The Central Dogma

[Zeuzzz]

The picture of a genetic makeup that fluctuates by the hour and minutes seems at odds with the public perception: That genes determine everything from our physical characteristics all the way to our behaviour. Many scientists seem to think that our geners form an immutable blueprint that our cells must forever follow. British research scientists and Oxford don Susan Greenfield says "the reductionist genetic train of thought fuels the currently highly fashionable concept of a gene for this or that"

Niles edridge in his book Why we do it, says "genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists." (ref)


There seems one problem with this legend: Its not true.


The percentage by which genetic predisposition effects (affects?) various conditions varies, but it is rarely 100%. The tools of our consciousness, including our beliefs, thoughts, intentions and faith, often seem to correlate much more strongly with our health, longevity, and happiness than our genes do. Larry dossey, MD, observes in his much cited publication Health perceptions and survival: do global evaluations of health status really predict mortality? "Several studies show that what one thinks about ones health is one of the most accurate predictors of longevity ever discovered". Studies show that a committed spiritual practise and faith can add many years to our lives, regardless of our genetic mix.


This idea that genes are the repositories of our characteristics is also known as the central dogma, which was named as such by one of the discoverers of the helical structure of DNA, Sir Francis Crick. He fist used the term in his 1953 speech, and restated it in a subsequent publication in nature, Central dogma of mollecular biology.

The main problem, out of many, with the central dogma is that number of genes in a human chromosome is insufficient to carry all the information required to create and run the human body. It isn't even a big enough number to code for the structure (let alone function) of one complex organ like the brain. Its also to small a number to account for the huge quantity of neutral connections in our bodies.



The basic idea to explain the aspects of us that genes can not, from what I've seen from reading varioujs materials, is that changes in human consciousness produce changes in human bodies, right down to a genetic level (called Epigenetics [which unfortunately and confusingly is also used for a number of completely unrelated other gene related phenomenon]). As we think our thoughts and feel our feeling our bodies change and respond with a complex array of shifts, each thought releases a particular mixture of biochemicals in our organs and triggers genetic changes in our cells. Psychologist Ernest Rossi explores in his text The psychobiology of gene expression "how our subjective states of mind, consciously motivated behaviour, and our perception of free will can modulate gene expression to optimize health" Nobel prize winner Eric Kandell MD believes that in future treatments "social influences will be biologically incorporated in the altered expressions of specific genes in specific nerve cells of specific areas of the brain"] Brain researchers Kemperman and Gage envision a future in which the regeneration of damaged neural networks is a cornerstone of medical treatment, and doctors prescriptions include "modulations of environmental or cognitive stimuli", and "alterations of physical activity", in other words, doctors in the future will prescribe, instead of (or in addition to) a drug, a particular therapeutic belief or thought, a positive feeling, an affirmative social activity.


Is my portrayal of the central dogma fair? Is this actually the accepted position by most scientists?

Also, Anyone think that its likely that in the future doctors will be prescribing theraputic beliefs in place of traditional medicine, once we have found out more about how our individual perceptions and intentions of our health effect it directly?

 

[drkitten]

The basic idea to explain the aspects of us that genes can not, from what I've seen from reading varioujs materials, is that changes in human consciousness produce changes in human bodies, right down to a genetic level (called Epigenetics [which unfortunately and confusingly is also used for a number of completely unrelated other gene related phenomenon]).

As written, this idea is untrue. Laughably so.

my portrayal of the central dogma fair?

No, not really. The Central Dogma is that each protein is coded by a single gene, and so far we haven't found any that aren't (although there are some genes that aren't in the "genome," being instead in places like mitochondria.

The idea that there is a single gene for each "trait," where trait includes such vague things as disposition, is complete hogwash.

Also, Anyone think that its likely that in the future doctors will be prescribing theraputic beliefs in place of traditional medicine,

In place of? Almost certainly not. Quite the other way around; most of the things that we once attributed to "beliefs" are now turning out to have chemical causes and therefore chemical treatments; there's a reason that antidepressants work and "talk therapy" doesn't.

once we have found out more about how our individual perceptions and intentions of our health effect it directly?

No, because any method that our perceptions and beliefs can interact with our health will involve chemistry, and it will almost always be more effective and controllable to use chemicals to fix chemicals. Even if we found the sort of link that you describe between beliefs and the body -- a finding that would revolutionize medicine and win the Nobel prize in short order --- that would simply tell us which chemicals to play with.

And I don't expect us to find the sort of link you describe, because all the actual evidence-based medicine goes the other way.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The basic idea to explain the aspects of us that genes can not, from what I've seen from reading varioujs materials, is that changes in human consciousness produce changes in human bodies, right down to a genetic level

As written, this idea is untrue. Laughably so.

An accompaning reason would be appreciated.

 

[Zeuzzz]

In the prestigous journal science, Elizabeth Pennisi writes: "Gene expression is not determined solely by the DNA code itself but by an assortment of proteins, and somtimes RNAs that tell us that tell the genes where and when to turn on and off. Such epiginetic phenomena orchestrate the many changes through which a single fertilized egg cell can turn into a complex organism. And throughout life, they enable cells to respond to evironmental signals conveyed by hormones, growth factors, and other regularory molecules without having to alter the DNA itself" Behind the Scenes of Gene Expression - Science, 10 August 2001

So Epigenetics, as defined in Science, is about "examining the sources that control gene expression from outside of the cell." Its a study of the signals that turn genes on and off. Some of those signals are chemical, some are electromagnetic, some come from our inside our bodies and some from our bodies responce to signals from the environment that surrounds us.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, because any method that our perceptions and beliefs can interact with our health will involve chemistry, and it will almost always be more effective and controllable to use chemicals to fix chemicals. Even if we found the sort of link that you describe between beliefs and the body -- a finding that would revolutionize medicine and win the Nobel prize in short order --- that would simply tell us which chemicals to play with.

So we can agree that our perceptions can create substantial changes in our bodies chemistry (I dont think anyone can dispute that), and then that the chemicals invoked by our thoughts can alter genes via epigenetic processes?

 

[drkitten]

So we can agree that our perceptions can create substantial changes in our bodies chemistry (I dont think anyone can dispute that), and then that the chemicals invoked by our thoughts can alter genes via epigenetic processes?

No. "Altering gene expression" is not the same as "altering genes."

I have a copy of Fannie Farmer on my shelf; it's a very good cookbook with hundreds of recipes. Which recipe I make is under my control depending upon what I want and what I have in the pantry; if berries are out of season, I may go for a chocolate cake instead.

But my ability to choose which recipe to make doesn't affect the contents of the cookbook.

The "Central Dogma" says that every protein in the body has a single recipe in the genetic cookbook. It says nothing about which ones get made and under what conditions.

 

[drkitten]

An accompaning reason would be appreciated.

Because human consciousness cannot control the content of genes (except indirectly through genetic engineering, of course).

 

[drkitten]

In the prestigous journal science, Elizabeth Pennisi writes: "Gene expression is not determined solely by the DNA code itself but by an assortment of proteins, and somtimes RNAs that tell us that tell the genes where and when to turn on and off. Such epiginetic phenomena orchestrate the many changes through which a single fertilized egg cell can turn into a complex organism. And throughout life, they enable cells to respond to evironmental signals conveyed by hormones, growth factors, and other regularory molecules without having to alter the DNA itself" Behind the Scenes of Gene Expression - Science, 10 August 2001

So Epigenetics, as defined in Science, is about "examining the sources that control gene expression from outside of the cell." Its a study of the signals that turn genes on and off. Some of those signals are chemical, some are electromagnetic, some come from our inside our bodies and some from our bodies responce to signals from the environment that surrounds us.

Notice the complete lack of any sort of support for the idea that human thoughts or consciousness are part of the proteins and RNAs that control gene expression.

While the idea isn't provably impossible, neither is the idea that leaves turn brown every autumn because leprechauns stop painting them. In the absence of evidence for leprechauns or thought-driven epigenetic phenomena, most people would dismiss the idea.

 

[Zeuzzz]

While the idea isn't provably impossible, neither is the idea that leaves turn brown every autumn because leprechauns stop painting them.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Leprechauns are more intelligent than people often give them credit for.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Randy Jirtle has discovered that he could make Agouti mice produce normal healthy young, by changing the expression of thier genes, and without making any chages to the mouses DNA, by feeding them methyl groups. These molecule clusters are able to inhibit the expression of genes, and sure enough, the methyl groups eventually worked their way through the mothers metabolism to attatch to the Agouti genes of the developing embryos.

DNA Is Not Destiny - Discover magazine article

The new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity. [.....]

"It was a little eerie and a little scary to see how something as subtle as a nutritional change in the pregnant mother rat could have such a dramatic impact on the gene expression of the baby," Jirtle says. "The results showed how important epigenetic changes could be."

Jirtle continues "The tip of the iceberg is genomics.... The bottom of the iceberg is epigenetics"

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics. In fact I would be amazed if it didn't, I cant see how it would not.

 

[drkitten]

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics.

I'm sure you do. I've seen no evidence that your opinions on scientific matters are in any way constrained -- or even influenced -- by observational evidence. But if you want to play with the grownups, you'll need something better than "I would be amazed if this weren't true" to support any ideas you want taken seriously.

 

[Gravy]

The picture of a genetic makeup that fluctuates by the hour and minutes [snip]

What does this mean? Are you saying that this "central dogma" predicts that genetic changes must accompany every behavioral change?

Eta: I see from your post 10 that this is what you mean. Amazingly, your arguments from ignorance still fail to impress.

I've been asked not to comment further in this thread until The Central Scrutinizer has a look at it.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics. In fact I would be amazed if it didn't, I cant see how it would not.

Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is and is not?

 

[Zeuzzz]

What does this mean? Are you saying that this "central dogma" predicts that genetic changes must accompany every behavioral change?

Eta: I see from your post 10 that this is what you mean. Amazingly, your arguments from ignorance still fail to impress.

I've been asked not to comment further in this thread until The Central Scrutinizer has a look at it.

I didn't just choose the phrase 'the central dogma' out of the blue. Search for it, its a well known phrase for this.

Actually, the phrase isn't very helpful, Crick has since admitted he didn't actually understand what the word dogma meant when he came up with name! So it probably wasn't a good title for this thread, gives the wrong impression, I should have kept it to epigenetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

Central dogma of molecular biology [...]

Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation:[6]

"My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."

 

[Zeuzzz]

Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is and is not?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm sure you do. I've seen no evidence that your opinions on scientific matters are in any way constrained -- or even influenced -- by observational evidence. But if you want to play with the grownups, you'll need something better than "I would be amazed if this weren't true" to support any ideas you want taken seriously.

Dr Moshe Syf from McGill university in Montreal has studied the relationships between rats and their offspring. Some of the mother rats groomed and nurtured their young, and some hardly did at all. Rats that had been groomed as infants showed marked behavioural changes as adults, they were "Less fearful and better adjusted than the offspring of the neglectful mothers" (Epigenetics, The Economist) They then acted in similar nurturing ways towards their own offspring, producing the same epigenetic behavioural results in the next generation. This shows that epigenetic changes, once started in one generation, can be passed on to the following generations without changes in the gene themselves.


There were numerous chemical changes detected in the rats brains and major differences had developed between the nurtured group and the neglected group, especially in the area of the hippocampus involved in stress. A gene that dampens our response to stress had a greater degree of expression in the well nurtured rats. The brains of the nurtured rats also showed higher levels of a chemical (acetyl groups) that facilitates gene expression by binding the protein sheath around the gene, making it easier for the gene to express. They also had higher levels of an enzyme that adds acetyl groups to the protein sheath.


In the non nurtured rats the changes were quite different, they were anxious and fearful. The same gene repressing substance that Randy Jirtle found in her work (that I cited above), the methyl groups, were much more prevalent in the hippocampi. It bonded to the DNA and inhibited the expression of the gene involved in dampening stress. To test the hypothesis that these two substances were causing epigenetic changes in the Rats they injected the fearful rats with a substance that raised the number of acetyls in the hippocampus. Sure enough, the behaviour of the rats changed and they became less fearful and better adjusted.


A recent article in scientific american addresses this issue head on (sorry, need subscription to view all)

Determining Nature vs. Nurture

Molecular evidence is finally emerging to inform the long-standing debate

Psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists have jousted for years over how much of our behavior is driven by our genes versus the environments in which we grow up and live. Arguments have persisted because there has been little hard evidence to answer basic questions: How exactly do genes and environment interact to determine whether someone will become depressed, say, or schizophrenic? And can environmental interventions such as drugs or psychotherapy really alleviate disorders that are largely determined by genes?

The article goes on to note that depressed and anti social behaviour in mice is accompanied by methyl groups sticking to genes, and also extends this research to humans, as the brains of schizophrenics also show changes in the methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths.


Experiments have shown a striking link between our state of mind, such as childhood stress, and later disease. ACE (adverse child experiences) conducted detailed social, psychological and medial examinations of some 17,000 people over a five year period. The study showed a strong inverse link between emotional wellbeing, health and longevity on the one hand, and early life stress on the other. People in a dysfunctional family were five times more likely to be depressed, three times more likely to smoke, thirty times more likely to commit suicide, and ailments were much more common in the dysfunctional families, increased rates of obesity, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, bone fractures, hypertension, and hepatitis. The genetic link between nurturing and gene expression in children is also now being traced; "One recent study suggests that children with a certain version of a gene that produces an enzyme known as MAO-A (which metabolizes neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine) are significantly more likely to become violent—but only if they were mistreated as children. In this way, an aspect of human behavior might be a bit like the body of the Bicyclus butterfly, driven to one form or another by genes that switch in response to environmental cues, one genotype yielding two different phenotypes for two different environments." (Why we’ve misunderstood the nature-nuture debate - Professor Gary Marcus)


And there are many more examples of our beliefs causing epigenetic changes, the most researched is how our perceptions effect disease progression. Gail Ironson, MD, has shown that there were two factors that are interesting predictors of how fast HIV progressed in the research subjects. The first was the view of the nature of god. Some believed in a punishing god, while other believed in a benevolent god. She observes that, “People who view god as judgemental god have a CD₄ (T-helper) cell decline more than twice the rate of those who don’t see god as judgemental, and their viral load increases more than three times faster. For example a precise statement affirmed by these patients is ‘god will judge me harshly one day’ This one item is related to an increased likelihood that patient will develop and opportunistic infection or die. These beliefs predict disease progression even more strongly than depression” (From: View of God is associated with disease progression in HIV. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 22–25, 2006, San Francisco, California. Abstract published in Annals of Behavioural Medicine 2006)


(Do Positive Psychosocial Factors Predict Disease Progression in HIV-1? A Review of the Evidence) “Spirituality may be viewed as another type of coping. Men and women with HIV studied during the HAART era who endorsed more spirituality after their HIV diagnosis had a slower decline in CD4+ cell counts and better control of VL over 4 years (18). Fitzpatrick et al. (19) followed 901 HIV infected persons for 1 year and found that participation in spiritual activities (e.g., prayer, meditation, affirmations, visualizations) predicted reduced risk of dying, but only in those not on HAART. Another HAART era study found significantly lower mortality over 3 to 5 years for those with HIV who had a spiritual transformation (20). Furthermore, the spiritual belief that "God is merciful" was protective of health over time, whereas the belief that "God is judgmental and punishing and is going to judge me harshly some day" was associated with a faster deterioration of CD4+ cells and poorer control of the HIV virus (21). Thus, view of God may be either helpful or harmful, depending on the nature of that belief.”



Mapping the protein pathways by which thoughts and behaviours, such as nurturing, facilitate or suppress gene expression helps us understand the implications of our behaviour and beliefs, and their role on our health and longevity. Our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs obviously play a large role on an epigenetic basis.

 

[drkitten]

Mapping the protein pathways by which thoughts and behaviours, such as nurturing, facilitate or suppress gene expression helps us understand the implications of our behaviour and beliefs, and their role on our health and longevity. Our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs obviously play a large role on an epigenetic basis.

You obviously didn't understand a word of the articles you just spammed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You obviously didn't understand a word of the articles you just spammed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Can we agree that this statement from Mr Niles edridge to demonstrate the current situation is roughly accurate; "genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists."

The old view that our genes contain indelliable instructions governing the functioning of our bodies is a school of thought with little evidence today. We now understand that a whole host of other factors determine which genes are expressed. Some are physical, like excercise, diet and lifestyle. Others are metaphysical, like beliefs, attitude, spirituality and thoughts.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A 2007 harvard study exmained the difference between physical exertion, and physical exertion plus belief. They studied 84 maids who cleaned rooms in hotels, and they split them into two groups. One group heard a brief presentation about how their work qualified as good beneficial excersise. The other group did not.

After just a month, the changes in the bodies of the women was very dramatic, given the only difference between the groups was what they were thinking about their work while doing it. "The exercise-informed women perceived themselves to be getting markedly more exercise than they had indicated before the presentation. Members of the group lost an average of 2 pounds, lowered their blood pressure by 10% and displayed drops in bodyfat percentage, body mass index, and waist to hip ratio."

Mind over muscle: placebo boosts health benefits of exercise

This finding suggests that exercise enhances physical health, at least in part, via the placebo effect--that is, as a consequence of an individual's beliefs and expectations. "If our mind-sets control our psychological and physical reactions and we can control our mind-sets, then we can have direct control over our health," Langer says.

The new study appears in the February Psychological Science.