Talk:Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance

Untitled

I think this article is pretty sound in terms of the information provided. The additional links also help in providing context to the article in relation to additional information. Kswoolen (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TroyHart65. Peer reviewers: TroyHart65.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Troyhart96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MLE415.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 8 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jlynn bio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Project ratings

WP:PHARM WP:MED and WP:NEURO ratings are based upon the associated article ratings in Talk:Addiction and clinical implications of PMID 25839742 PMID 23810828. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ppentony (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)==Unsigned section== I don't understand why the axin fused mice (kinked tail) are pictured when they are not referenced in the text. Also why isn't the work from Marcus Pembrey et al, included, surely that is one the best examples of transgenerational inheritance? And it is in humans. A good review can be seen here: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n2/full/5201567a.html (assuming you have access to nature).

I agree that the inclusion of the mice should either be justified by quoting a source which claims that the trait can be inherited or removed. If it is just an example of how an epigenetic change in an individual can change that individual then it should appear in the main epigenetic article, not this one. Ppentony (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Experts debunk study that found Holocaust trauma is inherited

The inherited trauma of Holocaust survivors study at the Icahn School of Medicine is apparently very likely to be worthless, see: http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-holocaust-trauma-not-inherited-20170609-story.html The paragraph should probably be updated to strongly put the study into question. Roythebob (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that it was a single study (primary research) which has been rebutted as unsafe, I've removed it. If it gets some support from further research and is then discussed as not necessarily worthless by a reliable secondary source (like a review paper in a major journal) then we can put something back, but for now, it's just bad science. It shows the good sense in WP:PRIMARY, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The National Library of Medicine and the American Journal of Psychiatry have published the paper, and it has since been cited by 72 articles as of September, 2020.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24832930/

Rwandan genocide

Should the study into the Rwandan genocide inhertiance be included?

• https://www.usf.edu/news/2022/study-finds-rwandan-genocides-chemically-modified-the-dna-of-victims-and-victims-offspring.aspx
• https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/epi-2021-0310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.81.174 (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajaslay, Arbiddy, CWbiology (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by AccidentalHerpetologist (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Failed verification

I can't find support for this claim "leading some to consider that due to epigenetics, modern biology should no longer reject the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism) as strongly as it once did". The closest I can find in the referenced citation [here] is in the Conclusion where is discusses the Lamarckian nature of culture (as opposed to genes) and concludes: "In this and other respects, perhaps it is premature to compare humans to plants (as Burbank did) in terms of their capacity to recall past environments, in this generation and the next.", which seems nearly opposite to the claim made - at least in terms of humans. Tobus (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, since this hasn't been addressed I am going to remove that entire paragraph. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In Humans

The "In Humans" section appears to be largely about intergenerational inheritence, not transgenerational. I've rewritten the introduction and removed most of the "Dutch famine" discussion - the ref profided explicitly says "The Dutch hunger winter [effect]... is not due to the transmission of epigenetic information through the maternal germline" (emphasis mine). Reading the rest of the section it also largely seems to be discussion of intergenerational inheritance - where sperm, eggs or unborn babies are directly exposed to the negative environment, with no requirement (or proof) of any actual epigenetic inheritance. I don't really have time to rewrite it all right now (might get to it soon), and don't want to just blank the whole thing, so I've left it for now - if anyone wants to cast a critical eye over it, please do. Tobus (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, yes this is controversial. I would appreciate any further edits you have. Perhaps including the fact that the "the Dutch hunger winter [effect]... is not due to the transmission of epigenetic information through the maternal germline" would actually be useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not controversial, Zenomonoz. Please state your involvement into epigenetics research, if any. I want to make sure that authors are portraying NPOV and not what *they* want to be the truth.

--2.242.94.177 (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 19 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddav4 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Reirei1216 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pseudo-Science, please delete lemma

This 'subject' is only a wet dream supported by right-wingers who use 'epi'genetics as refuge after racial superiority was dis-proven. Also, authors of this article should be permanently banned for their attempt to impose fake science on the public. Most of their papers have been retracted already and they are excluded from academia at large.

--2.242.94.177 (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your concern. Is there a particular statement in the article that you feel is incorrect? Or a reference that is not sufficiently WP:MEDRS? I couldn't find the word 'lemma' in the current version of the article. My sense is that you are referring to a political controversy. Perhaps a discussion of this controversy could be added as a separate section, assuming it is of sufficient interest for Wikipedia. Jaredroach (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

[1] "Bacterial cells transmit memories to offspring" [2] Andre🚐 20:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Expert needed

I've added an expert needed tag on the page. A lot of the article is based upon primary source studies (that probably will not replicate, or have not replicated). Somebody familiar with the relevant reviews would be useful.

Second, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is extremely controversial in mammals [3][4]. I don't think this article highlights that very well. I will try to incorporate this more clearly in the article later, but would appreciate the input from somebody with more expertise in the topic. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Am not an expert, but my read of reviews such as [5] Increasing evidence indicates that non-DNA sequence-based epigenetic information can be inherited across several generations in organisms ranging from yeast to plants to humans. This raises the possibility of heritable ‘epimutations’ contributing to heritable phenotypic variation and thus to evolution. Recent work has shed light on both the signals that underpin these epimutations, including DNA methylation, histone modifications and non-coding RNAs, and the mechanisms by which they are transmitted across generations at the molecular level. These mechanisms can vary greatly among species and have a more limited effect in mammals than in plants and other animal species. Nevertheless, common principles are emerging, with transmission occurring either via direct replicative mechanisms or indirect reconstruction of the signal in subsequent generations. this is new research to be sure, but reputable research finds that it does occur. Andre🚐 13:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of that review. That type of statement is exactly why this needs expert attention, because nothing has yet demonstrated anything close to causality.

Bird (2024): the evidence for many potentially important forms of environmentally induced epigenetic inheritance remains inconclusive.

The only study that has come remotely close to "looking" like transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is Takahashi's (2022) mice study, but recent critiques and research have raised serious doubts about it [6][7][8]. Anyway, given the lack of edits on this article, perhaps my knowledge is sufficient to address a lot of it. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, just to be clear, so you're saying that you don't agree with the 2022 review because of a critical perspective and other critiques and research? That sounds like a disagreement among sources and we shouldn't take sides. Andre🚐 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It does sound like a disagreement among sources, I agree. Hence, this article needs more expert attention. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Addendum, the article you cited is more carefully worded in the body, confirming that epigenetic inheritance in mammals is controversial and correlational: While such comprehensive evidence remains scarce with regards to mammalian TEI (transgenerational epigenetic inheritance), correlational studies continue to raise the possibility of an epigenetic component in several inherited phenotypes. They speculate it will likely be demonstrated eventually. So there is perhaps not a huge disagreement in sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's fair to use qualifiers, but that's not the only review that finds the evidence plausible. I think it's good to be inherently and epistemologically skeptical, but there are plenty of sources that have demonstrated the effect, and why is it so hard to believe that methylation or histones or something else are inheritable? And why do we really need an expert to sort it out? I agree with not basing the article on primary sources, which is against policy and guideline and also just a bad idea since not all studies are replicable, etc., and we should be more conservative than progressive when it comes to new research that upsets a lot of high school biology textbook material. However, just for purposes of discussion and clarification, why exactly is it so hard to believe in epigenetic inheritance? As a non-expert, what I read in the reviews makes sense to me and would explain several phenomena in biology. Andre🚐 00:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've provided sources that it isn't causally demonstrated, and you reply saying ""there are plenty of sources that have demonstrated the effect" without citing anything.

There are certainly studies that indicate of transmission of things across generations, but this is not necessarily happening via Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance. For example, when your grandmother was carrying your mother's fetus, her fetus was already carrying the egg that would create you. A grandparent being exposed to lead poisoning, is also something that affects her fetus, and the egg in her fetus. Any effects on the third generation is not evidence of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. It is just intergenerational exposure.

For TEI, epigenetic information needs to get passed into the organism's sperm or egg cells in order to be heritable. And in mammals, the organism's epigenetic signals are wiped twice in early in fetal development. ...two rounds of epigenetic erasure leave little chance for inheritance of epigenetic marks, whether programmed, accidental or environmentally induced (Fig. 2A). Thus, although transmission of acquired states can occur in some animals (such as nematodes), proof that transgenerational inheritance has an epigenetic basis is generally lacking in mammals [9]

There are other confounding explanations. For example, this paper also shows regular genetic changes can account for the appearance of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance in mice.

This recent secondary source review concludes:

• The idea that human (and other mammalian) phenotypes can be heritably altered by direct effects of the environment on gene activity has been controversial for centuries and remains so.
• A major question remains: are there mechanisms in mammals that allow adaptations in response to external influences to be transmitted from one generation to the next?

I don't want to turn this into a WP:FORUM. This discussion is seeking expert input in order to improve the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So, nuance is important, and this isn't a forum: we're discussing the sources and what the article should say or be about. The same "myths and mechanisms" article you cited, Heard 2014, which is already older than the other review (WP:AGEMATTERS especially in a rapidly evolving field) about germline reprogramming goes on to conclude: In conclusion, in plants and in some animals such as nematodes, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is well documented and relatively common. Epialleles may even form the basis of some complex traits in plants, where epigenetic inheritance is usually—if not always—associated with transposable elements, viruses, or transgenes and may be a byproduct of aggressive germline defense strategies. In mammals, epialleles can also be found but are extremely rare, presumably due to robust germline reprogramming. How epialleles arise in nature is still an open question, but environmentally induced epigenetic changes are rarely transgenerationally inherited, let alone adaptive, even in plants. Thus, although much attention has been drawn to the potential implications of transgenerational inheritance for human health, so far there is little support. A couple notes there - rare and little support aren't the same as nonexistent and no support. Support has only grown with time. Fitz-James 2022 says, These mechanisms can vary greatly among species and have a more limited effect in mammals compared to plants and other animal species. Limited effect is not no effect. And I already quoted the conclusions of Fitz-James 2022. You're getting into the mechanics or lack thereof, but, in the case where something is controversial or disputed, we shouldn't take sides, but simply portray the range of opinions in reliable sources. Fitz-James is a reliable geneticist/cell biologist affiliated with Oxford. Most of his work is Drosophilia though, not mammals. I'm not disputing that it's controversial or that proof remains inconclusive, but I think a good amount of weight should be allocated to the Fitz-James 2022 review also. Andre🚐 01:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources. I'm really not sure what the point of this back and forth is.

The first quote you highlight is talking about plants and worms. Nematodes are not mammals, did you seem my original message specifically said mammals?

Again, you're quoting from the Fitz-James abstract, which I already clarified: the body is clearer it is not causally demonstrated. I understand your interest, but it seems this is turning into WP:FORUM: "bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article". I'm going to disengage now. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

.... in the first quote it says In mammals, epialleles can also be found but are extremely rare. Did you read the whole quote? Andre🚐 01:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The article states: "proof that transgenerational inheritance has an epigenetic basis is generally lacking in mammals". You've picked another sentence that doesn't explicitly provide confirmation of TEI in mammals, which you (appear to be) interpreting as a refutation of the same authors much clearer conclusion. Epialleles can form due to genomic stresses, so I don't see how their existence confirms TEI. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I also re-read your larger paragraph above, I agree with much of it. I haven't suggested we say transgenerational epigenetic inheritance 'does not exist' in mammals in the article. The sources are clear it is controversial, with some tentative evidence/speculation that is not considered robust.

I don't think I am "taking sides". Wikipedia reflects the WP:RS, and yes, that obviously includes the Fitz-James review. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)