454 research outputs found

    Role of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance in generational toxicology

    Get PDF
    Many environmental toxicants have been shown to be associated with the transgenerational inheritance of increased disease susceptibility. This review describes the generational toxicity of some of these chemicals and their role in the induction of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease. Epigenetic factors include DNA methylation, histone modifications, retention of histones in sperm, changes to chromatin structure, and expression of non-coding RNAs. For toxicant-induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance to occur, exposure to a toxicant must result in epigenetic changes to germ cells (sperm or eggs) since it is the germ cells that carry molecular information to subsequent generations. In addition, the epigenetic changes induced in transgenerational generation animals must cause alterations in gene expression in these animals' somatic cells. In some cases of generational toxicology, negligible changes are seen in the directly exposed generations, but increased disease rates are seen in transgenerational descendants. Governmental policies regulating toxicant exposure should take generational effects into account. A new approach that takes into consideration generational toxicity will be needed to protect our future populations

    Environmental induced transgenerational inheritance impacts systems epigenetics in disease etiology

    Get PDF
    Environmental toxicants have been shown to promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of disease through exposure specific epigenetic alterations in the germline. The current study examines the actions of hydrocarbon jet fuel, dioxin, pesticides (permethrin and methoxychlor), plastics, and herbicides (glyphosate and atrazine) in the promotion of transgenerational disease in the great grand-offspring rats that correlates with specific disease associated differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). The transgenerational disease observed was similar for all exposures and includes pathologies of the kidney, prostate, and testis, pubertal abnormalities, and obesity. The disease specific DMRs in sperm were exposure specific for each pathology with negligible overlap. Therefore, for each disease the DMRs and associated genes were distinct for each exposure generational lineage. Observations suggest a large number of DMRs and associated genes are involved in a specific pathology, and various environmental exposures influence unique subsets of DMRs and genes to promote the transgenerational developmental origins of disease susceptibility later in life. A novel multiscale systems biology basis of disease etiology is proposed involving an integration of environmental epigenetics, genetics and generational toxicology

    The giant eyes of giant squid are indeed unexpectedly large, but not if used for spotting sperm whales

    Get PDF
    © The Author(s), 2013. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in BMC Evolutionary Biology 13 (2013): 187, doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-187.We recently reported (Curr Biol 22:683–688, 2012) that the eyes of giant and colossal squid can grow to three times the diameter of the eyes of any other animal, including large fishes and whales. As an explanation to this extreme absolute eye size, we developed a theory for visual performance in aquatic habitats, leading to the conclusion that the huge eyes of giant and colossal squid are uniquely suited for detection of sperm whales, which are important squid-predators in the depths where these squid live. A paper in this journal by Schmitz et al. (BMC Evol Biol 13:45, 2013) refutes our conclusions on the basis of two claims: (1) using allometric data they argue that the eyes of giant and colossal squid are not unexpectedly large for the size of the squid, and (2) a revision of the values used for modelling indicates that large eyes are not better for detection of approaching sperm whales than they are for any other task. We agree with Schmitz et al. that their revised values for intensity and abundance of planktonic bioluminescence may be more realistic, or at least more appropriately conservative, but argue that their conclusions are incorrect because they have not considered some of the main arguments put forward in our paper. We also present new modelling to demonstrate that our conclusions remain robust, even with the revised input values suggested by Schmitz et al
    corecore