Socio-cultural selection and the sculpting of the human genome: Cultures’ directional forces on evolution and development

This paper argues for culture as a significant determinant of the modern human genome. As progress in the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology have gained greater insights into evolutionary process, aspects of classical proposals explaining how phenotypic responses to environmental experience could make their way into the genotype have returned in new guises. Recent proposals recognize environmental context as a key source of genetic variation by directly altering selection pressures to mask and unmask adaptive value of expressed traits, by reorganizing the combination and expression of genes during ontogeny to provide novel variants for selection, and by influencing developmental trajectories through epigenetic systems acutely sensitive to ontogenetic contexts. The emergence of a robust human socio-cultural niche, shielding humans from more proximate evolutionary pressures that marked our ancestral evolution, has arguably provided the strongest directive force on modern human evolution. Language is discussed as an exemplar of a cultural niche with a powerful self-organizing dynamic and the potential to dramatically alter the human genome.     

EPIGENETICS,REPRESENTATION, AND SOCIETY

In recent decades, advances in the life sciences have created an unprecedentedly detailed picture of heredity and the formation of the phenotype where clusters of simplistic reductionist and deterministic views and interpretations have begun to lose ground to more complex and holistic notions. The developments in gene regulation and epigenetics have become a vivid emblem of the ongoing ‘softening’ of heredity. Despite this headway, the outlook and rhetoric widely popular in the twentieth century favoring the ‘gene’ in the ‘gene?genetic plasticity?phenotype?environment’ tetrad have not been successfully tackled but continue to exist in parallel with a new, equally monochromatic, viewpoint championing genetic plasticity. An examination of epigenetics and its presentation in the public sphere, open to a conversation with the social disciplines and philosophy, could address this dichotomy and contribute to the discourse. This article outlines key biological aspects of epigenetics and discusses the language, presentation and wider resonance of this field of life science research.     

Germline Manipulation and Our Future Worlds

Two genetic technologies capable of making heritable changes to the human genome have revived interest in, and in some quarters a very familiar panic concerning, so-called germline interventions. These technologies are: most recently the use of CRISPR/Cas9 to edit genes in non-viable IVF zygotes and Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) the use of which was approved in principle in a landmark vote earlier this year by the United Kingdom Parliament. The possibility of using either of these techniques in humans has encountered the most violent hostility and suspicion. However it is important to be aware that much of this hostility dates back to the fears associated with In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and other reproductive technologies and by cloning; fears which were baseless at the time concerning both IVF and cloning the use of both of which have proved to be highly beneficial to humanity and which have been effectively regulated and controlled. This paper argues that CRISPR should by pursued through researh until it is safe enough for use in humans but there is no reason to suppose at this stage that such use will be unsafe or unethical (Collins 2015).     

Don't throw the bathwater in with the baby

The Presidential Address of the European Association of Developmental Psychology, Goossens (2012, this issue), this year concerned how genes and environments interplay to shape loneliness and other developmental psychological relevant outcomes. This is a very welcome. However, when developmental psychology is now ready to integrate recent genetic and neuroscience knowledge and methods, I think it would be very wise not to go uncritically through the mistakes that have been made in other disciplines and instead to learn from their hard lessons. I discuss some problems (genes vs. environments, identifying genes for a phenotype, environmental causes of developmental outcomes, and gene×environment interaction and epigenetics) and some suggestions for solutions that can be used to avoid throwing the bathwater in with the baby.     

Post-genomics, between reduction and emergence

It is frequently said that biology is emerging from a long phase of reductionism. It would be certainly more correct to say that biologists are abandoning a certain form of reductionism. We describe this past form, and the experiments which challenged the previous vision. To face the difficulties which were met, biologists use a series of concepts and metaphors - pleiotropy, tinkering, epigenetics - the ambiguity of which masks the difficulties, instead of solving them. In a similar way, the word “post-genomics” has different meanings, depending upon who uses it. Which of these meanings will become dominant in the future is an open question.     

DNA methylation and behavioral changes induced by neonatal spinal transection

Although the importance of epigenetic mechanisms in behavioral development has been gaining attention in recent years, research has largely focused on the brain. To our knowledge, no studies to date have investigated epigenetic changes in the developing spinal cord to determine the dynamic manner in which the spinal epigenome may respond to environmental input during behavioral development. Animal studies demonstrate that spinal cord plasticity is heightened during early development, is somewhat preserved following neonatal transection, and that spinal injured animals are responsive to sensory feedback. Because epigenetic alterations have been implicated in brain plasticity and are highly responsive to experience, these alterations are promising candidates for molecular substrates of spinal plasticity as well. Thus, the current study investigated behavioral changes in the development of weight-bearing locomotion and epigenetic modifications in the spinal cord of infant rats following a neonatal low-thoracic spinal transection or sham surgery on postnatal day (P)1. Specifically, global levels of methylation and methylation status of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (Bdnf) gene, a neurotrophin heavily involved in both CNS and behavioral plasticity, particularly in development, were examined in lumbar tissue harvested on P10 from sham and spinal-transected subjects. Behavioral results demonstrate that compared to shams, spinal-transected subjects exhibit significantly reduced partial-weight bearing hindlimb activity. Molecular data demonstrate group differences in global lumbar methylation levels as well as exon-specific group differences in Bdnf methylation. This study represents an initial step toward understanding the relationship between epigenetic mechanisms and plasticity associated with spinal cord and locomotor development.     

Gene–environment interdependence

The modern understanding of genetic influences, of environmental effects, of mental disorder, and of heritabilities is noted. The practical utility of finding susceptibility genes with a very small effect is questioned. The empirical findings and implications of developmental perturbations, epigenetics, gene–environment correlations and interactions are then discussed. It is noted that the genes involved in gene–environment interactions may be concerned with susceptibility to all environments and not just adverse ones.     

A post-genomic view of behavioral development and adaptation to the environment

Recent advances in molecular genetics and epigenetics are reviewed that have major implications for the bio-behavioral sciences and for understanding how organisms adapt to their environments at both phylogenetic and ontogenic levels. From a post-genomics perspective, the environment is as crucial as the DNA sequence for constructing the phenotype, and as a source of information in trying to predict phenotypes. The review is organized with respect to four basic processes by which phenotypes adapt to environmental challenges, with an emphasis on the data for humans: (1) developmental plasticity, (2) epigenetic mechanisms, (3) genotype-environment correlations, and (4) gene × environment interactions.     

Why aren't identical twins linguistically identical? Genetic, prenatal and postnatal factors

Results of twin studies clearly demonstrate that genetic factors play an important role in the rate of language acquisition and linguistic proficiency attained by normal and impaired children and adults [see Stromswold, K. (2001). The heritability of language: A review and meta-analysis of twin, adoption and linkage studies. Language, 77, 647-723.]. That said, twin-based heritability estimates for language rarely exceed .6 and monozygotic (MZ) twins (who are usually assumed to have identical genetic and environmental endowments) sometimes have very different linguistic profiles. In addition, twins are more likely to suffer linguistic delays and impairments than singletons. Postnatal factors, such as differences in linguistic input twins receive, are usually assumed to be the major reason for these findings. This paper discusses how genetic, epigenetic, and perinatal environmental factors can lower heritability estimates for language, cause MZ twins to be linguistically discordant, and increase the risk of language impairments in twins. We present results from our ongoing Perinatal Environment and Genetic Interaction (PEGI) study that suggest that perinatal environmental factors affect linguistic development more than postnatal factors, and that postnatal factors affect cognitive development more than perinatal factors. Because perinatal factors are overwhelming biological, whereas postnatal factors tend to be psychosocial (e.g., how and how much parents speak to their children), these results support nativist/biological theories of language and language development and call into question empiricist/emergentist theories. These results are also consistent with modularist theories of language. We end by suggesting new methods that can be used to tease apart the effects of prenatal and postnatal environment and to investigate how these factors interact with genetic factors.