Another important transgenerational epigenetic inheritance study

This 2019 Washington State University rodent study from Dr. Michael Skinner’s lab found:

“A cascade of epigenetic alterations initiated in the PGCs [primordial germ cells] appears to be required to alter the epigenetic programming during spermatogenesis to modify the sperm epigenome involved in the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance phenomenon.

Following fertilization there is a DNA methylation erasure to generate the stem cells in the early embryo, which then remethylate in a cell type-specific manner. The DNA methylation erasure is thought to, in part, reset deleterious epigenetics in the germline. However, imprinted gene DNA methylation sites and induced transgenerational epimutations appear to be protected from this DNA methylation erasure.

A germline with an altered epigenome has the capacity to alter the early embryo’s stem cell’s epigenome and transcriptome that can subsequently impact the epigenomes and transcriptomes of all derived somatic cells. Therefore, an altered sperm epigenome has the capacity to transmit phenotypes transgenerationally. Experiments have demonstrated that epigenetic inheritance can also be transmitted through the female germline.

Previously, the agricultural fungicide vinclozolin was found to promote the transgenerational inheritance of sperm differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs) termed epimutations that help mediate this epigenetic inheritance. The current study was designed to investigate the developmental origins of the transgenerational DMRs during gametogenesis.

The current study with vinclozolin-induced transgenerational inheritance demonstrates that sperm DMRs also originate during both spermatogenesis and earlier stages of germline development, but at distinct developmental stages. This is a genome-wide analysis of epigenetic programming during gametogenesis for transgenerational sperm epimutations.”


The study’s main hypotheses were:

Following fertilization, the hypothesis is that the transgenerational epimutations modify early embryonic transcriptomes and epigenomes to re-establish the cascade for the next generation.

As the individual develops, all somatic cells have altered epigenomes and transcriptomes to promote disease susceptibility later in life.

Researchers: adopt these hypotheses, and don’t limit your study designs to the F1 children as did:

Don’t stop at the F2 grandchildren like:

Continue studies on to F3 descendants who had no direct exposure to the altering stimulus. Keep in the forefront of your research proposals that there are probably more than 10,000,000 F3 great-grandchildren of DES-exposed women just in the US.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15592294.2019.1614417?needAccess=true “Transgenerational sperm DNA methylation epimutation developmental origins following ancestral vinclozolin exposure”

Advertisements

The transgenerational impact of Roundup exposure

The latest 2019 Washington State University rodent study from Dr. Michael Skinner’s lab found adverse effects in the grand-offspring and great-grand-offspring following their ancestor’s exposure during pregnancy to the world’s most commonly used herbicide:

“Using a transient exposure of gestating F0 generation female rats found negligible impacts of glyphosate on the directly exposed F0 generation, or F1 generation offspring pathology. In contrast, dramatic increases in pathologies in the F2 generation grand-offspring, and F3 transgenerational great-grand-offspring were observed.

The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities:

  1. Prostate disease in approximately 30% of F3 generation glyphosate lineage males, a three-fold increase in disease rate over controls.
  2. A transgenerational (F3 generation) obese phenotype was observed in approximately 40% of the glyphosate lineage females and 42% of the glyphosate lineage males.
  3. An increased incidence of kidney disease observed in the F3 generation glyphosate lineage females affecting nearly 40% of females.
  4. A significant increase in ovarian disease observed in the F2 [48% vs. 21% for controls] and F3 [36% vs. 15% for controls] generation glyphosate lineage females.
  5. During the gestation of F2 generation mothers with the F3 generation fetuses, dramatic parturition abnormalities were observed in the glyphosate lineage. The frequency of unsuccessful parturition was 35%. To further investigate the parturition abnormalities an outcross of F3 generation glyphosate lineage males with a wildtype female was performed. There were parturition abnormalities observed with a frequency of 30%.

Classic and current toxicology studies only involve direct exposure of the individual, while impacts on future generations are not assessed. The ability of glyphosate and other environmental toxicants to impact our future generations needs to be considered, and is potentially as important as the direct exposure toxicology done today for risk assessment.”


Why isn’t coverage of this study the top story of the world’s news organizations? Is what’s reported more important than reliable evidence of generational consequences to environmental experiences?

Current toxicology practices are a scientific disgrace:

  • What are the hypotheses of practices that only test effects on somatic cells, that don’t look for generational effects of germ cell modifications?
  • Are they selected for their relative convenience instead of chosen for their efficacy?

Why don’t sponsors fund and researchers perform human studies of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance? For example, from Burying human transgenerational epigenetic evidence:

“From the late 1930s through the early 1970s, DES was given to nearly two million pregnant women in the US alone.

Fourth [F3] generation effects of prenatal exposures in humans have not been reported.

Zero studies of probably more than 10,000,000 F3 great-grandchildren of DES-exposed women just here in the US!

There will be abundant human evidence to discover if sponsors and researchers will take their fields seriously.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-42860-0.pdf “Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology”

A therapy to reverse cognitive decline

This 2018 human study presented the results of 100 patients’ personalized therapies for cognitive decline:

“The first examples of reversal of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease and the pre-Alzheimer’s disease conditions MCI (Mild Cognitive Impairment) and SCI (Subjective Cognitive Impairment) have recently been published..showing sustained subjective and objective improvement in cognition, using a comprehensive, precision medicine approach that involves determining the potential contributors to the cognitive decline (e.g., activation of the innate immune system by pathogens or intestinal permeability, reduction in trophic or hormonal support, specific toxin exposure, or other contributors), using a computer-based algorithm to determine subtype and then addressing each contributor using a personalized, targeted, multi-factorial approach dubbed ReCODE for reversal of cognitive decline.

An obvious criticism of the initial studies is the small number of patients reported. Therefore, we report here 100 patients, treated by several different physicians, with documented improvement in cognition, in some cases with documentation of improvement in electrophysiology or imaging, as well.”

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/reversal-of-cognitive-decline-100-patients-2161-0460-1000450-105387.html “Reversal of Cognitive Decline: 100 Patients”


The lead author commented on Josh Mitteldorf’s informative post A cure for Alzheimer’s? Yes, a cure for Alzheimer’s!:

  1. “We have a paper in press, due to appear 10.22.18 (open access, JADP, I’ll send a copy as soon as available), showing 100 patients with documented improvement – some with MRI volumetrics improved, others with quantitative EEG improvements, others with evoked response improvements, and all with quantitative cognitive assessment improvement. Some are very striking – 12 point improvements in MoCA, for example – others less so, but all also have subjective improvement. Hopefully this will address some of the criticisms that we haven’t documented improvement in enough people.
  2. We were just turned down again for a randomized, controlled clinical trial, so on the one hand, we are told repeatedly that no one will believe that this approach works until we publish a randomized, controlled study, and on the other hand, we’ve been turned down (first in 2011/12, and now in 2018), with the complaint that we are trying to address more than one variable in the trial (as if AD is a single-variable disease!). Something of a catch-22. We are now resubmitting (unfortunately, the IRBs are not populated by functional medicine physicians, so they are used to seeing old-fashioned drug studies), and we’ll see what happens.
  3. I’ve been extending the studies to other neurodegenerative diseases, and it has been impressive how much of a programmatic response there seems to be in these “diseases.”
  4. I agree with you that there are many features in common with aging itself.
  5. You made a good point that APP is a dependence receptor, and in fact it functions as an integrating dependence receptor, responding to numerous inputs (Kurakin and Bredesen, 2015).
  6. In the book and the publications, we don’t claim it is a “cure” since we don’t have pathological evidence that the disease process is gone. What we claim is “reversal of cognitive decline” since that is what we document.
  7. As I mentioned in the book, AD is turning out to be a protective response to multiple insults, and this fits well with the finding that Abeta has an antimicrobial effect (Moir and Tanzi’s work). It is a network-downsizing, protective response, which is quite effective – some people live with the ongoing degenerative process for decades.
  8. We have seen several cases now in which a clinical trial of an anti-amyloid antibody made the person much worse in a time-dependent manner (each time there was an injection, the person would get much worse for 5-10 days, then begin to improve back toward where he/she was, but over time, marked decline occurred), and this makes sense for the idea that the amyloid is actually protecting against pathogens or toxins or some other insult.
  9. It is important to note that we’ve never claimed that all people get better – this is not what we’ve seen. People very late in the process, or who don’t follow the protocol, or who don’t address the various insults, do not improve. It is also turning out to be practitioner dependent – some are getting the vast majority of people to improve, others very few, so this is more like surgery than old-fashioned prescriptive medicine – you have to do a somewhat complicated therapeutic algorithm and get it right for best results.
  10. I’m very interested in what is needed to take the next step in people who have shown improvement but who started late in the course. For example, we have people now who have increased MoCA from 0 to 9 (or 0 to 3, etc.), with marked subjective improvement but plateauing at less than normal. These people had extensive synaptic and cellular loss prior to the program. So what do we need to raise the plateau? Stem cells? Intranasal trophic support? Something else?
  11. I haven’t yet seen a mono-etiologic theory of AD or a mono-therapeutic approach that has repeatedly positive results, so although I understand that there are many theories and treatments, there doesn’t seem to be one etiology to the disease, nor does there seem to be one simple treatment that works for most. It is much more like a network failure.”

At a specific level:

  • “There doesn’t seem to be one etiology to the disease,
  • nor does there seem to be one simple treatment that works for most.
  • We don’t have pathological evidence that the disease process is gone.”

For general concepts, however:

  • “AD is turning out to be a protective response to multiple insults,
  • It is a network-downsizing, protective response, which is quite effective.
  • The amyloid is actually protecting against pathogens or toxins or some other insult.”

For a framework of an AD cure to be valid, each source of each insult that evoked each “protective response” should be traced.

Longitudinal studies would be preferred inside this framework. These study designs would investigate evidence of each insult’s potential modifying effect on each “protective response” that could affect the cumulative disease trajectory of each individual.

In many cases, existing study designs would be adequate if they extended their periods to the end of the subjects’ natural lifetimes. One AD-relevant example would be extending the prenatally-restraint-stressed model used in:

The framework would also encourage extending studies to at least three generations to investigate evidence for transgenerational effects, as were found in:

Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance mechanisms that lead to prostate disease

This 2019 Washington rodent study found:

“Ancestral exposure to the toxicant vinclozolin induces an epigenetic transgenerational increase in susceptibility to prostate pathology in F3 [male great-grandchildren] generation rats. These results are in agreement with previous studies which found a transgenerational increase in rates of prostatic epithelial atrophy, cystic hyperplasia, and prostatitis in the transgenerational F3 and F4 [male great-great-grandchildren] generations after exposure of F0 [great-great-grandmother] generation pregnant rats to vinclozolin. These effects were accompanied by transgenerational changes in mRNA expression in F3 generation ventral prostate epithelial cells.

A number of previous transgenerational studies have shown no ventral prostate histopathology or disease detected. Therefore, observations suggest ancestral exposure specificity in the ability to induce the transgenerational inheritance of prostate disease.

There was also no increase in prostate histopathology in the directly exposed F1 [male children] or F2 [male grandchildren] generation vinclozolin lineage rats compared to controls.

prostate pathology

The mechanism by which epigenetic transgenerational inheritance affects prostate epithelium involves control of gene expression by DNA methylation and lncRNAs. It will be necessary to determine the exact gene targets of these epigenetic modifications to determine further mechanisms.

Future studies need to investigate if similar mechanisms are at work in human males who have adult-onset BPH or prostate cancer. Ancestral exposures to toxicants and epigenetic transgenerational inheritance may contribute to the development of prostate disease in men today.”


The study’s above bolded sentence added to the evidence that epigenetic effects may skip generations. A study by the same group, Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of ovarian disease, found in females:

There was no increase in ovarian disease in direct fetal exposed F1 or germline exposed F2 generation vinclozolin or DDT lineage rats compared to controls.

A disturbance in the paradigm of child abuse referenced other studies that found generation-skipping effects.

Serious researchers are closer to discovering evidence for precise mechanisms of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance. It’s well past time that other researchers performing studies like Burying human transgenerational epigenetic evidence take their work seriously enough to truly investigate human evidence for epigenetic transgenerational inheritance.

What are more important funding priorities than such human studies?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-38741-1 “Environmental Toxicant Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Prostate Pathology and Stromal-Epithelial Cell Epigenome and Transcriptome Alterations: Ancestral Origins of Prostate Disease”

Disproving the cholesterol paradigm

This 2018 review presented evidence that:

“For half a century, a high level of total cholesterol (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been considered to be the major cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD), and statin treatment has been widely promoted for cardiovascular prevention. However, there is an increasing understanding that the mechanisms are more complicated and that statin treatment, in particular when used as primary prevention, is of doubtful benefit.

The authors of three large reviews recently published by statin advocates have attempted to validate the current dogma. This article delineates the serious errors in these three reviews as well as other obvious falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis.

Our search for falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis confirms that it is unable to satisfy any of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality and that the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on:

  • Misleading statistics,
  • Exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by
  • Ignoring numerous contradictory observations.

The association between the absolute risk reduction of total mortality in 26 statin trials [squares] included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 11 ignored trials [triangles] and the year where the trial protocols were published. The vertical line indicates the year where the new trial regulations were introduced.

In 2004–2005, health authorities in Europe and the United States introduced New Clinical Trial Regulations, which specified that all trial data had to be made public. Since 2005, claims of benefit from statin trials have virtually disappeared.


This paradigm was proven wrong eighty years ago! How much longer will its harmful consequences continue?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391 “LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature”

An hour of the epigenetic clock

This 2018 presentation by the founder of the epigenetic clock method described the state of the art up through July 2018. The webinar was given on the release day of The epigenetic clock now includes skin study.


Segments before the half-hour mark provide an introduction to the method and several details about the concurrently-released study. The Q&A section starts a little before the hour mark.

Burying human transgenerational epigenetic evidence

The poor substitutes for evidence in this 2018 US study guaranteed that human transgenerational epigenetically inherited effects wouldn’t be found in the generations that followed after prenatal diethylstilbestrol (DES) exposure:

“A synthetic, nonsteroidal estrogen, DES was administered to pregnant women under the mistaken belief it would reduce pregnancy complications and losses. From the late 1930s through the early 1970s, DES was given to nearly two million pregnant women in the US alone.

Use of DES in pregnancy was discontinued after a seminal report showed a strong association with vaginal clear cell adenocarcinoma in prenatally exposed women. A recent analysis of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) DES Combined Cohort Follow-up Study showed elevated relative risks of twelve adverse health outcomes.

We do not have sufficient data concerning the indication for DES in the grandmother to determine whether adverse pregnancy outcomes in the third generation might resemble those of their grandmothers. Fourth generation effects of prenatal exposures in humans have not been reported.”


This study had many elements in common with its wretched cited reference [25] “Transgenerational effects of prenatal exposure to the 1944–45 Dutch famine” which is freely available at https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.12136.

That study’s Methods section showed:

  1. Its non-statistical data was almost all unverified self-reports by a self-selected sample of the F2 grandchildren, average age 37.
  2. No detailed physical measurements or samples were taken of the F2 grandchildren, or of their F1 parents, or of their F0 grandparents, all of which are required as baselines for any transgenerational epigenetic inheritance findings.
  3. No detailed physical measurements or samples were taken of their F3 children, which is the generation that may provide transgenerational evidence if the previous generations also have detailed physical baselines.

That study’s researchers drew enough participants (360) such that their statistics package allowed them to impute and assume into existence a LOT of data. But the scientific method constrained them to make factual statements of what the evidence actually showed. They admitted:

“In conclusion, we did not find a transgenerational effect of prenatal famine exposure on the health of grandchildren in this study.”


The current study similarly used the faulty methods 1-3 above to produce results such as:

“We do not have sufficient data concerning the indication for DES in the [F0] grandmother to determine whether adverse pregnancy outcomes in the [F2] third generation might resemble those of their grandmothers.

Fourth [F3] generation effects of prenatal exposures in humans have not been reported.

Zero studies of probably more than 10,000,000 F3 great-grandchildren of DES-exposed women just here in the US?

Who is against funding these studies? Who is afraid of what such studies may find?

It’s possible that these studies would have similar findings to The transgenerational impact of Roundup exposure:

The transgenerational [F3] pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities.

For the current study:

  • What could be expected from a study design that didn’t include F3 women and men, which is the only generation that didn’t have direct DES exposure?
  • What a nonsensical study design to permit NON-evidence like educational level!

Human studies of possible intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance are urgently needed. There will be abundant evidence to discover if researchers will take their fields seriously.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623818304684 “Reproductive and Hormone-Related Outcomes in Women whose Mothers were Exposed in utero to Diethylstilbestrol (DES): A Report from the US National Cancer Institute DES Third Generation Study” (not freely available)