Scientists at the Columbia University Medical Center have found direct evidence that acquired traits can be inherited without any DNA involvement. The scientists involved experimented on roundworm’s ability to become resistant to certain viruses and how, if at all, the resistivity was passed on to future generations. Lead author of this experiment Oded Rechavi mentions, “the immunity was transferred in the form of small viral-silencing agents called viRNAs, working independently of the organism's genome.” The controversial results sparked other teams of scientists to perform their own controlled experiments, and similar results were found. Doctor Oliver Hobart, a professor at Columbia University experimented and observed the effect of high fat diets on rats and their offspring. The study showed the parent rats became increasingly obese, and the offspring were more susceptible to obesity, further supporting Dr. Rechavi’s conclusions. Dr. Hobart further explains that RNA interference, or RNAi, might be involved in the inheritance of acquired traits. RNAi works by “shutting down” certain genes that may allow the organism to better fight off viruses and genomic parasites. The basis behind these new studies, then, is that the genes inhibited by RNAi will either stay dysfunctional in the offspring genomes, or will be able to recognize similar environments where the parent had genes turned off by RNAi.
The findings of these researchers have huge implications on the future study of genetics and medicine. While Darwin’s theory of evolution is the currently accepted model, Jean Larmarck’s forgotten theory of evolution is now resurfacing. Larmarck’s theory stated that species evolve only when they adapt to their environment and that these traits are then passed down to the offspring, contrasting Darwin’s idea that the random mutations cause evolution. Dr. Rechavi noted that there may be possible therapeutic implications from these discoveries, though this may be a long way off. The possibilities, however, could be a significantly increased resistance to diseases in humans, which would pass down through the generations indefinitely.
Overall I found this article to be interesting and informative. The author did a good job explaining the thought process of the scientists and included many quotes, but did not explain the more complicated procedures and inferences made the scientists well at all. As well, the author did not provide much insight into what the future plans and implications of these new studies could hold.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111205102713.htm
Dan’s review of this article was very different from many of the others I read. Instead of trying to draw the reader in by making a connection, providing scientific background he cut to the chase and summarized the main point in the first sentence. This was rather refreshing. However, despite the good, different opening I feel that the two alternatives should still exist somewhere the review and the absence threw me off.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I liked the article choice as it was about a very controversial article, since Lamarckian evolution has been pretty much dismissed as bunk, and also showed how scientific knowledge is backed up by multiple labs/groups performing the same/similar experiments to assert that a theory legitimate and applicable. He also integrated quotes very well in his review.