Archive for the ‘Epigenetics’ Category

h1

Everyday chemicals and disease

February 20, 2012

The blog post below, from a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Dr. Richard Dennison, covers four recent studies of great interest to anyone concerned about their health, the health of their families, and the relationship between man-made chemicals and human health.

Quote: “I will use this post to briefly highlight four recent studies that demonstrate the changing landscape of our knowledge of how environmental factors, including toxic chemical exposures, are affecting our health.  What’s noteworthy about these studies is that they all identified adverse health effects in human populations, and linked those effects to early-life exposures.  They all also illustrate the complex interplay between chemical exposures and social or other environmental factors that directly challenges the overly simplistic and non-scientific approach to causation that our chemicals policies have taken for decades. “

Of particular interest to us was the study on epigenetics and the relationship between socio-economic status and health: ” …it should be very disturbing that low socio-economic status has now been shown to lead to readily measurable epigenetic changes associated with adverse health outcomes, potentially not only in individuals directly exposed but also in their children.” And this at a time when the socio-economic status of many families in developed countries is declining…

The post: “Linking everyday chemicals to disease: New science keeps on intensifying the writing on the wall

h1

Heritable effects of air pollution?

April 3, 2011

Some quotes (and a comment; full article and link below):
“…these new findings suggest the possibility of an inheritable effect from environmental pollution.”

We are increasingly learning that in addition to the illnesses caused in living people by a variety of chemical substances – just check out the long and tragic list to the right (‘Categories’) – substances implicated in these illnesses seem to be able to damage fetuses, whose DNA is altered, and they are born with greater predispositions toward, in the case of this study, asthma.

“…The researchers noted that Treg cells are important for other autoimmune disorders, so the implications of this study could go beyond asthma.”

“The link between diesel exhaust and asthma could simply have been that the particulates were irritating the lungs. What we found is that the problems are more systemic. This is one of the few papers to have linked from A to Z the increased exposure to ambient air pollution with suppressed Treg cell levels, changes in a key gene and increased severity of asthma symptoms.”

Air pollution’s effect on asthma

BERKELEY — Exposure to dirty air is linked to decreased function of a gene that appears to increase the severity of asthma in children, according to a joint study by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley.

While air pollution is known to be a source of immediate inflammation, this new study provides one of the first pieces of direct evidence that explains how some ambient air pollutants could have long-term effects.

The findings, published in the October 2010 issue of the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, come from a study of 181 children with and without asthma in Fresno and Palo Alto.

The researchers found that air pollution exposure suppressed the immune system’s regulatory T cells (Treg), and that the decreased level of Treg function was linked to greater severity of asthma symptoms and lower lung capacity. Treg cells are responsible for putting the brakes on the immune system so that it doesn’t react to non-pathogenic substances in the body that are associated with allergy and asthma. When Treg function is low, the cells fail to block the inflammatory responses that are the hallmark of asthma symptoms.

The findings have potential implications for altered birth outcomes associated with polluted air, much the same as those noted for the effects of cigarette smoke.

“When it came out that cigarettes can cause molecular changes, it meant the possibility that mothers who smoked could affect the DNA of their children during fetal development,” said study lead author Dr. Kari Nadeau, pediatrician at Stanford’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of allergy and immunology at Stanford’s School of Medicine. “Similarly, these new findings suggest the possibility of an inheritable effect from environmental pollution.”

Forty-one participants came from the Fresno Asthmatic Children’s Environment Study (FACES), a longitudinal study led by principal investigator Dr. Ira Tager, professor of epidemiology at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, and co-principal investigator S. Katharine Hammond, UC Berkeley professor and chair of environmental health sciences. The researchers also recruited 30 children from Fresno who did not have asthma.

“I’m not aware of any other studies that have looked at how chemicals can alter cells so early in the regulatory process, and then connected that effect to clinical symptoms,” said Tager. “There are people who still question the direct link between air pollution and human health, but these findings make the health impact of pollutants harder to deny.”

Fresno was chosen because it is located in California’s Central Valley, where trapped hot air mixes with high traffic and heavy agriculture to create some of the highest levels of air pollution in the country. It is also a region known for its high incidence of asthma: Nearly one in three children there have the condition, earning Fresno the nickname, “The Asthma Capitol of California.”

The researchers compared the participants from Fresno with 80 children, half with asthma and half without, in the relatively low-pollution city of Palo Alto, Calif. The children were matched by age, gender and asthma status, among other variables. The children were tested for breathing function, allergic sensitivity and Treg cells in the blood.

Daily air quality data came from California Air Resources Board monitoring stations. The researchers calculated each child’s annual average exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a byproduct of fossil fuel and a major pollutant in vehicle exhaust.

The study found that the annual average exposure to PAH was 7 times greater for the children in Fresno compared with the kids in Palo Alto. Levels of ozone and particulate matter were also significantly higher in Fresno.

Not surprisingly, the study found that the children in Fresno had lower overall levels of Treg function and more severe symptoms of asthma than the children in Palo Alto. For example, the non-asthmatic children in Fresno had Treg function results that were similar to the children with asthma in Palo Alto.

The study authors correlated increased exposure to PAH with methylation of the gene, Forkhead box transcription factor (Foxp3), which triggers Treg cell development. Methylation effectively disables the gene’s function, leading to reduced levels of Treg cells. The connection between Treg function and the severity of asthma symptoms held for children in both groups.

While previous studies have found associations between pollution — especially motor vehicle exhaust — and an increased risk of developing asthma, few have traced its molecular pathway so completely, the study authors said.

“The link between diesel exhaust and asthma could simply have been that the particulates were irritating the lungs,” said Nadeau. “What we found is that the problems are more systemic. This is one of the few papers to have linked from A to Z the increased exposure to ambient air pollution with suppressed Treg cell levels, changes in a key gene and increased severity of asthma symptoms.”

The researchers noted that Treg cells are important for other autoimmune disorders, so the implications of this study could go beyond asthma.

Other co-authors of the study are Dr. John Balmes, UC Berkeley professor of environmental health sciences; Elizabeth Noth and Boriana Pratt, UC Berkeley researchers at FACES; and Cameron McDonald-Hyman, research assistant at Stanford University’s School of Medicine.

The National Institutes of Health, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Lung Association helped support this research.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/24239

h1

Pesticides and Birth Defects

January 29, 2011

Pesticides, birth defects, season

In the spring and early summer, levels of pesticides in water increase. One weed killer in particular, Atrazine, shows up in surprisingly high amounts. Host Steve Curwood talks with Dr. Paul Winchester to learn why babies conceived between April and July may be more likely to develop birth defects.

CURWOOD: From the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios in Somerville, Massachusetts – this is Living on Earth. I’m Steve Curwood.

YOUNG: And I’m Jeff Young in Washington.

When crops go in the ground and start to grow, it’s the time for conventional farmers to apply chemical weed killers.

For example, millions of pounds of Atrazine are applied on US farms each year, even though the herbicide is banned in Europe.

And it should not be surprising that between April and July, there tend to be higher levels of pesticides in water than during the rest of the year, as the U.S. Geological Survey has found.

CURWOOD: What is surprising is new research that shows an association between the time of conception, pesticide levels, and the likelihood of crippling or fatal birth defects.

The research is being led by Paul Winchester, a neonatologist. His curiosity was aroused when he encountered a high level of birth defects when he began working in the heart of farm country at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis.

Dr. Winchester, what exactly did you find?

WINCHESTER: We found that birth defects like spina bifida, cleft pallet and lip, down syndrome, urogenital abnormalities, club foot among others are some of the birth defects that are more likely to occur for women who conceive between April and July. That time period coincides quite well with the time period when surface waters measured across the U.S. are having significantly more pesticides in their concentration than any other times of year.

CURWOOD: As a neonatologist, you must be seeing some of these children who have quite extensive urogenital defects. How true is that of your practice?

WINCHESTER: Well, the urogenital problems that are the most common are those that effect male genitals, hypospadias is a good example and undescended testicles. Both of these are now known to be linked to exposures of chemicals in utero – not just pesticides, but some of the other chemicals as well. Almost all of these chemicals can act in a way that is similar to estrogen either by blocking testosterone or by augmenting estrogen signaling. And of course that’s anathema to the normal development of a male genital.

CURWOOD: And how much of that are you seeing?

WINCHESTER: Well we do see a lot of it. Probably the most striking things that’s happened to us this last month, which is the month when babies conceived in June are delivering is that it seems that we have seen kind of one of everything. We’ve seen in a small hospital, community hospital setting, we’ve seen major birth defects that range from chromosome anomalies, spina bifida, adactyly, cleft pallet and lip – we’re just struck by the fact that this research appears to be right on, this month.

CURWOOD: How much did this research cost you and how did you pay for it?

WINCHESTER: Well we’re a non-funded research program. I kinda grew up on a farm in Montana where when you see the fences broke you just grab a fence post and a pair of pliers and go and fix it. And you hope that if you’re over there the neighbors will notice and give you a hand. And pretty much that’s how this research has been done. And I sometimes wonder if I had been funded whether this question would have been asked.

CURWOOD: Which question is that?

WINCHESTER: That is the number one cause of infant deaths turns out to have a higher risk occurrence in women who conceive between April and July. I kind of wonder why that’s news. And so, in a sense, we like to ask this large question, because we now know some things in rats and amphibians and alligators that these pesticides are in fact changing them because of fetal exposure. And we don’t have enough time to sort this out before perhaps we could have harmed generations of children.

CURWOOD: Now you say we need to look at the down stream effects of pesticide exposure – what do you mean exactly by that?

WINCHESTER: Probably one of the most important investigators in this area is a man named Michael Skinner who has shown us that the capacity that pesticides have to alter our lives has been grossly underestimated. In his model a pregnant rat is exposed for just a brief period in the very first phase of pregnancy to one pesticide. Keep in mind that there are no children in America who are exposed to just one pesticide. The average child is exposed to 300 chemicals at the time of conception. But in his model with just one pesticide all the rat babies when they were born did not have any birth defects at all. They looked perfectly normal. That’s really important to think about because had the experiment ended there, it would have been declared a safe exposure, not associated with any harm. As he likes to point out, thanks to some inquiring minds he was allowed to keep his experiment going long enough to see how these rats turned out as adults. And there he found that ninety percent of the males were afflicted by a whole host of disorders that we would refer to as adult disorders, adult diseases. They included conditions like low sperm count and infertility, immune disorders, kidney and prostate problems, cancer, high cholesterol and a shortened life span. And if that sounds bad, it’s really not as bad as the rest of the experiment. Because the rest of the experiment showed that this condition could be transferred to all subsequent generations without any further exposure. So if one pesticide could do this, imagine what might be happening in our society.

CURWOOD: What do you tell your patients, people who are thinking about having children, what about conceiving during the beginning of the growing season, this April to July period that seems to increase the risk of birth defects?

WINCHESTER: Well, based on our current evidence we certainly can’t prove to you that it would be safer for you to avoid those time periods but based on the current level of knowledge, if you have a choice, why not try conceiving at some other time. We happen to notice that the time associated with the lowest birth defect rate is also the time when women are most likely to have a successful pregnancy and that turns out to be December in the U.S. So the spring tends to be a high-risk period for a lot of different complications of pregnancy and this may be more relevant to some than others.

CURWOOD: Dr. Paul Winchester is a neonatologist at St. Francis Hospital in Indianapolis. Thank you so much, sir

WINCHESTER: Thank you.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00016&segmentID=1

Expédié par: Forwarded by:

L’Association pour la santé environnementale du Québec- Environmental Health Association of Quebec – ASEQ-EHAQ

www.aeha-quebec.ca

h1

Epigenetic News

January 29, 2011

Terrific story on epigenetics

Posted by John Peterson Myers at Apr 11, 2009
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/blog/terrific-story-on-epigenetics 

Writing for Chemical and Engineering News, reporter Ivan Amato does a superb job capturing the science and significance of one the biggest emerging fields in environmental health, epigenetics.

Epigenetics is all about the mechanisms that control gene expression–put simply, when genes are turned on or off. In his story in C&EN, Amato explores where this science is headed and does a great job.

Recognition that environmental factors, including chemical contaminants, can alter gene expression is driving a revolution in the environmental health sciences. Alterations in how genes behave can be just as powerful as genetic mutations in affecting human health, and a rapidly expanding body of literature indicates it takes far less of a chemical to change gene expression than to cause a mutation.

The impact of altered gene expression is especially relevant during fetal life: gene expression controls fetal development, and errors in gene expression can cause health problems that echo throughout a lifetime, including all the way to old age.

Amato writes: “To those researchers uncovering the molecular biology of epigenetics, there is a conceptual shift, potentially Copernican in scale, in the offing. … Just as the Copernican solar system jerked Earth away from the system’s center, epigenetics researchers are dethroning the gene as biology’s center of the universe.”

Amato reports that scientists working on epigenetics see this a a framework that “finally can provide scientific moorings for intuitions about nature-nurture connections.”  Genes are inherited, but their behavior depends upon environmental factors, including contaminants, diet, stress and experience.

Amato’s story goes far in conveying the excitement of scientists working in this field and the promise they sense for understanding how environmental factors contribute to human disease.

He could have gone farther, however.  These discoveries are redefining what it means for a disease to be linked to a gene.  Research reports, for example, from the Human Genome Project regularly reveal that yet another disease has a has a genetic basis. This is almost always interpreted fatalistically by the public:  “Did I inherit the bad form, or not?”  The realization that environmental factors act through epigenetic mechanisms to control gene expression gives rise to a very different question:  “Is there an environmental factor, for example, a contaminant, that is altering that gene’s expression?”  If so, some portion of the burden of that disease may be preventable by reducing exposures.  All of a sudden, a genetic disease becomes preventable because interventions can reduce environmental exposures.  The implications and the promise are enormous.

Genes Take A Back Seat

Epigenetics, the molecular framework that controls genes’ expression, takes its cues from both nature and nurture

Ivan Amato

IN THE WINTER MONTHS of 1944-45, the Nazis imposed an embargo on the western part of the Netherlands, fomenting a seven-month famine that had a clear beginning and end. During this time, Dutch officials maintained detailed health care registries and food-rationing documentation. The resulting famine left permanent epigenetic marks in fetuses conceived at the time.

Unfortunate as the circumstances were, to those now pushing into an emerging research arena called environmental epigenetics, the Dutch Hunger Winter, as this wartime episode is known, has provided rare opportunities to study how environmental conditions reach inside fetal cells and influence the genetic program of human beings throughout their lives. It’s a set of conditions for a human study that could only be realized by accident, natural disaster, or human evil.

Molecular epidemiologist Bastiaan T. Heijmans of Leiden University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, and colleagues there and at Emory University, Columbia University, and New York State Psychiatric Institute, hypothesized that those 60-plus-year-olds still alive today who were fetuses in their hungry mothers’ wombs during the famine might still carry a molecular record of those conditions in their cells: the amount and pattern of methyl groups attached to specific cytosine nucleotides (those directly followed by a guanine nucleotide) in their DNA.

DNA methylation is one of the two primary types of so-called epigenetic modifications on chromosomes that control which genes can be expressed and which ones remain silent. In the wrong place or at the wrong time, epigenetic modifications, which leave genes’ sequences unchanged, can have deleterious effects indistinguishable from genetic mutations that cause cancer and other diseases. Epigenetic mechanisms also could alter genetic expression patterns to ones that favor the survivability of fetuses whose mothers are exposed to, say, molecular cues in their diets that correlate with trying times.

Heijmans’ group conjectured that during the Dutch Hunger Winter, the relative absence in the diets of pregnant women of foods rich in folate and other methyl-donating vitamins would have resulted in decreased DNA methylation in the genomes of their developing fetuses compared with fetuses that were not deprived of methyl-donating nutrients. The researchers compared methylation patterns along the chromosomal location of the gene insulin-like growth factor II, or IGF2, of those conceived during the famine with those of their same-sex siblings whose gestations occurred in better times. IGF2’s protein product is a key factor in growth and development. Using all of those intact wartime records in the Netherlands, Heijmans’ team located close to 1,000 living adults in their sixties who were fetuses just before, during, and after the Dutch Hunger Winter and got blood samples from them.

In the end, the result sounds modest. The scientists found that individuals alive today who were prenatally exposed to famine conditions had 5% less methylation along the IGF2 gene compared with their siblings who were not so exposed. “Our study provides the first evidence that transient environmental conditions early in human gestation can be recorded as persistent changes in epigenetic information,” the researchers write in their paper (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 17046).

THAT 5% DIFFERENCE is profound to epigenetics researchers—like Randy L. Jirtle of Duke University—who are convinced that genes themselves have enjoyed an overblown place in biology’s explanatory framework. To Jirtle, epigenetics is like the software that runs the genetic hardware.

As for the Dutch Hunger Winter study, Jirtle says, “what we are really talking about here is fetal origins of disease susceptibility.” There always has been a widespread intuition that we come into this world with in-born propensities and vulnerabilities, and Jirtle is betting that gene-controlling epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation are big parts of the scientific explanation for that baggage. Jirtle’s animal studies show how different levels of methyl-donating nutrients such as folate in the diets of pregnant mice effectively dial in the fur color and size of their pups. His studies have become among the clearest and most famous demonstrations of an environmental cue’s epigenetic consequences.

Adding methyl-donating nutrients such as folic acid to the diet of pregnant Agouti mice alters the offspring’s gene-controlling epigenome and results in smaller, leaner, darker progeny compared with the larger, plumper, yellow mouse that a normal diet yields. Despite their appearances, the two mice are genetically identical. 

Still to come from the Dutch Hunger Winter study is a report on whether and how the altered methylation levels relate to health patterns in the later lives of those who were fetuses during the famine. “This is the million-dollar question,” says Lambert H. Lumey, a Columbia University epidemiologist who collaborated on the project. “Everyone is waiting for this,” he says, unwilling to divulge details until he and his colleagues publish their findings.

To those researchers uncovering the molecular biology of epigenetics, there is a conceptual shift, potentially Copernican in scale, in the offing. “The epigenetics bombshell” is the metaphor that enzymologist Norbert O. Reich of the University of California, Santa Barbara, summons when describing the emerging epigenetics framework for understanding biology. Just as the Copernican solar system jerked Earth away from the system’s center, epigenetics researchers are dethroning the gene as biology’s center of the universe. “Genes are no longer the center of everything,” says Reich, who studies methyltransferase enzymes that insert methyl groups into bacterial DNA, an investigative path that he says could lead to new antibiotics.

Ushering in a broader conceptual framework based on both genes and epigenetics, Reich and others say, will elicit a far deeper molecular understanding of what underlies the similarities and differences among individuals and why different people respond differently to drugs, nutrients, and other environmental exposures.

Dethroning genes is verging on sacrilege. For decades, it has seemed that the whole point, if you’re into biology, has been to explain what is going on by way of genes that get translated into proteins that carry out the molecular actions of life. The genotype, mutations and all, begets the phenotype, healthy or diseased. That has been the mantra. Many who participated in the Human Genome Project in the 1990s knew that the result of their project—a fully sequenced human genome—would at first amount to a catalog of essentially hieroglyphic DNA sequences whose biological, evolutionary, and medical meanings would be far from obvious. But the multi-billion-dollar project could not have been more emblematic of the gene-centricity of modern biology.

“WE HAVE BEEN BLINDED,” says molecular and human geneticist Arthur L. Beaudet of Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston. Genes are crucial parts of the story, but it’s the epigenetic program that determines their activity, says Beaudet, who scours the chromosomal landscapes in brain cells from cadavers for epigenetic markings—perhaps ones acquired during gestation—that influence genetic programs associated with autism and schizophrenia. “Epigenetics is mediating between genotype and phenotype,” he says.

For a growing number of scientists, genes are getting downright blasé. Not that the 25,000 genes or so that occupy about 2% of the human genome are not vitally important. After all, a single mutation in just one genetic letter (nucleotide) of a gene that is thousands of letters long can mean, say, a life with sickle cell anemia or a much greater risk of developing cancer. But with so much of the genetic lettering the same between any two human beings, it has to be the orchestration of the activity or silence of the genes that makes up much of our personal differences.

That’s where the other 98% of the genome—and the big-cast molecular opera that plays out on and along it—comes in. And it is looking more and more like the thing that matters most: It’s what activates and silences genes in different tissues at different times. It is the great decider behind the molecular unfolding of life, from a fertilized cell to a fully formed newborn, and throughout a lifetime in illness and in health, until death stills it all. Without that other 98% of the genome and its molecular context, genes might be nothing but unremarkable and impotent stretches of DNA.

Way more than the mere sequence of nucleotides that make up the DNA, this larger context also encompasses the millions of histone protein-DNA spools, called nucleosomes, that enable 6 feet worth of DNA to coil, bend, and otherwise condense until it fits inside a nucleus that fits inside a cell that can only be seen in a microscope. It is this DNA-protein stuff, chromatin, that is the macromolecular stage on which cues from the inside and from the outside worlds influence genetic expression. It is where nature and nurture mingle and wrestle via chemical rules that remodel chromatin—by way of DNA methylation patterns or an operatic orchestration of modifications on the histone proteins of nucleosomes—into a landscape with chemical signs that say the equivalent of such things as “No gene expression zone ahead” and “Gene transcription machinery welcome here.”

What’s more, all of this epigenetic signage, which does nothing to any gene’s signature sequence of nucleotides, is heritable, at least to a degree. In development, this is the type of heritability that ensures, for example, that liver cells beget only liver cells and not brain cells once in a while. It is a form of cellular memory. And evidence is mounting that epigenetic markings on egg or sperm cells and those acquired as a result of some sort of toxic exposure or hardship can be inherited for several generations, Jirtle says. This means that how well your mother ate and whether your father smoked when you were conceived could affect the health of your own children.

TO EPIGENETICS researchers such as Moshe Szyf of McGill University, in Montreal, the epigenome is where feast and famine, toxin and medicine, wealth and poverty, and love and neglect ultimately come into causal, molecule-mediated contact with a cell’s nucleus. Either directly by way of a chemical poison or nutrient or indirectly—say, by way of biomolecule-releasing stress conditions—environmental, behavioral, and psychological cues join the seemingly quixotic and capricious molecular negotiations by which a neighbor on the right lives to be 100 while the neighbor on the left dies young of a brain tumor.

Szyf is one of the more evangelical of epigenetics researchers. Talk to him and he’ll try to convince you, using a combination of polemics and data, that the time is approaching when epigeneticists will have in hand an explanatory framework that goes way beyond the gene-centric stories that have dominated the discussion of nature versus nurture. Szyf goes so far as to say that the epigenetics framework will open the path to explanatory stories detailing how this or that dietary input, this or that exposure to a pollutant, or even this or that social condition such as lack of parental affection elicits particular physical traits or health conditions in you or me throughout our lives. And at the bottom, he says, “it’s all chemistry. What is most provocative here is the realization that the social environment can affect methylation patterns.”

As much as anyone studying epigenetics, Szyf has been arguing that epigenetic mechanisms are the bridges by which even psychological and social conditions, especially in prenatal and early postnatal periods, elicit epigenetic interventions in genetic expression that, in turn, can have behavioral and psychological consequences throughout life. “Now I can talk to social scientists who look at poverty-and-diseases connections,” Szyf tells C&EN.

For the most part, conjectures about epigenetic mechanisms by which social conditions might influence health derive from animal studies. Szyf says the most complete example starts with just how much rat moms lick and groom their little pups.

“When rats maternally care for their offspring, it turns on reward systems in the pups’ brains, which work mostly through serotonin,” Szyf says, before chronicling a veritable biochemical Rube Goldberg machine. The neurotransmitter binds to receptors in the pups’ brain cells, initiating a sequence of chemical events and signaling pathways that activate production of a DNA-binding transcription factor in the brain’s hippocampal tissue. That transcription factor binds to a gene promoter region associated with expression of glucocorticoid receptor (GR) proteins, which are part of the stress response system. In that location, the transcription factor teams up with a histone acetyltransferase enzyme, which epigenetically alters histone proteins in nucleosomes of the well-licked pups’ chromatin. That, in turn, launches another cascade of events that demethylates the GR-associated DNA region, thereby unzipping the DNA and making gene expression there possible.

The behavioral consequence of a nurturing, tongue-lapping rat mom comes down to this: calmer rat progeny that grow up to be less ruffled in stressful situations than sibling rats who, as wee ones, are less doted over by their moms (Reprod. Toxicol. 2007, 24, 9). Taking the leap from this, Szyf says, “you can envisage how all of this happens in kids.”

How well your mother ate and whether your father smoked when you were conceived could affect the health of your own children.

NOT EVERYONE is ready to make the extrapolations to people from cell and animal studies that Szyf does, but most researchers who know about epigenetics at all predict it is ascending to prominence in biology and medicine. It is a framework, they say, that finally can provide scientific moorings for intuitions about nature-nurture connections.

With scientific promise of that sort, the epigenetics buzz has been getting louder. Funding agencies, academic departments, journal editors, life sciences research companies, and scientists collectively have been building up momentum to uncover and map the epigenetic and epigenomic (genome-scale) landscapes of health and disease.

This past September, for example, the National Institutes of Health announced the initial $18 million of grants of a five-year, $190 million epigenomics initiative. That’s some serious money and reflects the giant health research center’s take on epigenetics.

“The initiative includes genomewide studies to look at normal and diseased cells or environmentally exposed cells,” notes John Satterlee, program director for epigenetics, model organism genetics, and functional genomics for NIH’s National Institute on Drug Abuse. And he points out that the program will support research in “any diseases NIH would be interested in,” among them obesity, infectious diseases, psychiatric disorders, cardiovascular disorders, and autoimmune conditions.

The program has several major components. It is funding four centers that will profile the DNA methylation and histone modification patterns of a variety of diseased and healthy cells, among them embryonic stem cells. To manage the vast streams of data expected from this and other so-called reference epigenome work, the initiative also is funding an Epigenomics Data Analysis & Coordination Center at Baylor College of Medicine (Beaudet is a codirector of the center). And to help speed up the pace, efficiency, and thoroughness of epigenomic and epigenetic analyses, the initiative is supporting a bevy of projects to develop profiling methods and imaging techniques that can show epigenetic changes in cells and tissues. Another thrust is supporting searches for novel epigenetic marks beyond the DNA methylation and histone modifications that are already known.

“Understanding these processes has far-reaching implications, from reprogramming of adult cells to treat disease to learning how environmental exposures during pregnancy increases a child’s risk of developing chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease,” says Griffin P. Rodgers, director NIH’s National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases.

The science of epigenetics couldn’t be more thrilling, compelling, and powerful, Duke’s Jirtle says, but he notes that for those same reasons it is likely to have a double edge to it. As epigenetic storytelling by scientists and physicians becomes more detailed and backed by data, he says, expecting parents might feel an extra weight of responsibility or guilt about what they eat, where they go, what sorts of environmental exposures they are subject to, and whether they had nice or grumpy dispositions when their children were newborns. But it’s the flip side of that same body of knowledge that Jirtle and others in the epigenetics community have their eyes on most. The epigenetic stratum of molecular biology they now are excavating might sweep away the fatalism that comes with the traditional, gene-centric way of thinking.

“When you have a mutation in a gene, you are stuck. You feel like you have a death sentence. There is no way of treating that unless you do gene therapy,” which has had very few medical successes to date, Jirtle says. The epigenetic basis of health and disease might open up other routes of intervention. “You might develop drugs that target the epigenome to prevent or reduce susceptibility” to disease, Jirtle says. In some cases, he says, you might even leave drugs behind and “treat yourself simply by varying your diet or the way you live.”

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8714sci1.html

April 6, 2009
Volume 87, Number 14
pp. 28-32

Here’s more…
http://ourstolenfuture.org/Commentary/JPM/2006-0401goodgenesgonebad.html

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.