Embryos Receive Parent-Specific Layers of Information

by
in science on (#2THX)
story imageFollowing up on last week's article about offspring and mothers' previous sexual partners (in insects, anyway), new research now sheds some additional light on the multi-layered process of how a sperm and egg pass along information needed for successful reproduction.

As described in an article published in the journal PLOS Genetics:
Though one layer is the DNA code that is transferred, the new study identifies information not encoded by DNA, a so-called "epigenetic" layer of information that helps the cell interpret the genetic code.
In insects this additional "epigenetic" layer of information apparently can come from a previous mate. The question if such or similar mechanisms can also exist in higher organisms, e.g. also in humans, might be far fetched, but not that far, that it precludes a more thorough research. Clearly, there are still plenty of unknown factors in human and non-human reproduction: an area ripe for further research.

Re: Fascinating (Score: 2, Interesting)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 19:46 (#2TJQ)

Trying to convince people not to too-firmly base their conclusions on some currently accepted theories where the supporting evidence is weak or there are known unresolved problems.
Not sure if I agree here. I have quite a good scientific education. However, in 99.99% of all scientific fields I am just layman. All people are. Nowadays nobody can have a complete overview over science. Not even a complete overview in once specific field, e.g. physics. So you have to go with the masses = currently accepted theories. And this is fine as long as one has a base knowledge how science works: You develop a hypothesis. You try to find evidence, which supports your hypothesis. And most importantly you also try to find evidence, which disproves your hypothesis. If something disproves your hypothesis, you drop it immediately, or try to adjust it so that there is no contradiction. This way you can develop your theory. Weak evidence? As long no contradicting evidence not a real problem just a reason for more research. Known unresolved problems? Does not necessarily devalue your theory. Might be that it can be extended. DNA inheritance is not wrong just because there also are epigenetic effects.
I am similarly cautious about theories on dark matter,
I am not. It is the currently accepted theory. It does not contradict anything else I learned. I am not able to disprove it, or do otherwise substantial work on this field. So I accept dark matter as what it currently is: An attempt to explain certain observations. If anyone comes with a better explanation... I'd immediately drop dark matter. Give me enough evidence I'd forgo everything I learned. Give me enough evidence, and I 'believe' in unicorns and magic.

Btw... to be exact: The existence of dark matter is currently no theory, but only a hypothesis. To become a theory it needs evidence for its existence beyond being a pure mathematical trick to explain otherwise unexplainable observed gravitational effects.
Furthermore in science you cannot say 'it is only a theory'. There is nothing 'higher' than a theory in science. Theory of relativity (general or special) I am not sure there is a theory, which has been so thoroughly tested. Probably thousands of experiments, which confirm the theory of relativity. And it is still a theory... an will ever be... unless someone proves it wrong.
It's more of a nuisance with nutritional or diet theory-of-the-week,
Nutritional or diet theory is mostly neither a hypothesis nor a theory.... the best term to describe most of this field is 'religion'.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Enter the number one thousand nine hundred and eighty three in digits: