Poverty "Ages" Genes of Young Children, Study Shows

imwilliam
reply to post by soficrow

 

If I understand it correctly, then the tendency or susceptibility for the telomeres to shorten under stress is inheritable, but not the shorter telomeres themselves.

Yes. The telomeres shorten due to epigenetic effects. But - some evidence suggests that inherited epigenetic effects might eventually cause genetic mutations somewhere down the line if the 'triggers' are not removed.

it really is incredibly interesting. (I was thinking when I first read this about the studies done on violent criminals; looking for a structural differences in their brains and genetic factors, and that this could potentially reverse the cause and effect).

I tend to get a bit OCD when people keep insisting epigenetic effects are genetic, and have been known to jump all over people who say violence etc is inherited genetically. Pish.


Good luck with your posting and your new threads. Looking forward to it.

One of the more obvious correlations here has to do with the fact that we're in the middle of a pandemic of "age-related" disease, usually described as relevant to our "aging population."

It's becoming obvious that these diseases are NOT related to chronological aging, but rather epigenetic aging resulting from environmental stressors. And remember - stressors are not all psychological. Poor people face far more exposures to environmental contaminants and pollutants.

imwilliam
reply to post by soficrow

 

Researchers examined the DNA of a small group of 9-year-old African-American boys who had experienced chronic stress as a result of growing up in families with poor socioeconomic status. They found that the boys’ telomeres were shorter

Please pardon my ignorance on all things science, but does this mean that they could pass this "shortening" on to their children?

What about the idea that it could alter their brain chemistry and possibly structure?

Very possibly. It's well known that anyone living in low income areas has a lower average life-span than those in rural areas (pollution, stress, noise).

Butit's likely a low-nutrition diet is going to do more to restrict brain growth, then the lack of stimulating environment (interest books to read, peer group pressure) as well as environmental pollution.

reply to post by soficrow


I will state this one last time for the sake of those who may otherwise be misinformed: the OP is wrong to invoke epigenetics here. There is not the least evidence to show that the effect of stress factors on telomeric length is epigenetic in origin. The OP is simply assuming this.

The study we're discussing is a simple confirmation of what evolutionary theory predicts; the only surprise is that the effects begin at such a young age.

Astyanax, as his avatar states, has his Mind Firmly Closed. He is unwilling to educate himself.

Biotech businesses, on the other hand, are moving on from genetics to epigenetics (assuming they didn't go bankrupt waiting for the genetics payoff). For example:

Roche's pRED jumps into epigenetics with $521M-plus cancer drug deal

John Reed's Basel-based pRED group at Roche has struck its first epigenetics deal, snapping up rights to Barcelona-based Oryzon's orphan cancer blocker ORY-1001, now being studied in the clinic for acute myeloid leukemia.

The deal bears the classic outline of an early-stage drug research pact. Roche is paying Oryzon $21 million in upfront and near-term payouts, adding more than $500 million in biobuck prizes--plus royalties--if the work proves successful. The pharma giant, which has the largest R&D budget in the industry, gets the development rights to the Phase I/IIa product as well as backup programs. And it gets a shot at stepping into a new field in oncology R&D, where researchers are exploring the therapeutic potential of a technology that can switch genes off and on by modifying DNA without changing the sequence. The lead drug at Oryzon blocks the '___'1 enzyme.

Reed was tapped to turn around pRED after a series of embarrassing pratfalls at the big research group, which is focused on adding to the portfolio of cancer therapies advanced by Genentech, the gRED side of things at Roche.

....Roche famously shuttered its sprawling R&D center in Nutley, NJ, to reorganize pRED after the Genentech buyout. Roche saved a group of more than 200 investigators in the area and moved the operation to Manhattan. In this deal the New York-based Translational Clinical Research Center gets a two-year collaboration to work with Oryzon on epigenetics.

Ha...weird. I've been thinking for years now that I and my younger siblings have been living examples of how our parents economic and mental status changed as we grew up.
Even back in high school I had a feeling there was a connection to a peers relative body structure and attractiveness and their parents ability (or lack thereof) to provide them with a well-rounded nutrition and home stability.
In addition, my sisters and I all had different "father figures" during different key developmental times--and I can watch the patterns being demonstrated now in our adult life.

reply to post by Astyanax

Astyanax, as his avatar states, has his Mind Firmly Closed. He is unwilling to educate himself.

Nevertheless.

There is no mention of epigenetics in the published paper. Nor could there possibly be, since the study was confined to a single generation of subjects. Epigenetic effects are heritable non-genetic effects, and you cannot show heritability unless you study more than one generation to see the effects being passed on — or study identical twins in different environments, which was not done here.

The effects studied in this paper have not been shown to be heritable, therefore we cannot say they are epigenetic. Their biological causes, however, are heritable, because they are genetic — and well understood.

This is very important. The OP is trying to make a political point by claiming that the ageing effects of poverty are heritable under stressful conditions. That may or may not be true, but it is not demonstrated by this study. Before we start blaming society or the environment or genes or anything else for poverty and the damage it does, we need to be sure of our facts. The OP is claiming 'facts' that are not mentioned, far less substantiated in the study. He is, quite simply, making them up.

For those with the technical knowledge and the desire to find out the truth for themselves, here is a link to a web page where you can download a PDF copy of the original paper. It is very, very clear that the authors are talking about genetic, not epigenetic variations.

For those who do not wish to trouble themselves with the whole thing, I give the abstract of the paper below. Notice, again, that even here the authors speak very clearly about genetic effects, not epigenetic ones.

Disadvantaged social environments are associated with adverse health outcomes. This has been attributed, in part, to chronic stress. Telomere length (TL) has been used as a biomarker of chronic stress: TL is shorter in adults in a variety of contexts, including disadvantaged social standing and depression. We use data from 40, 9-y-old boys participating in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to extend this observation to African American children. We report that exposure to disadvantaged environments is associated with reduced TL by age 9 y. We document significant associations between low income, low maternal education, unstable
family structure, and harsh parenting and TL. These effects were moderated by genetic variants in serotonergic and dopaminergic
pathways. Consistent with the differential susceptibility hypothesis, subjects with the highest genetic sensitivity scores had the shortest TL when exposed to disadvantaged social environments and the longest TL when exposed to advantaged environments.

The OP will not admit he is wrong, because he is too committed to his claims to back out and lose face now. Nonetheless, his conclusions are false, and have the potential to extort a terrible human price if they are acted upon.

Nothing is more deadly than public policy based on pseudoscience. That is just what the OP is trying to build consensus for.

reply to post by Astyanax


To (re)clarify, this paper looks at gene expression, and the factors that govern gene expression - epigenetics.

WHAT IS EPIGENETICS?

As an organism grows and develops, carefully orchestrated chemical reactions activate and deactivate parts of the genome at strategic times and in specific locations. Epigenetics is the study of these chemical reactions and the factors that influence them.

As you say, the paper refers to serotonergic and dopaminergic pathways, NOT genes. As well, the author specifies,

...this report is the first to document a gene–social environment interaction for TL, a biomarker of stress exposure.

More simply stated,

The field of epigenetics ...(sheds) light on how environment, nutrition and social conditions affect how genes are expressed.

reply to post by soficrow


You are making the very basic error of confusing changes in phenotypic development due to environmental influences, which are not heritable, with heritable changes in gene expression that are not caused by alterations in the DNA. Both involve gene expression, but only the latter is epigenetics.

Allow me to demonstrate the difference with an example. Here is a study that does demonstrate a correlation between maltreatment in infancy and heritable gene expression — in rats. The mechanism is clearly epigenetic, in that the change in gene expression is not dependent on what happens to the offspring but what happens to the parent, although the relevant DNA is not altered from one generation to another.

See the difference now?

Astyanax
reply to post by soficrow

 

You are making the very basic error of confusing changes in phenotypic development due to environmental influences, which are not heritable, with heritable changes in gene expression that are not caused by alterations in the DNA. Both involve gene expression, but only the latter is epigenetics.

You are making the mistake of assuming that ALL epigenetic processes and influences are inherited - and of assuming that a dynamic developing science is defined without controversy. However, all definitions stipulate that epigenetic changes are reversible - presumably including those that have yet to be inherited.

EPIGENETICS & THE ENVIRONMENT

The epigenome dynamically responds to the environment. Stress, diet, behavior, toxins, and other factors regulate gene expression.

Nutrition and the Epigenome

Unlike behavior or stress, diet is one of the more easily studied, and therefore better understood, environmental factors in epigenetic change.

Epigenetics and Inheritance

We used to think that a new embryo's epigenome was completely erased and rebuilt from scratch. But this isn't completely true. Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance.

Epigenetic inheritance is an unconventional finding. It goes against the idea that inheritance happens only through the DNA code that passes from parent to offspring. It means that a parent's experiences, in the form of epigenetic tags, can be passed down to future generations.

As unconventional as it may be, there is little doubt that epigenetic inheritance is real. In fact, it explains some strange patterns of inheritance geneticists have been puzzling over for decades.

reply to post by soficrow


Oh, so now the definition is getting flexible. How flexible, exactly?

Please read my earlier post (just above yours) and at least the abstract of the linked material before replying.

reply to post by Astyanax

Allow me to demonstrate the difference with an example. Here is a study that does demonstrate a correlation between maltreatment in infancy and heritable gene expression — in rats. The mechanism is clearly epigenetic, in that the change in gene expression is not dependent on what happens to the offspring but what happens to the parent, although the relevant DNA is not altered from one generation to another.

See the difference now?

You posted that paragraph and link after I responded. In any event, the study refers to LASTING EPIGENETIC INFLUENCE - proving that epigenetic influences can be inherited, and acknowledging that not all epigenetic influences are lasting and heritable.

However, you are stuck on the notion that epigenetic processes are only epigenetic if and when they are inherited - that the parents' change in gene expression (epigenetic response to experience) in the study is NOT epigenetic, but only becomes "epigenetic" when inherited by the children. Specifically, you are saying the initiating epigenetic response is actually an ill-defined, imprecise, woolly "phenotypic response," not an epigenetic one, whereas epigenetics science elucidates specific mechanisms that describe epigenetic processes - which contrary to previous understanding, can be inherited without affecting DNA.

reply to post by soficrow


So the study was replicated and it also had rich abused/stressed out children and middle class stressed out kids ?
Does anyone give a thought to those children in war zones, it seems as though the effects of negativity/fight or flight response on in every day life is intimated to only effect poor children.
Our negativity is collective. We teach our stress and worry over money to children by exhibiting stress and greed/fear over money behaviours instead of being present and dealing with the here and now freaking out about an imagined future.
These studies are being published by those who have to much, interesting as most people al ready know that stress effects people/children negatively- its not news .
Seems it written by TPTB to guilt out parents of poor children, an attack on the poor in disguise .
There are happy healthy children living in poverty and lots of unhappy sick children living with too much, the study is a frog.

reply to post by BDBinc

...Seems it written by TPTB to guilt out parents of poor children, an attack on the poor in disguise .
There are happy healthy children living in poverty and lots of unhappy sick children living with too much, the study is a frog.

I think this is more about good guys proving there are physical effects from stress - that poverty is NOT genetic, but the effects are epigenetic and reversible if we as a society do the right thing.

You'd think it would be common sense to not have kids if you're poor but I guess that government pity money is just too tempting.

Where are the studies that show that free money for poor parents causes poor people to have kids on purpose?

reply to post by BrianFlanders


It's quite clear that stress drives reproduction; stress on an individual is interpreted by hardwiring as stress on the species, and the individual is driven to reproduce. Remove the stress, and population rates go down - conversely, increase the stress and population goes up.

soficrow
reply to post by BDBinc

 

...Seems it written by TPTB to guilt out parents of poor children, an attack on the poor in disguise .
There are happy healthy children living in poverty and lots of unhappy sick children living with too much, the study is a frog.

I think this is more about good guys proving there are physical effects from stress - that poverty is NOT genetic, but the effects are epigenetic and reversible if we as a society do the right thing.

We know their are physical effects from negativity.
Doing the right thing, the TPTB have no intention to change taking from those who do not have enough and giving to the mega corps. Society is a construct, it is about each human being if each one of us is in peace(not dependent on our circumstances/wealth). Naturally if we were content we would not take from those who do not have and give to the have to much( as in wars, wall street trading food derivatives and mega corporations).
So it starts with individuals in peace, parents in peace. Parents believing these studies think that poverty damages their children's DNA ( it is their stress and fear being taught to their children exactly the same in middle class children they are not different) so since in the study they did not isolate all the other factors or do a double blind they cannot claim that the shortning has anything to do with poverty .
I absolutely agree we should do the right thing and all be in peace so we can teach our children how to be free from fear and stress = how to live.

reply to post by BDBinc

....Parents believing these studies think that poverty damages their children's DNA....

I'm OCD about this stuff because the whole point is that DNA is NOT damaged, changed or anything. The effects are epigenetic - meaning above the genes. Yes, epigenetic effects can be inherited but the inheritance is not permanently fixed in the genes - it's not in the DNA. This is important because it blows all the jerks right out of the water - the geneticist-eugenicists and everyone else who wrongly thinks 'character' is genetic.

Let's put politics aside here, and just take a look at the truth. The growth of a child from years 1 - 5 has been scientifically proven to be the most important concerning brain development.

So it's not hard to conclude that if a child that grows up during those years inside a household that has no money, they will without a doubt suffer a lack of Protein intake. Lack of Omega 3s alone can dramatically alter a young human being's future brain development, and intelligence.

That is just the way that it is, it's the truth. Protein breeds strength, it is second only to H20 in regards to overall human health. Then there are all the amino acids and vitamins that we humans need in order to live a healthy life as well. ~$heopleNation

soficrow
reply to post by BrianFlanders

 

It's quite clear that stress drives reproduction; stress on an individual is interpreted by hardwiring as stress on the species, and the individual is driven to reproduce. Remove the stress, and population rates go down - conversely, increase the stress and population goes up.

Oh please. Everyone is under some kind of stress but not everyone chooses to reproduce. There are people (like me) who consciously choose NOT to reproduce because they know (because of a little thing called common sense) that....

1. It's a bad idea for them to begin with.

2. The world really doesn't need more people anyway

3. If you can't support yourself, you've got no business having kids

Having kids is not involuntary and it's not an accident. It's a choice