When Darwin
published his theory of biological evolution, the field of genetics had not yet
taken shape. Naturally, Lamarck, whose work on evolution preceded that of Darwin, was also unaware of the crucial role
genetic mechanisms play in the evolution of species. We now have the familiar
concepts of 'genotype' and 'phenotype'. The term genotype refers to the genetic blueprint encoded in the DNA chains.
Phenotype, on the other hand, signifies the characteristics manifested by an
organism; it is the structure created by the organism from the instructions in
its genotype.
In phase-space language, genotypes correspond to the search space, and phenotypes to the solution
space.
Biological
evolution is generally believed to be Darwinian, or rather neo-Darwinian. Lamarck’s
evolution model, or Lamarckism, on the other
hand, was based on two premises: the principle of use and disuse; and the
principle of inheritance of acquired
characteristics (without involving the genotype).
The Lamarckian
viewpoint is not acceptable because it runs counter to the central dogma of molecular biology
(cf. Part 43). The field
of research called epigenetics has brought us close to Lamarckism in a
superficial sort of way, but without
violating the central dogma of molecular biology. It is now clear that
changes other than those in the sequence
of nucleotides in DNA, acquired during the lifetime of parents or
grand-parents, can sometimes be inherited in the next few generations. Gene
expression or interpretation (cf. Part 48) can be
influenced by molecules hitchhiking on gametes (germ cells) and
therefore on genes. This temporarily heritable hitchhiking of the genes
is called epigenetic inheritance.
Genes are
portions of the long sequence of nucleic acids in the DNA chain, and contain
coded information for synthesizing the various proteins. And we have known
since the days of Mendel that not all genes are active all the time. Some genes
are dominant, while others are recessive. One of the Mendelian laws of
genetics is that it is the combination of dominant (or switched on) and
recessive (or switched off) genes, inherited from the parents, that dictates
the characteristics (phenotype) of an offspring. We saw in Part 48 how the presence of certain chemicals can
influence gene expression, and
once a gene has been switched on, it acts as a switch which can alter the ‘on’
or ‘off’ states of other genes. Hormones are one example of what can influence
gene activity.
Can chemicals
other than hormones, for example those in the diet of an organism, also
influence gene expression? The answer is 'Yes'. And not just food, but even the
mental state of an creature can be responsible for the
secretion of chemicals which can influence gene expression.
But from the
point of view of genetics and transmittal of acquired characteristics, the
influence on the transmittal mechanism of genes should be of an irreversible,
perpetual nature; only then can it affect the future generations in a permanent
manner; then only can we have an inheritance
of acquired characteristics by the progeny. This is not found to be the case. Epigenetic
transmission of acquired characteristics does not last for a significantly
large number of generations.
Epigenetic
effects influence the phenotype over a few generations, without changing the
sequence of nucleotides along the DNA chain.
One particular heritable marking of DNA that has
been investigated substantially is that of methylation,
i.e. attachment of the -CH3 group to one or more nucleotides along
the DNA chain.
It has been found, for example, that methylation is quite frequent in cancer cells.
Methylation affects gene expression
and, as a feedforward mechanism, can have serious transgenerational effects.
Epigenetic changes can be passed through the germ line for a few generations.
And epigenetic changes can occur throughout the life time of an individual:
Methylation/demethylation can turn some genes off/on.
Richard Dawkins' phrase 'The Selfish Gene' sums up the essence of neo-Darwinistic
evolution; at least the Dawkins version of it: Natural selection acts only on
genes, via their expression in an organism's body and behaviour. The genes are
not naked. The phenotype is the vehicle that promotes their interest of
propagating to the next generation. The organism is the survival machine for
the genes. Dawkins spoke of the 'selfish gene' because the gene promotes its
own survival, without necessarily promoting the survival of the organism, group
or even species.
There are two aspects of a gene. The specific
sequence of the four nucleic-acid bases (A, T, G, C) along the backbone of DNA;
and the paraphernalia of interactions that occur on the peripheral surface of
the long DNA molecule. The backbone part does not change, except through the
occasional mutation, or during 'chromosomal crossover'. Epigenetics is all about what
happens on the surface, with no influence on the backbone sequence of
the nucleotides.
Genes propagate over many generations
with a high degree of integrity because the replication process involves the
strongly bonded backbone structure of DNA. By contrast, the epigenetic
alterations are of a temporary (few-generations) nature; there is no evidence
that the changes are permanent. In view of this, Dawkins has responded to the
claims of epigenetics by replacing his phrase 'selfish gene' by 'selfish
replicator':
"The 'transgenerational'
effects now being described are mildly interesting, but they cast no doubt
whatsoever on the theory of the selfish gene". . ."Whether
[epigenetic marks] will eventually be deemed to qualify as 'selfish
replicators' will depend upon whether they are genuinely high-fidelity replicators
with the capacity to go on forever. This is important because otherwise there
will be no interesting differences between those that are successful in natural
selection and those that are not."
Dawkins points out that if the
epigenetic effects fade out within the first few generations, they cannot be
said to be positively selected.
//Hormones are one example of what can influence gene activity.
ReplyDeleteCan chemicals other than hormones, for example those in the diet of an organism, also influence gene expression? The answer is 'Yes'. And not just food, but even the mental state of an creature can be responsible for the secretion of chemicals which can influence gene expression.//
That leaves a lot of room for Eugenics. Does it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe important thing to remember is that epigenetic changes do not alter the sequence of nucleotides along the DNA.
DeleteEugenics cannot be effected via epigenetics because epigenetic changes do not alter the sequence of nucleotides along the DNA of the species. They only alter gene EXPRESSION. Epigenetic changes are of a non-permanent nature, not lasting over many generations.
Delete