Evidence is growing that sperm carries marks of a father’s life experiences, influencing traits in offspring.
See full article...
See full article...
Do you take after your dad’s RNA?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Not a biologist, but if the researchers cited are correct about the role of the epididymis, that makes a degree of intuitive sense from the evolutionary perspective. There'd be high survival value in retrieving and adapting to environmental stimuli, especially for short-lived species (where environment at birth is likely to prevail throughout life); and for those with protracted infancies (humans, other primates), where at-birth adaptation to the prevailing environment might improve the odds of surviving to reproductive age.
Upvote
117
(120
/
-3)
If the microRNA gets picked up along the way, that would suggest that ALL the sperm carry the microRNA into the environment. While it's still a "drop in the ocean" according to the article, perhaps the combination of (checks notes) 50-100 million sperm per mL carrying microRNA helps to set other mechanisms in and around the embryo.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Upvote
-16
(12
/
-28)
On a related note, despite the fact that the specific mechanism hasn't been elucidated yet, ongoing doubt that there is something happening here seems strange. What would the evolutionary purpose of the epididymosomes be, if not this?
Upvote
38
(41
/
-3)
Lamarck has been unfairly tarnished in Freshman Biology classes for decades!!!1!1!1one!
Upvote
19
(21
/
-2)
I think you might have mis-read. Most published volume ratios are in the range of 1:10,000 to 1:60,000. The dilution argument remains a reasonable source of skepticism even with those ratios, however. If the results reported here are accurate, perhaps there is some undiscovered mechanism by which this paternal RNA gets replicated.
Upvote
51
(52
/
-1)
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
The problem with Lysenko wasn't his ideas, it was his combative personality amplified by Stalin and his takeover of Soviet plant genetics.
Fortunately the beliefs of a loudly wrong not very well qualified individual could not be amplified by a malignant narcissist with a God complex anywhere other than in the Soviet Union between WW1 and WW2. It could never happen nowadays when all politicians embrace scientific rationality.
{E&OE}
Upvote
86
(86
/
0)
No, we don't.
We know that chromosomes degrade as we get older (telomeres) but human eggs are not created after birth, rather they decline in number, and so are not affected by environmental factors. Spermatogenesis is continuous but originates in rather a small part of the body and so sperm DNA is not going to see anything but increasing levels of damage with time.
Upvote
57
(57
/
0)
Does it? What ratio would be the dividing line? This seems like an assessment made from total ignorance based purely on vibes. This is biology. A human being can be killed by one five hundred billionth their weight in botulinum toxin. Don't assume that small masses can't be highly influential.
Upvote
18
(28
/
-10)
I had deja vu reading this. Ars covered similar studies a while back, although I thought there was one that spun mice in a centrifuge to stress them with results on stress response in the offspring, so there may be other Ars coverage I didn't find with a quick search.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
No Idea why this comment is being nuked. LOL, my mind immediately went to Assassin's Creed and whether I should start saving for my own personal Animus.
Chalk it up to a lack of both video game knowledge and a sense a humor, I guess.
Upvote
29
(34
/
-5)
solarbonite
Smack-Fu Master, in training
Makes sense. Alcoholism in the father at time of conception is measured to have a profound affect on the zygote and resulting baby (as mentioned in the article).
It's weird to me though as a software engineer that there's a lot that hasn't been researched in just the first cell stage. It's sorta like we understand a lot about the aggregate human, but the individual cells? Still pretty open research. To me that would be like not understanding how transistors work at a physical level (ok I guess quantum tunnelling inside transistors is a counter argument but it's somewhat well understood but hard to engineer).
The scifi fan in me thinks about a future where we're still finding out about little impacts from "new thing ABC" at the zygote stage in 200 years. Cool!
It's weird to me though as a software engineer that there's a lot that hasn't been researched in just the first cell stage. It's sorta like we understand a lot about the aggregate human, but the individual cells? Still pretty open research. To me that would be like not understanding how transistors work at a physical level (ok I guess quantum tunnelling inside transistors is a counter argument but it's somewhat well understood but hard to engineer).
The scifi fan in me thinks about a future where we're still finding out about little impacts from "new thing ABC" at the zygote stage in 200 years. Cool!
Upvote
5
(14
/
-9)
As soon as I read the headline, my mind immediately jumped to the xenomorphs in the Alien movies. Spoiler for Alien 3 and 4 …
When Rippey dies at the end of Alien 3, they bring her back in 4 as a clone of a hybrid xenomorph + human (Ripley). In order to bring Ripley back with some connection to the original human, they tried to explain that xenomorphs pass down some memories to later generations through genetics or something. So that is how cloned Ripley had some remnants of the original human Ripley’s memories. Not exactly the same thing obviously but in both cases, genetic material being passed on to later generations is adjusted basec on lived experiences.
Edit: Added following from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Resurrection
Plot
200 years after Ellen Ripley's death,[a] military scientists aboard the space vessel USM Aurigacreate a clone of her, designated Ripley 8, using DNA from blood samples taken from Fiorina "Fury" 161. The Xenomorph queen's DNA has been combined with Ripley's, resulting in the clone growing up with an embryo inside it. The scientists extract the embryo, raise it, and collect its eggs while keeping Ripley 8 alive for further study. As a result of the Xenomorph queen's DNA, the clone possesses enhanced strength and reflexes, acidic blood, and a psychic link with the Xenomorphs, making her more empathetic toward them than the humans she encounters. Additionally, the Xenomorph's genetic memory allows the clone to retain some of Ripley's memories.
When Rippey dies at the end of Alien 3, they bring her back in 4 as a clone of a hybrid xenomorph + human (Ripley). In order to bring Ripley back with some connection to the original human, they tried to explain that xenomorphs pass down some memories to later generations through genetics or something. So that is how cloned Ripley had some remnants of the original human Ripley’s memories. Not exactly the same thing obviously but in both cases, genetic material being passed on to later generations is adjusted basec on lived experiences.
Edit: Added following from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Resurrection
Plot
200 years after Ellen Ripley's death,[a] military scientists aboard the space vessel USM Aurigacreate a clone of her, designated Ripley 8, using DNA from blood samples taken from Fiorina "Fury" 161. The Xenomorph queen's DNA has been combined with Ripley's, resulting in the clone growing up with an embryo inside it. The scientists extract the embryo, raise it, and collect its eggs while keeping Ripley 8 alive for further study. As a result of the Xenomorph queen's DNA, the clone possesses enhanced strength and reflexes, acidic blood, and a psychic link with the Xenomorphs, making her more empathetic toward them than the humans she encounters. Additionally, the Xenomorph's genetic memory allows the clone to retain some of Ripley's memories.
Upvote
-11
(5
/
-16)
This article and comment section is why Ars is the only site I read daily! I have no knowledge of this field so while reading I had some similar thoughts as other laypeople who have commented. Then I read the comments and the people who are knowledgeable about this topic educate rest of us in a respectful and non condescending way!
I have a Anatolian Shepherd dog and watching her react to things she’s never personally experienced purely based on her DNA is awesome! She saw for first time a wolf and a lion on tv and instantly wanted to guard/attack. She sees cats like they’re lion cubs and wants to eliminate them.
Just amazing how much is passed down through our ancestors. The fact that we’re advanced enough to understand and decode some of it is a beautiful thing!
I have a Anatolian Shepherd dog and watching her react to things she’s never personally experienced purely based on her DNA is awesome! She saw for first time a wolf and a lion on tv and instantly wanted to guard/attack. She sees cats like they’re lion cubs and wants to eliminate them.
Just amazing how much is passed down through our ancestors. The fact that we’re advanced enough to understand and decode some of it is a beautiful thing!
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)
Must have ecologist DNA from somewhere, wanting to get rid of invasive species that harm native fauna.
Upvote
-1
(6
/
-7)
Stick around and you will definitely see condescension. But mostly it is knowledgeable folk spreading their knowledge to the interested. You will probably learn far more reading the comments on ars than any other single site on the internet.
Upvote
40
(42
/
-2)
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
Why not? It's as good a pieced of syndicated weekend content as any other.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
Upvote
-3
(2
/
-5)
The phrase is used constantly, but it turns out that "human nature" is so malleable as to be almost meaningless. Certainly using it to explain or justify behavior, institutions, or social ills is absurd.
It turns out the answer to nature vs. nurture is "Yes." Consider epigenetics, the fact that humans are born only 25% of their adult brains, and that we busy-thumbed apes have a great deal of control over our environment, pre and postnatally, and throughout our lives. It's beginning to feel like the role mom and dad's genes play in their offspring is similar to that of yeast and flour in baking. The same raw materials can produce an astonishing range of outcomes, depending on how they're manipulated once combined.
It's often the case that science brings us full circle, proving what we knew all along. Chocolate is tasty whether or not we know the neurochemistry behind it. We've always known that human nature is largely what we make it. This is why every culture places such extreme emphasis on the treatment of children. Now that we're beginning to understand the mechanism behind it, perhaps we can alter some of those emphases to better ourselves. Or perhaps we'll just go on creating narcissists, sociopaths, liars, thieves, and killers, telling ourselves it's our God-given nature and that we can do no better.
It turns out the answer to nature vs. nurture is "Yes." Consider epigenetics, the fact that humans are born only 25% of their adult brains, and that we busy-thumbed apes have a great deal of control over our environment, pre and postnatally, and throughout our lives. It's beginning to feel like the role mom and dad's genes play in their offspring is similar to that of yeast and flour in baking. The same raw materials can produce an astonishing range of outcomes, depending on how they're manipulated once combined.
It's often the case that science brings us full circle, proving what we knew all along. Chocolate is tasty whether or not we know the neurochemistry behind it. We've always known that human nature is largely what we make it. This is why every culture places such extreme emphasis on the treatment of children. Now that we're beginning to understand the mechanism behind it, perhaps we can alter some of those emphases to better ourselves. Or perhaps we'll just go on creating narcissists, sociopaths, liars, thieves, and killers, telling ourselves it's our God-given nature and that we can do no better.
Upvote
16
(20
/
-4)
This all sounds weird to me, but my girlfriends greatgrandmother and grandmother survived the Holocaust. Grandma is alive, well and lucid (retired from teaching only during covid) and she always mentions studies pointing out that grandkids and greatgrandkids of survivors are more affected by anxiety and depression than baseline, even when the original parents (kids of the survivors) lived far away from the original events and in situation of material comfort.
Aware of the risks that come with turning my personal anecdotes into a projection of overall reality:
Must find a source.
Aware of the risks that come with turning my personal anecdotes into a projection of overall reality:
- Greatgrandmother lived ok after the war, passed away at age 100+, and only ever spoke about the events when she turned 100.
- Grandma doesn't remember, she was an infant, but she is an extremely happy person, well married, etc..
- Both mother and my girlfriend are extremely anxious. And they are not the ones among the descendants of survivors.
Must find a source.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
So not only do I live with childhood trauma, I have the guilt of passing it on to my children. That’s just great.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Exactly where my thoughts went too. Surprised at all the down votes though. I wonder how many are just from people that didn’t get the joke/reference.
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
My guess is it was an entirely unserious post that did nothing but elicit mild chuckles from those who would get the joke but be slightly annoying for anyone who didn’t. Or traumatic for anyone who has a genetic memory of seeing the movie.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
More like the ghost of Lamarck, I think. Lamarckism was at least a legitimate early scientific theory to explain evolution. Lysenkoism was state-sponsored pseudoscience designed to prove the Soviets could control nature, and implementation of Lysenkoist agricultural policies directly led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in the Soviet Union and Maoist China.
Upvote
24
(25
/
-1)
Shades of "The Worm Runner's Digest", which I subscribed to for a few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_Runner's_Digest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm_Runner's_Digest
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Potentially interesting, but I'd like to see better controls--"same genetic stock" still leaves a lot of room for natural variation. To claim something that does not fit with some fairly well-understood biology needs much better controls than are discussed in this article.
Ideally, you'd control for everything: with the same mother and father, look at offspring sired when the father was unstressed and another set when stressed. And do it for a large set of paired parents, and ideally double-blind the offspring scoring so there's no observation bias.
Ideally, you'd control for everything: with the same mother and father, look at offspring sired when the father was unstressed and another set when stressed. And do it for a large set of paired parents, and ideally double-blind the offspring scoring so there's no observation bias.
Upvote
2
(4
/
-2)
You should have taken biology instead of statistics.
These are molecular effects. And millions of sperm, typically, reach the ovum, even if only one penetrates it. The RNA is still delivered along with the DNA.
By your logic, the DNA shouldn't matter either, since it's only actually a lot less than 1/10,000,000 the volume of the ovum (the volume of the entire sperm is huge compared to the DNA/RNA package it delivers to fertilize the egg).
This isn't chemistry, where dilution reduces the potency of things. This is biology, where an infinitesimal amount of ANYTHING could have a hugely disproportionate effect on the organism. Look at peanut allergies for one vivid example.
I did go out to check some facts here, and it seems to be a valid observation. The HOWS aren't well established yet, but the whys are pretty clear. It provides a better path to reproduction. After all, if the father made it that far to pass on his genes, then they were, at least according to nature, the "fittest", and so would give a greater chance of survival for the infant to at least live long enough to reproduce.
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)