Epigenetics
π Health and biotech
Epigenetics: how our experiences leave their imprint on our DNA

Can epigenetics make the link between experience and heredity?

with Agnès Vernet, Science journalist
On January 27th, 2022 |
4min reading time
Jonathan Weitzman
Jonathan Weitzman
Professor of Genetics at Université de Paris
Key takeaways
  • Conrad Waddington first proposed the term epigenetics in 1942 to describe the relationship between the sequence of genes and the way they are expressed. 
  • There are two main molecular processes in epigenetics: marks, which are chemical changes in certain atomic units of DNA, and DNA organisation. 
  • Histones, proteins associated with DNA, allow the DNA molecule to be compacted 10,000 times. 
  • Stress, exposure to toxins or diet can impact on the epigenetic marks of the offspring. 
  • Epigenetic logic shows that education and behavioural changes can impact on the future of individuals.

There is a lot of hope being held out for the field of epi­gen­et­ics. Could it be the sci­ence that will estab­lish the link between the social and the bio­lo­gic­al, beha­viour and hered­ity? While epi­gen­et­ics is an excit­ing dis­cip­line, we must remain vigilant.

Epi­gen­et­ics is in vogue at the moment, but the word is not new. In 1942, Con­rad Wad­ding­ton sug­ges­ted using it to describe the sci­ence that estab­lishes the rela­tion­ship between gen­o­type and phen­o­type – that is, between the sequence of genes and the way they are expressed in the organ­ism. For the Brit­ish sci­ent­ist and philo­soph­er, he con­sidered it to be a concept that mainly con­cern­ing embryon­ic devel­op­ment. His future work opened up the field.

Epi­gen­et­ics is now defined as the trans­mis­sion of stable, her­it­able traits that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence. It cov­ers all sys­tems of gene expres­sion reg­u­la­tion. Two molecu­lar mech­an­isms of epi­gen­et­ics under­lie the pro­cess: mark­ers; chem­ic­al modi­fic­a­tions of DNA that mark genes as act­ive or inact­ive; and the organ­isa­tion of the gen­ome, that is, the way the DNA strand wraps around itself to allow the machinery that reads the sequence to access it – or not. 

From metabolism to genetics

To under­stand the phe­nomen­on, we can study two mice from the same lin­eage: one is brown, the oth­er is yel­low. This dif­fer­ence is not due to a sequence dif­fer­ence with­in a gene, but to the methyl­a­tion of a gene. When the agouti gene is not methyl­ated or only slightly methyl­ated in melano­cytes (skin cells), it is expressed and the mice are yel­low. If the agouti gene is methyl­ated, it is “switched off” by the molecu­lar machinery, and it will not be expressed so the mice will be brown. More import­antly, when we add folic acid to the diet of gest­at­ing mice, the pro­por­tion of yel­low mice in the lit­ters is reduced. As such, we now know that folic acid is essen­tial for the syn­thes­is of a methyl­a­tion donor molecule. Epi­gen­et­ics is there­fore influ­enced by meta­bol­ic path­ways and can respond to extern­al sig­nals, such as a par­tic­u­lar change in diet.

Meta­bol­ism also influ­ences the gen­ome organ­isa­tion via his­tones. These are DNA-asso­ci­ated pro­teins that organ­ise DNA strand wind­ing. They com­pact the DNA molecule 10,000 times and allow it to be con­fined in the cell nuc­le­us. They also reg­u­late the expres­sion of the gen­ome: com­pacted regions can­not be read and the genes con­cerned are con­sidered to be deac­tiv­ated. To bind to DNA, which is neg­at­ively charged, his­tones are pos­it­ively charged. A chem­ic­al modi­fic­a­tion – known as acet­yla­tion – changes their over­all charge and reduces their affin­ity for DNA. A molecule pro­duced by the break­down of sug­ars and lip­ids is required for this reac­tion, thereby provid­ing anoth­er molecu­lar link between meta­bol­ism and gene expression.

Is it simply enough then to change one’s diet to change the expres­sion pro­file of one’s gen­ome? No, for most people the effects of such changes on gene reg­u­la­tion are minor. That said, the embryo is par­tic­u­larly sens­it­ive to epi­gen­et­ic changes and a meta­bol­ic sig­nal can sig­ni­fic­antly affect development.

Many open questions

Exper­i­ments on gest­at­ing mice show that envir­on­ment­al factors, such as stress, expos­ure to tox­ic com­pounds or diet, can have an impact on the epi­gen­et­ic mark­ers of the off­spring. Is this also the case in humans? It is not pos­sible to lock people up to con­trol their envir­on­ment, but we can get around this by study­ing the impact of a major stress on a pop­u­la­tion. When research­ers at the Uni­ver­sity of Leiden stud­ied people who had lived through the great fam­ine of 1944 in the Neth­er­lands, they iden­ti­fied a par­tic­u­lar type of methyl­a­tion in their chil­dren. Some thought this was evid­ence of human epi­gen­et­ic inher­it­ance. How­ever, this obser­va­tion is not proof of a caus­al link and the demon­stra­tion of a mech­an­ism for trans­gen­er­a­tion­al trans­fer of marks is still lack­ing in humans. Indeed, epi­gen­et­ic marks are repro­grammed dur­ing gam­ete mat­ur­a­tion. They there­fore do not appear to be trans­miss­ible to future generations.

Anoth­er idea that is mis­takenly con­sidered proven is the link between bio­logy and beha­viour. In this field, research­ers often study identic­al twins. These are two indi­vidu­als with identic­al or nearly identic­al gen­omes, for whom dif­fer­ences over time are often attrib­uted to the influ­ence of envir­on­ment, life­style and exper­i­ence in the broad sense. A per­fect mod­el for epi­gen­et­ics? No. It is dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish bio­lo­gic­al facts from beha­viour. For example, if a child suffered abuse as a child and his or her des­cend­ants are also vic­tims. Is there a molecu­lar or cul­tur­al mech­an­ism that needs to be addressed here? Dis­cip­lines at the bound­ary between social sci­ence and bio­logy are tack­ling these ques­tions, but some­times they draw hasty conclusions.

Ongoing research

Finally, the fact that the field is becom­ing pop­u­lar can be explained by the revers­ible nature of epi­gen­et­ic marks. While it is at present dif­fi­cult to modi­fy the gen­ome using gene ther­apies, the idea that treat­ments, called “epi­drugs”, can modi­fy a patho­lo­gic­al phen­o­type by act­ing on epi­gen­et­ic marks is attract­ive. This is par­tic­u­larly the case for can­cer, where the com­bin­a­tion of genet­ic and epi­gen­et­ic changes alters the iden­tity of the cell and under­pins tumour behaviour.

Phar­ma­ceut­ic­al com­pan­ies are devel­op­ing inhib­it­ors to modi­fy epi­gen­et­ic marks. But, it is dif­fi­cult to tar­get the marks respons­ible for patho­lo­gic­al phe­nom­ena without alter­ing healthy marks. Patho­lo­gic­al or not, they have the same chem­ic­al nature. Research­ers are devel­op­ing molecu­lar bio­logy tech­niques to try and resolve this issue, but clin­ic­al proof is still lacking.

All this research shows just how act­ive the field of epi­gen­et­ic research is. It also points to a shift in think­ing in bio­logy, in which plas­ti­city replaces the idea of determ­in­ism. We can thus look for­ward to change with optim­ism, and explore how edu­ca­tion and modi­fic­a­tions in beha­viour can have a pos­it­ive impact on the future of individuals. 

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate