 13-17, but not at ages 0-2 or 3-7, did predict having lighter offspring.”

The study design was unable to produce causal evidence for the putative intergenerational effects. An example of the limitations was:

“We had no information about behaviours and biological markers or genes.”

Its findings were best summarized as:

“Our study fails to refute the hypothesis that a male-line epigenetic mechanism exists which may be triggered by trauma during boys’ slow growth period.”

Still, the study had a firmer foundation than did A problematic study of oxytocin receptor gene methylation, childhood abuse, and psychiatric symptoms, which speciously produced politically-correct results from childhood trauma surveys of adults.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/05/03/ije.dyw048.full “Does childhood trauma influence offspring’s birth characteristics?”

Why drugs aren’t ultimately therapeutic

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Beliefs, Brain development, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals , , ,

This 2016 Oregon review’s concept was the inadequacy of drug-based therapies, explored with the specific subject of epilepsy:

“Currently used antiepileptic drugs:

  • [aren’t] effective in over 30% of patients
  • [don’t] affect the comorbidities of epilepsy
  • [don’t] prevent the development and progression of epilepsy (epileptogenesis).

Prevention of epilepsy and its progression [requires] novel conceptual advances.”

The overall concept that current drug-based therapies poorly address evolutionary biological realities was illustrated by a pyramid, with the comment that:

“If the basis of the pyramid depicted in Figure 1 is overlooked, it becomes obvious that a traditional pharmacological top-down treatment approach has limitations.”

Why drug ultimately aren't therapeutic

I would have liked the reviewer to further address the “therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome” point he made in the Abstract:

“New findings based on biochemical manipulation of the DNA methylome suggest that:

  1. Epigenetic mechanisms play a functional role in epileptogenesis; and
  2. Therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome is an effective antiepileptogenic therapy.”

As it was, the reviewer lapsed into the prevalent belief that the causes of and cures for human diseases will always be found on the molecular level – for example, the base of the above pyramid – and never in human experiences. This preconception leads to discounting human elements – notably absent in the above pyramid – that generate epigenetic changes.

A consequence of ignoring experiential causes of diseases is that the potential of experiential therapies to effect “therapeutic reconstruction of the epigenome” isn’t investigated.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnmol.2016.00026/full “The Biochemistry and Epigenetics of Epilepsy: Focus on Adenosine and Glycine”

Using epigenetic outliers to diagnose cancer

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics , ,

This 2016 Chinese/UK human cancer cell study tested five algorithms and found:

“Most of the novel proposed algorithms lack the sensitivity to detect epigenetic field defects at genome-wide significance. In contrast, algorithms which recognise heterogeneous outlier DNA methylation patterns are able to identify many sites in pre-neoplastic lesions, which display progression in invasive cancer.

Many DNA methylation outliers are not technical artefacts, but define epigenetic field defects which are selected for during cancer progression.”

The usual method of epigenetic studies involves:

“Identify genomic sites where the mean level of DNAm [DNA methylation] differs as much as possible between the two phenotypes. As we have seen however, such an approach is seriously underpowered in cancer studies where tissue availability is a major obstacle.

In addition to allelic frequency, we also need to take the magnitude of the alteration into consideration. As shown here, infrequent but bigger changes in DNAm (thus defining outliers) are more likely to define cancer field defects, than more frequent yet smaller DNAm changes.”

A similar point was made in Genetic statistics don’t necessarily predict the effects of an individual’s genes:

“Epigenomic analyses are limited by averaging of population-wide dynamics and do not inform behavior of single cells.”

One of the five tested algorithms was made freely available by the researchers. The limitations on its use were discussed, and included:

“Studies conducted in a surrogate tissue such as blood are scenarios where DNAm outliers are probably not of direct biological relevance to cancer development.”

http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-016-1056-z “Stochastic epigenetic outliers can define field defects in cancer”

A human study of pain avoidance

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Stress, Thalamus

This 2016 UK human study found:

“People differ in how they learn to avoid pain, with some individuals refraining from actions that resulted in painful outcomes, whereas others favor actions that helped prevent pain.

Learning in our task was best explained as driven by an outcome prediction error that reflects the difference between expected and actual outcomes. Consistent with the expression of such a teaching signal, blood-oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses to outcomes in the striatum were modulated by expectation.

Positive learners showed significant functional connectivity between the insula and striatal regions, whereas negative learners showed significant functional connectivity between the insula and amygdala regions.

The degree to which a participant tended to learn from success in avoiding than experiencing shocks was predicted by the structure of a participants’ striatum, specifically by higher gray matter density where the response to shocks was consistent with a prediction error signal.

Higher gray matter density in the putamen (and lower gray matter density in the caudate) predicted better learning from shocks and poorer learning from success in avoiding shocks.”

The researchers termed the subjects’ pain responses “learning” instead of conditioning. The difference between the two terms in the experimental contexts was that the subjects weren’t presented with 100%-certain choices to avoid pain.

The experiments were also rigged to force choices at similar rates among subjects because:

“Participants who learned more from painful outcomes developed a propensity to avoid gambling, whereas participants who learned more from success in preventing pain developed a propensity to gamble.”

Human responses to pain don’t arise out of nowhere. The subjects’ pain histories were clearly relevant, but weren’t investigated.

The closest the study came to considering the subjects’ histories was:

“Before the experiment, participants completed an 80-item questionnaire composed of several measures of different mood and anxiety traits. Age, sex and mood and anxiety traits did not differ between participants later classified as positive and negative learners.”

Emotional content was neither included nor solicited. Emotions were inferred:

“Participants biased in favor of passive avoidance learning (i.e., learning what gambles should be avoided), striatal response to painful outcomes was consistent with an aversive prediction error, as seen in fear conditioning.”

As a result, there weren’t causal explanations for the subjects’ differing pain responses. How, when, and why did the behavioral, functional, and structural differences develop?

I didn’t see the level of detail needed to characterize striatal regions into the Empathy, value, pain, control: Psychological functions of the human striatum segments. I’d guess that the findings of “higher gray matter density in the putamen (and lower gray matter density in the caudate)” applied to the posterior putamen and the anterior caudate nucleus.

Two of the coauthors were also coauthors of If a study didn’t measure feelings, then its findings may not pertain to genuine empathy which I rated < 0 Detracted from science. The technique of Why do we cut short our decision-making process? was referenced.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/06/1519829113.full “Striatal structure and function predict individual biases in learning to avoid pain”

What is epigenetic inheritance?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics, Memory, Stress ,

This 2016 review by Eric Nestler, a well-known and well-funded researcher, entitled Transgenerational Epigenetic Contributions to Stress Responses: Fact or Fiction? concluded:

“Further work is needed to understand whether and to what extent true epigenetic inheritance of stress vulnerability adds to the well-established and powerful influence of genetics and environmental exposures in determining an individual’s susceptibility versus resilience to stress throughout life.

There is growing evidence for at least some contribution of epigenetic regulation – perhaps achieved by miRNAs – in mediating part of the ability of parental behavioral experience to influence stress vulnerability in their offspring.”

The reviewer applied the terms involved to exclude behavioral inheritance mechanisms. The extent of what is “epigenetic inheritance” seemed to be lost in the process.

For example, his own 2011 research Paternal Transmission of Stressed-Induced Pathologies was cited for evidence that:

“Adult male mice subjected to chronic social defeat stress generate offspring that are more vulnerable to a range of stressful stimuli than the offspring of control mice.”

Yet that finding was dismissed in the review and in that study as behavioral:

“While epigenetic changes in sperm might be a small factor in transgenerational transmission of stress vulnerability, a large portion of the observed transmission may be behavioral.

The fact that most of the transgenerational transmission of stress vulnerability observed in our experiments was not seen with IVF argues against the preponderance of epigenetic mechanisms. Rather, our data would suggest that the bulk of the vulnerabilities are passed on to subsequent generations behaviorally.”

A few questions:

  1. If the experimental subjects had no more control over their behavioral stress-response effects than they had over their DNA methylation, histone modification, or microRNA stress-response effects, then why was such behavior not included in the “epigenetic mechanisms” term?
  2. How do behavioral inheritance mechanisms fall outside the “true epigenetic inheritance” term when behavioral stress-response effects are shown to be reliably transmitted generation after generation?
  3. Wouldn’t the cessation of behavioral inheritance mechanisms confirm their status by falsifiability? This was done with studies such as the 1995 Adoption reverses the long-term impairment in glucocorticoid feedback induced by prenatal stress.

A study of how genetic factors determined diet-induced epigenetic changes

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics , ,

This 2016 California rodent study found:

“HF [high fat] diet leads to persistent alterations of chromatin accessibility that are partially mediated by transcription factors and histone post-translational modifications. These chromatin alterations are furthermore strain specific, indicating a genetic component to the response.

These results suggest that persistent epigenetic modifications induced by HF diet have the potential to impact the long-term risk for metabolic diseases.”

The experimental procedure was that 7-8 week old subjects of two mice strains “were placed on three diet regimens:

  1. control diet for sixteen weeks,
  2. HF diet for sixteen weeks, or
  3. HF diet for an initial eight weeks followed by control diet for eight weeks (diet reversal).”

On diet regimen 3, one of the mouse strains wasn’t able to reverse the epigenetic changes caused by eight weeks of a high-fat diet. The symptoms included:

  • Elevated lipid accumulation and triglyceride levels
  • 15% of chromatin sites were more accessible, with the HNF4α transcription factor implicated
  • 6% of chromatin sites were less accessible due to H3K9 methylation
  • Persistently up-regulated genes were more likely to be in the vicinity of a persistently accessible site
  • A set of persistently up-regulated genes enriched for mitochondrial genes was present only with diet regimen 3 subjects.

A second mouse strain “known to display differences in metabolic dysfunction under HF diet” compared to the first strain didn’t experience the same symptoms on diet regimen 3:

  • Lipid accumulation and triglyceride levels weren’t elevated
  • The majority of diet-induced chromatin remodeling [was] reversible
  • Little overlap with the first strain in the set of genes that changed expression.

The study didn’t suggest any specific human applicability.

http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2016/03/22/jbc.M115.711028.long (pdf) “Persistent chromatin modifications induced by high fat diet”

 

Mechanisms of stress memories in plants

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics, Memory, Stress ,

This 2016 Australian review’s subject was plant memory mechanisms:

“Plants are adept at rapidly acclimating to stressful conditions and are able to further fortify their defenses by retaining memories of stress to enable stronger or more rapid responses should an environmental perturbation recur.

The recovery process entails a balancing act between resetting and memory formation. During recovery, RNA metabolism, posttranscriptional gene silencing, and RNA-directed DNA methylation have the potential to play key roles in resetting the epigenome and transcriptome and in altering memory.”

Many of the principles applied to animals, and several animal studies were cited for illustration. Here’s one of the graphics:

F6.large

I disagreed with the Summary statement:

“Memory, in particular epigenetic memory, is likely a relatively rare event.”

The reviewers cited a 2015 Australian study Stress induced gene expression drives transient DNA methylation changes at adjacent repetitive elements which found the opposite conclusion with rice:

“Despite 21 days of starvation, resupplying phosphate for just 1 day reversed expression of 40% of induced genes, further increasing to 80% after 3 days and corresponding with a reestablished internal root phosphate concentration. Interestingly though, 80 genes remained differentially regulated even after 31 days of resupply.”

The cited study’s researchers attributed their epigenetic memory finding to several factors, including their study design:

“The majority of DNA methylation analyses performed in plants to date have focused on Arabidopsis, despite being relatively depleted of TEs [transposable elements] (15–20% of the genome) and being poorly methylated compared to other plant genomes.

To date, only a limited number of studies have comprehensively investigated the involvement of DNA methylation in response to adverse environmental conditions. Several studies have reported that changes in the environment can affect the methylation status of some regions of the genome, using low resolution and non-quantitative techniques. These studies have lacked the resolution to provide the specific context and genomic location of the changes in DNA methylation, thus offering limited insights into the potential role of stress-induced changes in DNA methylation.”

So, the current review judging “memory, in particular epigenetic memory” to be “a relatively rare event” probably had more to do with study designs rather than what actually occurs in nature. See one of the coauthor’s response below.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1501340.full “Reconsidering plant memory: Intersections between stress recovery, RNA turnover, and epigenetics”

The epigenetic influence of obese parents at conception

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics , ,

This 2016 German rodent study found:

“Using in vitro fertilization to ensure exclusive inheritance via the gametes, we show that a parental high-fat diet renders offspring more susceptible to developing obesity and diabetes in a sex- and parent of origin–specific mode.”

It would have benefited the researchers to have made the full study freely available. As it is, an interested reader has to ferret out information such as the basic study design (provided in a graphic) which had in the caption that both the parental and offspring diets were normal until:

  • “Between 9 [young adult] and 15 weeks of age.
  • This experiment was replicated at least three times for each F1 cohort, using sperm and oocytes from independent donors.”

Compare that information with the description provided by the study’s most thorough news coverage:

“Researchers raised genetically similar mice for six weeks [beginning at 9 weeks of age] on one of three diets: standard mouse chow [13.5% fat], a low-fat diet [11% fat], or a high-fat [60% fat], high-calorie diet. The latter became obese and developed severe glucose intolerance (a precursor to type 2 diabetes), while the other mice stayed slim.

Harvesting the eggs and sperm from mice in each of the diet groups, the researchers then used in vitro fertilization to make specific, controlled crosses. All of the embryos were transferred to healthy, skinny [actually, the foster mothers were on the standard mouse chow diet] foster mothers. To see if the diet of their biological parents affected their metabolism, all of the pups [actually, young adults at age 9 weeks] were challenged with a high-fat, high-calorie diet [beginning at 9 weeks of age].

Unsurprisingly, the female pups with two obese parents had a high degree of insulin resistance and gained at least 20 percent more weight than the offspring of parents on standard or low-fat diets. Female pups with only one obese parent, either the mother or the father, also gained more weight than the control groups—but only between 8 and 14 percent. The result suggests that the metabolic influence of each parent may be additive.

But in a puzzling finding, the male pups didn’t have the same pattern. The male pups of obese parents did tend to be a bit heavier than those from the control groups, but the difference wasn’t statistically significant, the authors report. They did, however, also have a high degree of insulin resistance.

Examining the glucose intolerance more closely, the researchers noted that offspring (both male and female) tended to have more severe glucose intolerance if their mothers were obese. This backs up epidemiological data in humans that suggests a stronger maternal influence over type 2 diabetes development.”

The study didn’t determine causal biological mechanisms for the observed epigenetic effects. No measurements of DNA methylation, histone modifications, or microRNAs were taken.

I look forward to further research into epigenetic contributions at conception to adulthood symptoms.

http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ng.3527.html “Epigenetic germline inheritance of diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance” Thanks to the lead author Peter Huypens for providing a copy of the full study

Gene therapy by DNA methylation using CRISPR-Cas9

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Epigenetics, Immune system ,

This 2016 Croatian human cell study was a proof-of-concept to induce specific DNA methylation of two genes:

“In this work we have created and characterized a novel CRISPR-Cas9-based epigenome editing tool, the dCas9-DNMT3A, which enabled targeted and specific CpG methylation at the promoter of two loci, the BACH2 and the IL6ST.

We have demonstrated the ability of the dCas9-DNMT3A construct to silence gene expression.

The BACH2 and IL6ST loci were previously associated with IgG glycosylation and inflammatory as well as autoimmune diseases.”

A few limitations:

“CpG methylation achieved using the active dCas9-DNMT3A construct was not stable in cultured cells. We found a ‘window’ of high methylation activity between days 5 and 15.

The relatively higher number of sgRNA [short complementary single guide RNA] targets in the BACH2 promoter compared to the IL6ST promoter (8 versus 4, respectively) might account for the higher statistical significance of gene silencing with inactive construct in the case of BACH2.”

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/10/nar.gkw159.full “Repurposing the CRISPR-Cas9 system for targeted DNA methylation”

Epigenetic regulation of natural killer cells

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Immune system, Neurochemicals, Stress ,

This 2016 German review focused on how epigenetic processes affected the natural killer cell part of the immune system:

“Natural killer (NK) cells recognize and eliminate tumor- and virus-infected cells, parasites as well as certain types of bacteria. NK cell activity is related to a complex interaction of activating and inhibiting receptors on the NK cell surface.

During the development of HPCs [hemopoietic progenitor cells] to mature NK cells, the DNA demethylation of KIR [killer cell immunoglobin-like receptors] genes leads to KIR expression. But DNA methylation does not just determine which KIR gene is expressed, it also determines which allele expresses the KIR gene. KIR genes are also regulated by microRNA.

KIR genes exhibit highly similar histone acetylation signatures, which are typically found in expressed genes. This fact puts the KIR genes into a state of readiness for transcription which is depending on the DNA methylation as critical epigenetic modification in the regulation of KIR gene expression.

Epigenetic modifications have been reported to be involved in the expression of NKG2D, which is one the most important activating NK cell receptor.”

The reviewers included a section on NK cell activity and external stimuli. They summarized:

“The significance of the described findings is limited by study designs. Although human NK cells were frequently used, in most cases treatment took place in ex vivo experiments.”

The reviewers also provided a good three-paragraph explanation of general epigenetic mechanisms.

http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/17/3/326/htm “Natural Killer Cells—An Epigenetic Perspective of Development and Regulation”

Epigenetic effects of diet, and reversing DNA methylation

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Acetylcholine, Brain development, Cerebellum, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Lower brain, Neurochemicals, Stress , , , , , ,

This 2015 French review focused on:

“The role of maternal health and nutrition in the initiation and progression of metabolic and other disorders.

The effects of various in utero exposures and maternal nutritional status may have different effects on the epigenome. However, critical windows of exposure that seem to exist during development need to be better defined.

The epigenome can be considered as an interface between the genome and the environment that is central to the generation of phenotypes and their stability throughout the life course.”

The reviewer used the term “transgenerational” to refer to effects that were more appropriately termed parental or intergenerational. Per the definition in A review of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of reproductive disease, for the term to apply there needed to be evidence in at least the next 2 male and/or 3 female generations of:

“Altered epigenetic information between generations in the absence of continued environmental exposure.”

The review had separate sections for animal and human studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4663595/ “Impact of Maternal Diet on the Epigenome during In Utero Life and the Developmental Programming of Diseases in Childhood and Adulthood”

I arrived at the above review as a result of it citing the 2014 Harvard Reversing DNA Methylation: Mechanisms, Genomics, and Biological Functions. I’ll quote a few items from that review’s informative “Role of DNA demethylation in neural development” section:

“Distinct parts of mammalian brains, including frontal cortex, hippocampus, and cerebellum, all exhibit age-dependent acquisition of 5hmC [an oxidized derivative of 5mC [methylation of the fifth position of cytosine]].

In fact, the genome of mature neurons in adult central nervous system contains the highest level of 5hmC of any mammalian cell-type (~40% as abundant as 5mC in Purkinje neurons in cerebellum). These observations indicate that 5mC oxidation and potentially DNA demethylation may be functionally important for neuronal differentiation and maturation processes.

A comprehensive base-resolution analyses of 5mC and 5hmC in mammalian frontal cortex in both fetal and adult stages indicate that non-CpG methylation (mCH) and CpG hydroxymethylation (hCG) drastically build up in cortical neurons after birth, coinciding with the peak of synaptogenesis and synaptic pruning in the cortex. This study demonstrated that mCH could become a dominant form of cytosine modifications in adult brains, accounting for 53% in adult human cortical neuronal genome.

In mature neurons, intragenic mCH is preferentially enriched at inactive non-neuronal lineage-specific genes, indicating a role in negative regulation of the associated transcripts. By contrast, genic hCG is positively correlated with gene expression levels.”

What’s the underlying question for every brain study to answer?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Glutamate, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Serotonin, Stress, Testosterone, Thalamus , , , , , ,

Is the underlying question for every brain study to answer:

  • How do our brains internally represent the external world?

Is it:

  • How did we learn what we know?
  • How do we forget or disregard what we’ve learned?
  • What keeps us from acquiring and learning newer or better information?

How about:

  • What affects how we pay attention to our environments?
  • How do our various biochemical states affect our perceptions, learning, experiences, and behavior?
  • How do these factors in turn affect our biology?

Or maybe:

  • Why do we do what we do?
  • How is our behavior affected by our experiences?
  • How did we become attracted and motivated toward what we like?
  • How do we develop expectations?
  • Why do we avoid certain situations?

Not to lose sight of:

  • How do the contexts affect all of the above?
  • What happens over time to affect all of the above?

This 2015 UCLA paper reviewed the above questions from the perspective of Pavlovian conditioning:

“The common definition of Pavlovian conditioning, that via repeated pairings of a neutral stimulus with a stimulus that elicits a reflex the neutral stimulus acquires the ability to elicit that the reflex, is neither accurate nor reflective of the richness of Pavlovian conditioning. Rather, Pavlovian conditioning is the way we learn about dependent relationships between stimuli.

Pavlovian conditioning is one of the few areas in biology in which there is direct experimental evidence of biological fitness.”

The most important question unanswered by the review was:

  • How can its information be used to help humans?

How can Pavlovian conditioning answer: What can a human do about the thoughts, feelings, behavior, epigenetic effects – the person – the phenotype – that they’ve been shaped into?

One example of the unanswered question: the review pointed out in a section about fear extinction that this process doesn’t involve unlearning. Fear extinction instead inhibits the symptoms of fear response. The fear memory is still intact, awaiting some other context to be reactivated and expressed.

How can this information be used to help humans?

  • Is inhibiting the symptoms and leaving the fear memory in place costless with humans?
  • Or does this practice have both potential and realized adverse effects?
  • Where’s the human research on methods that may directly address a painful emotional memory?

One relevant hypothesis of Dr. Arthur Janov’s Primal Therapy is that a person continues to be their conditioned self until they address the sources of their pain. A corollary is that efforts to relieve symptoms seldom address causes.

How could it be otherwise? A problem isn’t cured by ameliorating its effects.

http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/8/1/a021717.full “The Origins and Organization of Vertebrate Pavlovian Conditioning”