Genetic factors

Leaky gates, anxiety, and grocery store trips without buying list items

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Dopamine, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Lower brain, Memory, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Primal Therapy, Serotonin, Stress , , , , , , , ,

An interview with Jeff Link, the editor of Dr. Arthur Janov’s 2011 book “Life Before Birth: The Hidden Script that Rules Our Lives” with Ken Rose:

“Even further confirmation for some of the views of Janov, that maybe weren’t widely accepted for a time, it’s new research now being done into memory and what a lot of scientist are seeing, a lot of different studies is that memory reactivates the same neuroimpulses that were initially firing off when the event happened.

So a traumatic event when you remember it, the act of remembering it is actually creating a neuromirror of what went on initially.

In a lot of ways that is what Primal Therapy is attempting to do; is to go back to that place and reconnect, or as it’s sometimes referred to, reconsolidate the brain state so that real healing can take place.”

Transcript (part 4 of 6): http://cigognenews.blogspot.com/2015/09/ken-rose-on-life-before-birth-part-46.html

MP3: http://www.pantedmonkey.org/podcastgen/download.php?filename=2011-12-15_1300_what_now_jeff_link.mp3

Who’s responsible for your physical and emotional health?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Cortisol, Glutamate, Neurochemicals, Stress, Testosterone , ,

This 2015 Houston human study measured 575 metabolites in 72 biochemical pathways. The researchers used “nontargeted metabolomics” with next-generation gene sequencing to:

“Take account of human individuality in genes, environment, and lifestyle for early disease diagnosis and individualized therapy.”

The 80 subjects were 45 men and 35 women, average age of 54, in “normal health with complete medical records and three-generation pedigrees.” The subjects all had college degrees, and were members or spouses of members of an upper-level socioeconomic organization.

The study’s range of 575 metabolites certainly cast a shadow over studies such as Running a marathon, cortisol, depression, causes, effects, and agendas that singled out 1 metabolite and tortured its data until it confessed a relationship that supported the preferred agenda.

Limitations of this study that weren’t mentioned by the researchers included:

  1. There were no specific target levels for each metabolite, which could lead to a misinterpretation that a “healthy” blood plasma level of a metabolite would always be the norm of the 80 subjects. This interpretation of each metabolite’s ideal level could be reinforced by the study calculating z-scores and P values of each individual’s measurement’s position within the cohort. The researchers stated:

    “The identification of abnormal metabolic signatures was restricted by the relatively small number of subjects in the cohort.”

    but that limitation wasn’t the flip side of omitted optimal levels.

  2. The metabolite measurements were mainly a one-time event although a series of measurements may have been more appropriate. Many of these metabolite levels vary with the time of day, what each individual had recently eaten, what each individual’s recent stress levels were, etc. This limitation may have been one of the sources for what the researchers noted:

    “Statistical analysis revealed a considerable range of variation and potential metabolic abnormalities across the individuals in this cohort.”

  3. There was no assessment of the relative contributions of epigenetic and genetic factors when discussing possible genetic impacts.

Regarding 1. above:

  • It may be interesting to compare an individual to their peers and to other sources of information. However, when it comes time for “individualized therapy” because of a metabolic measurement that’s an outlier compared to these other sources, an individual’s history also matters.
  • Each individual’s history could be used as a guide for optimal levels of some metabolites. For example, an optimal goal for “individualized therapy” for low testosterone levels of each of the 54-year old male subjects could be each individual’s previous higher levels of three decades earlier. It wouldn’t make sense for a 54-year old male to start testosterone therapy with a goal of raising his low levels to the non-therapeutic, low-level norm of other 54-year old males.

Regarding 2. above:

Regarding 3. above:

  • As an example of unconsidered epigenetic factors, there was a discussion of acetaminophen metabolites because:

    “The identification of at-risk populations could improve therapeutic options for individual patients and prevent adverse clinical outcomes.”

    The researchers specifically compared and contrasted two subjects with the highest levels of acetaminophen metabolites, and concluded:

    “These observations may suggest that volunteer 3976 was sensitive to acetaminophen-induced liver injury, whereas volunteer 3958 could tolerate acetaminophen well. This difference may relate to their cellular capability to maintain GSH [reduced glutathione] levels in response to acetaminophen. We searched for a genetic basis of this variation in acetaminophen degradation/toxic metabolism without success.”

  • The researchers shouldn’t have left the discussion hanging at this point. There’s no reason in 2015 for researchers to not investigate the contribution of epigenetic factors to:

    “Take account of human individuality in genes, environment, and lifestyle.”

I was put off by the researchers statement:

“The volunteer’s cardiologist was informed of this observation to monitor possible drug interaction or toxicity.”

It appeared that the researchers bypassed one subject and informed the subject’s doctor directly when the subject was doing something the researchers considered detrimental to the subject’s health. I don’t know if the subject gave prior consent to be bypassed, though, because I didn’t see either study’s consent terms in the below linked material.

A few concluding questions:

  • If it’s alright for personal health information to be transmitted without the consent of highly-educated, upper-level socioeconomic subjects, what can the rest of the population expect?
  • Is “individualized therapy” best done through individual choices, or by forcing an individual to conform to expert opinion?
  • Who is responsible for an individual’s physical and emotional health?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/35/E4901.full “Plasma metabolomic profiles enhance precision medicine for volunteers of normal health”

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/42/16957.full “Personalized genomic disease risk of volunteers” (2013 original study with the same subjects)

Words are neither the problem nor the solution

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Primal Therapy , , , , , ,

“Words are neither the problem nor the solution. They are the last evolutionary step in processing the feeling or sensation. They are the companions of feelings.

We cannot make progress on the third-line cognitive level alone. We can become aware of why we act the way we do but nothing changes biologically; it is like being aware of a virus and expecting the awareness alone to kill it. Our biology has been left out of the therapeutic equation.”

Janov’s Reflections on the Human Condition: On the Difference Between Abreaction and Feeling (Part 6/9).

DNA damage to fat cells may cause obesity and insulin resistance

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

This 2015 Indiana rodent study found:

“DNA damage is a root cause of adipocyte senescence [fat cells that can no longer replicate], which plays a determining role in the development of obesity and insulin resistance.”

The researchers removed the capability for the subject mice to produce a protein that “plays an essential role in preventing cutaneous cancer caused by UV radiation-induced DNA damage.” They showed that this genetic deficiency:

“Causes obesity with visceral fat accumulation, hepatic steatosis, hyperleptinemia, hyperinsulinemia, and glucose intolerance.”

These researchers – in contrast with the Pulling on the chain of causes and effects with insulin resistance study – investigated causes for the various effects that included insulin resistance. However, the study’s applicability to humans wasn’t clear, since we most often develop symptoms such as insulin resistance due to causes other than genetics.

The study also demonstrated that treatment with a common dietary supplement – N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) – or metformin (Met):

“Reduce[d] adipose DNA damage.

Ameliorated cellular senescence and metabolic abnormalities.”

Body fat

High-fat and high-fructose diets caused the opposite effects in the subject genetic-deficient mice.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4556.full “Ablation of XP-V gene causes adipose tissue senescence and metabolic abnormalities”

A study of how “age” itself wasn’t a causal factor for wound-healing differences

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Stress

This 2015 California rodent study found:

“A surprising beneficial effect of mitochondrial dysfunction at young age (accelerated wound closure), and a potential mechanism for the reduced epidermal regeneration at older ages (stem cell depletion).”

The researchers generated mitochondrial oxidative stress by deleting:

“A nuclear gene that encodes the mitochondrial antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase 2 (Sod2). Epidermal Sod2 loss induced cellular senescence, which irreversibly arrested proliferation in a fraction of keratinocytes.

Surprisingly, in young mice, Sod2 deficiency accelerated wound closure, increasing epidermal differentiation and reepithelialization, despite the reduced proliferation.

In contrast, at older ages, Sod2 deficiency delayed wound closure and reduced epidermal thickness, accompanied by epidermal stem cell exhaustion.”

The term “cellular senescence” used above is defined as: a cell can no longer replicate. Although the word “senescence” implies that chronological age is a factor, “cellular senescence” by definition isn’t about age.

This study’s etiologic findings weren’t “age” itself, but:

  1. Sod2 deficiency – the subjects’ genetic condition – which increased free radicals;
  2. The interplay of Sod2 deficiency with varying keratinocyte and epidermal stem cell levels; and
  3. Sod2 deficiency’s influence on other items shown in the supplementary material, to include varying “mRNA levels of wound healing-related growth factors.”

I guess the “age was the cause” meme is hard to stop repeating, though. The researchers said they could “identify a previously unidentified age-dependent role for mitochondria in quality and wound closure,” and repeated the “age-dependent” phrase in the study title.

Is pitching this meme an organizational imperative for the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, no matter what their researchers find?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/10407.full “Pleiotropic age-dependent effects of mitochondrial dysfunction on epidermal stem cells”

Are a child’s genes the causes for their anxiety?

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Amygdala, Brain development, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Lower brain, Stress , , ,

This 2015 Wisconsin macaque study was another attempt to justify the school’s continuing captivity of thousands of monkeys. The researchers performed a study that – if its experimental design was truly informative for helping humans – could have been done with humans.

A problem I saw in the news coverage was that the finding of:

“35 percent of variation in anxiety-like tendencies is explained by family history”

was attributed to genetics, with headlines such as “Anxious Brains Are Inherited, Study Finds.” The lead researcher encouraged this misinterpretation with statements such as:

“Over-activity of these three brain regions are inherited brain alterations that are directly linked to the later life risk to develop anxiety and depression.”

However, the researchers produced this finding by running numbers on family trees, not by studying genetic samples to assess the contributions of genetic and epigenetic factors!

The study’s “family history” correlation was different than finding an inherited genetic causation that wasn’t influenced by the subjects’ caged environments!

The study found:

“Metabolism within a tripartite prefrontal-limbic-midbrain circuit mediates some of the inborn risk for developing anxiety and depression.

The brain circuit that was genetically correlated with individual differences in early-life anxiety involved three survival-related brain regions. These regions were located in the brain stem, the most primitive part of the brain; the amygdala, the limbic brain fear center; and the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for higher-level reasoning and is fully developed only in humans and their primate cousins.”

The 592 subjects were the human-equivalent ages of 3 to 12 years old. Primate brainstems and limbic systems are fully-developed BEFORE these ages.

The researchers skipped over potential evidence for the important contributions of epigenetic factors to “the later life risk to develop anxiety and depression” that change the studied brain areas during womb-life, infancy, and early childhood. Studies such as:

show:

  1. A developing fetus adapts to being constantly stressed by an anxious mother.
  2. When these adaptations persist after birth, they may present as physiological and behavioral maladaptations of the infant and young child to a non-stressful environment.
  3. Later in life, these enduring changes may be among the causes of symptoms such as the anxious overreactions the current study found.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/29/9118.full “Intergenerational neural mediators of early-life anxious temperament”

Over 500 million people affected but no news coverage

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work ,

Sometimes I wonder how research becomes newsworthy. I couldn’t find any news coverage of this 2015 Chinese rodent study which provided details of the effects of a gene for which:

“Over 500 million people worldwide carry a specific polymorphism.

Is a risk factor for liver cancer.”

1 out of every 15 people alive today has this condition, and can expect:

“Increased sensitivity to acute or chronic alcohol-induced toxicity

Higher risk for gastrointestinal cancers

Enzyme deficiency in the liver, leading to inefficient detoxification of aldehydes and accumulation of cancer-causing mutations.”

Was the lack of news coverage because 40% of East Asians are affected? Would this study become newsworthy if 40% of some other group was affected?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/29/9088.full “ALDH2(E487K) mutation increases protein turnover and promotes murine hepatocarcinogenesis”

What could cause humans to have a unique sense of smell?

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

This 2015 Israeli human study found:

“Each person expresses a nearly unique set of different olfactory receptor genes, and therefore may have unique olfactory perception.”

From news coverage of the study, the researchers thought that their findings may be of use for:

“Smell-based social networks

A diagnostic tool for diseases that affect the sense of smell, such as Parkinson’s

A security biometric.”

The researchers attempted to link the subjects’ olfactory components to components of their immune systems. Since studies such as:

provided details on how our immune systems become unique, it would follow that this study’s subjects’ immune systems may have been the underlying cause for the findings.

However, in the study’s limitations paragraph, the researchers stated that this study didn’t demonstrate such causes:

“We did not directly measure genetic makeup.

Given that HLA [human leukocyte antigen genes that regulate our immune systems] captures self and olfactory fingerprints capture self, then there will be a link between HLA and olfactory fingerprints even if they are not the result of linked genes.”

Perhaps the causes for our “unique olfactory perception” will be researched in future studies.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/28/8750.full “Individual olfactory perception reveals meaningful nonolfactory genetic information”

A study of biological aging in young adults with limited findings

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Epigenetics, Telomeres ,

This 2015 New Zealand human study used the same subjects of the More from the researchers that found people have the same personalities at age 26 that they had at age 3 study. These researchers used 10 biologic age markers of subjects at age 38 to find that their biological ages ranged from 28 to 61.

F2.large

Researchers assessed subjects’ pace of aging at ages 26, 32, and 38 with 11 more biomarkers, including leukocyte telomere length. Three of the initial 10 biomarkers weren’t used because measurements were taken only at age 38.

These researchers also assessed physical functioning, physical limitations, cognitive testing, retinal imaging, self-rated health, and facial aging. There was a fascinating graph in the supplementary material of the effect on each of these assessments of successively leaving out each of 18 pace-of-aging biomarkers.

There were three areas I expected to see covered that weren’t addressed in this study:

  1. Where were links back to all relevant measurements and predictions made when these subjects were ages 3, 5, 7..? Other studies of these same subjects made such links, but only cognitive testing was linked back in this study. Were these researchers trying to pretend that these dramatic later-life physical measurements weren’t effects of earlier-life causes?
  2. Where were psychological measurements? Are we to believe that subjects’ states of mind had no relationships to their biomarkers?
  3. I didn’t see any effort to use newer measures such as The degree of epigenetic DNA methylation may be used as a proxy to measure biological age study. I’d expect that these subjects’ historical tissue samples were available. The peer reviewer certainly was familiar with newer biomarkers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/30/E4104.full “Quantification of biological aging in young adults”

An inhibitory gene that affects alcohol binge behavior

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Limbic system, Lower brain, Neurochemicals, Thalamus , , ,

This 2015 La Jolla rodent study found that an inhibitory gene affected alcohol binging behavior:

“Our study reveals the behavioral impact of this cellular effect, whereby the level of GIRK3 [the gene] expression in the VTA [ventral tegmental area] tunes ethanol intake under binge-type conditions: the more GIRK3, the less ethanol drinking.”

GIRK3-silenced mice still binged, though, and got alcohol’s rewarding effects through dopamine’s other neural pathways.

High concentrations of the gene were found in the thalamus part of the limbic system of wild-type mice, the control group. Per the study’s title, this gene presumably contributes to the thalamus’ overall function of gating information from limbic system and lower brain areas to reach the cerebrum and vice versa.

And the potential causes for reduced GIRK3 expression are..?? Hopefully – someday – researchers will be focused on finding causes for abnormal gene expression rather than being content to just study effects of abnormal gene expression. Until then, the usual practice of considering only the effects led these researchers to:

“Believe that a compound selectively targeting GIRK3-containing channels may hold promise for reducing alcohol consumption in heavy binge drinkers.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/7091.full “GIRK3 gates activation of the mesolimbic dopaminergic pathway by ethanol”

Epigenetic changes in the developing brain change behavior

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress , , , , ,

This 2015 review cited 143 studies to tie together findings in epigenetic chemistry and behavioral neuroscience.

In addition to studies I’ve previously curated, other research included:

  • a 2012 study which completely abolished mouse maternal behavior by silencing a gene encoding an estrogen receptor;
  • a 2012 study which found that stress-induced changes in the rat hippocampus were heritable;
  • a 2014 study that distinguished between transgenerational and intergenerational epigenetic effects such as:

    “in utero exposure to nutritional status, stress, or toxic environmental factors that act on the developing embryo and its germ line”

  • a 2013 study that showed how genomic imprinting coordinated:

    “Genetic coadaptation where beneficially interacting alleles evolve to become coinherited.”

The current status of research incorporating both epigenetic chemistry and behavioral neuroscience was summed up as:

“A large number of behavioral epigenetic studies attempt to correlate epigenetic marker changes at global levels and in mixed populations of cells with phenotypic changes.

Specific changes at specific gene levels and at single cell levels correlating with behavioral changes remain largely unknown.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6789.full “Epigenetic changes in the developing brain: Effects on behavior”

RNA as a proxy signal for context-specific biological activity

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Thalamus , ,

This 2015 Harvard/MIT rodent study was of long (more than 200 nucleotides) noncoding (non-protein coding) RNAs (ribonucleic acids). These are of interest because:

“Within the mammalian body, the largest repertoire and diversity of lncRNA genes outside the germ line occurs in the brain, where lncRNAs exhibit regional and cell-specific localization.

The expression patterns of lncRNAs may serve as a proxy signal for important, context-specific biological activity.”

The researchers explained what they could and couldn’t determine with current techniques and technologies:

“The whole-gene ablation method used here is often a first approach to determine the functionality of a locus.

Although each of these loci contains a lncRNA, it is important to consider that any observation resulting from this strategy could reflect the loss of any regulatory element in the deleted region.

The rate of lncRNA gene discovery has significantly outpaced our ability to evaluate both the physiological significance and function of these genes. It is difficult to predict whether the loss of any particular lncRNA locus will present a phenotype, but crucial information on the spatiotemporal dynamics of expression from each locus can provide significant direction and focus to downstream mechanistic studies by highlighting those loci most likely to have a physiological impact.

It is important to stress that no single method exists that can account for all possible mechanisms of action of a noncoding locus. Within these limits, the phenotypes observed after ablation of specific lncRNA loci confirm that expression of this class of noncoding RNAs can serve as a proxy signal to identify functional genomic loci with physiological relevance to disease and development, independent of whether this activity is directly ascribed to a functional lncRNA molecule.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6855.full “Spatiotemporal expression and transcriptional perturbations by long noncoding RNAs in the mouse brain”

Stress in early life can alter physiology and behavior across the entire lifespan

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Amygdala, Brain development, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Immune system, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Stress, Testosterone , , , , , , , ,

I’ll quote a few sections of this 2014 summary of 111 studies concerning stress, including the authors’ research:

“The brain is the central organ of stress and adaptation to stressors because:

  • It not only perceives what is threatening or potentially threatening and initiates behavioral and physiological responses to those challenges,
  • But also is a target of the stressful experiences and the hormones and other mediators of the stress response.

The stress history of parents is a significant factor in the resilience of their offspring.

Environmental stress transduces its effects into lasting changes on physiology and behavior, which can vary even among genetically identical individuals.

Stress in early life can alter physiology and behavior across the entire lifespan.

Structural stress memory is even more apparent with regard to gene expression in stress-sensitive brain regions like the hippocampus.

Individual history is important and that there is a memory of stress history retained by neurons at the cellular level in regions like the hippocampus.

Stress has a number of known effects on epigenetic marks in the brain, producing alterations in DNA methylation and histone modifications in most of the stress-sensitive brain regions examined, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex.”

It seemed to be taboo to note that most of – and the largest of – detrimental effects of stress occurred during womb-life in the mother’s environment. The authors instead opted for a politically correct “the stress history of parents” phrase.

Referenced studies had findings relevant to the earliest periods of life, including Figure 1:

interactions

“Those organs that show the highest levels of retrotransposon [a repeat element (mobile DNA sequences often involved in mutations) type formed by copy-and-paste mechanisms] activity, such as the brain and placenta, also seem to be both steroidogenic and steroid-sensitive.”

However, Figure 1 was given a beneficial context, and other studies’ findings weren’t mentioned in their contexts of detrimental effects on fetuses of mothers who were stressed while pregnant.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6828.full “Stress and the dynamic genome: Steroids, epigenetics, and the transposome”

Changing an individual’s future behavior even before they’re born

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Brain development, Epigenetics, Stress , , , ,

This 2015 Harvard fruit fly research was a companion of the Is what’s true for a population what’s true for an individual? study.

The researchers began with the question:

“If we could rear genetically identical individuals from a variety of genetic backgrounds and rear them in the same environment, how much phenotypic variation between individuals of the same genotype would we see?”

They answered with:

“We show that different genotypes vary dramatically in their propensity for variability, that phenotypic variability itself, as a trait, can be heritable, and that loci affecting variability can be mapped.”

The specific problem that probably prompted this study was that the methodology of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) usually:

“Focuses on the average effect of alternative alleles averaged in a population.”

What this methodology often missed was:

“When phenotypic variation results from alleles that modify phenotypic variance rather than the mean, this link between genotype and phenotype will not be detected.”

The researchers altered the environment during a critical period of fruit flies’ development in order to induce epigenetic changes in the fruit fly pupae brains:

“Disruption of Ten-a [the synaptic target recognition gene Tenascin accessory] expression in midpupa affects behavioral variance [the standard statistical dispersion parameter].

In all cases, disrupting Ten-a increased the variability [the median of the absolute deviation from each observation’s median] in turning bias with no effect on the mean.”

I fully expect researchers to demonstrate that this finding has general applicability for humans, especially during womb-life. Research such as:

are steps in this direction just for one factor in the human fetal environment – stress. The effects of stressing a human fetus should be at least as significant as the effects produced on the study’s subjects with increased temperature during pupation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/21/6706.full “Behavioral idiosyncrasy reveals genetic control of phenotypic variability”

Is what’s true for a population what’s true for an individual?

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Epigenetics , ,

This 2015 Harvard fruit fly study found:

“Genetically identical individuals display variability in their behaviors even when reared in essentially identical environments.

Individual flies exhibit significant bias in their left vs. right locomotor choices during exploratory locomotion.”

Here’s an example of why population statistics such as in GWAS didn’t necessarily apply to an individual:

“The probability of turning right averaged across all individuals within each line was statistically indistinguishable from 50%. However, an individual fly’s probability of turning right often diverged markedly from the population average.

For example, nearly one quarter (23.5%) of CS [Canton-S] flies turned right greater than 70% of the time or less than 30% of the time. This distribution would be unlikely indeed if all flies were choosing to turn right with identical probabilities.”

The researchers noted other species with similar findings:

“Individuals can develop idiosyncratic behaviors, morphology, and gene expression profiles. For example, stochastic DNA methylation may contribute to phenotypic variation that is uncorrelated to genetic variation.”

This study should inform other studies such as the Separating genetic from environmental factors when assessing educational achievement, to the degree its findings apply to humans.

As the findings applied to neurological areas:

“The magnitude of locomotor handedness is under the control of neurons within a brain region implicated in motor planning and execution.”

I was surprised that the study’s news coverage included this opinion:

“They are suggesting that variation [read: individuality] itself might be a genetic trait.”

The researchers stated their case in the companion study Changing an individual’s future behavior even before they’re born.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/21/6700.full “Neuronal control of locomotor handedness in Drosophila”