This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I added to the definition the one corresponding to the systems dynamics approach.--Jcmg1964 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a new reference to open the discussion about how the formalization of the epigenetic landscape opens the door to the understanding of the interplay between stochastic fluctuation and physical fields in biological development. I think that it would be necessary to link the page with the one corresponding to the ABC model of flower development.--Jcmg1964 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
10/14/2012-- The Impermanence of Epigenes. If Genes could or would not change and be expressed with various factors around it (biotic and abiotic) as an epigene , then the epigene could definitely change by itself too- not necessarily dependent on the gene and its internal environment but also being influenced by the external environment. Therefore to be able to survive successfully there is the polishing of the epigenes for the most capable of existence. Can Natural Selection be an epigenetic factor? From his theoretical biology website..22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)rhyu -- From Savillo's web page- 10/27/2013``Epigenes: How fast (by seconds, years etc.) are the phenotypes (cellular to organismal/cellular) produced/realized by an epigene after the epigenetic interaction with the gene in question took place? A nice topic to dwell with and write about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not happy with the statement - 'Conclusive evidence supporting epigenetics show that these mechanisms can enable the effects of parents' experiences to be passed down to subsequent generations'. I feel 'experiences' is too broad a term, the statement seems to suggest that if I have a terrible experience (such as a very messy divorce) with no physical change in my environment, that somehow my future offspring (from my next wife) will be affected somehow. Is their conclusive evidence that this is indeed the case? I'm aware of the research in Scandinavia showing health problems in the offspring of parents who went through feast and famine - but this is more than a mere experience, there is a large change in the physical environment. Jon the id (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been bold and removed this statement. I think the article now reads better and is less confusing to the average reader Jon the id (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not certain whether the above text was intended to address psychological experiences or not, but I'd reason that it's more than plausible for such an effect to exist: neurological functions often produce significant chemical effects. — C M B J 09:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Shamanism probably evolved with the earliest form of H. sapiens some 30000 years ago (see the Cro-Magnon burials of presumed shamans in Sungir and Arene Candide). Shamanism is the only “religion” that is genetically determined and cannot be learned – unlike recent agrarian (“hypersocial”) religions like Judaism and its followers (Christianism, Islam, Protestantism, Capitalism, Marxism-Communism, Nazism, Hollywood). In fact, shamans become schizophrenic by the age of 10, but then are able to heal themselves completely by some still unknown epigenetic neurological mechanism. In this way, they become deliberate wanderers between two worlds – the empirical world of their own social group, and the “other world”. Shamans are not only extremely stable and strong beings, but they also have astonishing map-making skills (“aerial view during flight”, drawing skills, strategical hunt planning skills) and theory-of-mind skills, i.e., they perfectly know the maps of their surrounding animals (including other group members) and are able to play with them and even to “tame”, teach and heal them as “magicians” and therapeutic “psychopompoi”. Although Julian Jaynes mused about some “schizophrenia” or “bicameral mind” still extending to recent periods (until ancient Greece), there may be a big epigenetic difference between shamans, i.e., schizophrenics who have been able to heal themselves and may then even be able to play with their genes epigenetically by some astonishing mind techniques (with or without the use of hallucinogenics), and the much more common adult schizophrenics in modern (pathological) times – the latter being not able to heal themselves nor being healable by contemporary medicine. Hence, studying the paleogenetic, genetic, and epigenetic mechanisms involved with shamans (prehistoric or recent ones) may be of crucial importance not only for the understanding of the “evolution of our modern mind” per se, but also for the clinical investigation of modern schizophrenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That sounds fishy, could you provide more references, please? Kinaro7 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am considering developing this page further as part of an educational assignment in Fall of 2013. If someone is also working on this, please send me a message and let me know soon so we don't duplicate initial efforts in page development. Ran21 (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is very detailed with many informative definitions. I would suggest connecting the studies of epigenetics on twins a little more. This seems to be the least discussed section and going further than referencing a few articles can make this a stronger submission. For example, explaining research that has shown epigenetics to influence genetic traits and the variation in gene expression for monozygotic and dizygotic. Ran21 (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section about stem cells, specifically talking about the epigenetic differences between reprogrammed iPSCs and embryonic stem cells. I focus on DNA methylation, since recent research focuses mostly on this type of epigenetic modification in iPSCs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
In the definition section, changes in the DNA sequence are excluded. Nonetheless, I seem to remember being taught as a biology student in the 1980's that epigenetic changes in the DNA were by definition heritable changes in the DNA - NOT the normal modifications required for cell differentiation in the lifetime of an organism. Of course the idea was rightly ridiculed by my teachers. The modern notion is a very different use of the term, in fact the two definitions of the term are practically mutually exclusive. I wonder how this confusing situation has come about. It would be useful if an older geneticist who knows better the history of this term can comment and clarify in the article. Much of the misunderstanding of the term may arise from the two very different uses of the word. I cannot imagine that a neuron that differentiates to become a pyramidal cell of a certain kind in a certain part of the brain used in language will have the capacity to confer via epigenetic changes to sperm or egg DNA sequence better linguistic skills to the offspring. Nor can I imagine that any scientist using the term epigenetic today considers something like that to be a possibility. Skamnelis (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)