Can't remember the show but it said memories are stored in DNA

[piasabird]

This goes back to the argument about whether behaviour is learned or inherited or both. Some of our personality traits may be genetically passed on. However, it seems hard to think that with just sperm and an egg that much can actually be passed on to the next generation.

Koreans tend to believe that while the baby is in the Mother's Womb that it can be affected by the Mother's environment somehow. Maybe at that point at some level the mother and the child are both connected for feeding and also connected on a mental level and able to pass on traits as the baby is growing. This could even be at a sub-conscience level.

I am reminded about this theory concerning whether playing classical music can affect the intelligence of children.

There is also this idea that the gut is also part of our total mental makeup. There may be some truth to this.

 

[Gibsons]

None of that implies that Gadd45b (or any other part of the genome) is dynamically modified to store memories.

GAdd45b modifies the genome, that's what it does. It's a demethylase, removing methyl groups from C5. This is a modification of the genome, by definition. There's no wiggle room on this.

side note: Methylated cytosines tend to be found in regulatory regions (usually promoters), and typically in clusters, or "islands." The methylation status of the promoter influences transcription of the associated gene. Typically, more methylation means less transcription. So, Gadd45b is probably relieving repression of some promoters, allowing transcription of their associated reading frame.

None of that implies that KMT2B (or any other part of the genome) is dynamically modified to store memories.

It's not KMT2b that's being modified (in wild types). It's doing the modification, it is the modifier. It has a methyl transferase activity and thereby alters chromatin structure. This is a dynamic modification of chromatin structure. It's not DNA modification per se, but it is an epigenetic mechanism.

1. This is a review of other published results, not a novel discovery.
2. A specific chemical process described as "Ca2+ entry through N-methyl-D-aspartate-type glutamate neurotransmitter receptors" changes the way in which genes are expressed.
3. Specifically, it has an effect on genes that control various processes in the brain that allow memories to be created via synaptic plasticity.

All correct, but pay attention to the last sentence.

None of that implies that any part of the genome is dynamically modified to store memories.

That last sentence:
".... data pointing out different epigenetic mechanisms (histone acetylation, methylation and phosphorylation as well as DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation) underlying learning and memory."

Histone modifications are modifications of the genome, in the sense of chromatin. If you want to argue "that's not DNA," fine. It's still an epigenetic effect. DNA methylation and hydroxymethylation are, with absolutely no room for debate, modifications of DNA and the genome. And it's dynamic, and it's required for normal memory function.

Nothing in these papers indicates that the memories themselves are in any way encoded into the host's genome.

They show that genome modification is a necessary part of of the normal encoding process.

They don't prove that the memories are encoded there, but they are consistent with the hypothesis.

 

[intx13]

They show that genome modification is a necessary part of of the normal encoding process.

They don't prove that the memories are encoded there, but they are consistent with the hypothesis.

I don't see that the latter follows the former. A paintbrush is a necessary part of the normal painting process. The painting process has a definite effect on the paintbrush, via the build up of paint on the bristles and color mixing, which in turn contributes to the nature of the painting. But the painting itself is stored on the canvas, not the brush.

Certainly the papers you cited do not disprove the hypothesis that memories are encoded in DNA. But you cited them as a rebuttal to colonelciller's claim that "memories are NOT stored in DNA, that is bad sci-fi and pseudoscience." The cited papers are in no way a rebuttal of his claim - they do not address it at all.

 

[Gibsons]

I don't see that the latter follows the former. A paintbrush is a necessary part of the normal painting process. The painting process has a definite effect on the paintbrush, via the build up of paint on the bristles and color mixing, which in turn contributes to the nature of the painting. But the painting itself is stored on the canvas, not the brush.

Agreed. I like the analogy btw.

Certainly the papers you cited do not disprove the hypothesis that memories are encoded in DNA. But you cited them as a rebuttal to colonelciller's claim that "memories are NOT stored in DNA, that is bad sci-fi and pseudoscience." The cited papers are in no way a rebuttal of his claim - they do not address it at all.

One thing I was responding to was

DNA modifications such as methylation have nothing to do with stored individual memories.

That's simply incorrect, DNA modifications have a lot to do with stored memories. Can we agree on that?

Going back to your analogy, DNA methylation (or all of this stuff) might be the paintbrush or the painting or partly both, I don't think we can tell just yet. But even if it's 'just' the paintbrush, it has a lot to do with the painting itself.

Second, they show that it's possible, even plausible. So I would say his claim that it's "bad sci fi and pseudoscience," is indeed rebutted. It's very much grounded in controlled empirical data, so it's not sci fi. It's testable and falsifiable, thus not pseudoscience.

Again, I agree that the modifications have not been demonstrated to actually 'be the memory.' But these experiments could have disproved the hypothesis, meaning they were a test of it. But they didn't.

 

[colonelciller]

again you are way off target.

the subject of the thread cannot be more clear... "memories stored in DNA"

do i need to bold, italicize and underline that for you Gibsons???

DNA methylation has absolutely nothing to do with storing memories in DNA because memories are not stored in DNA, end of story.

DNA methylation may have a role in regulating the storage of memories, memory formation, etc... but that is completely irrelevant to this topic because memory storage occurs in neurons NOT DNA. the topic of this thread is "memories stored in DNA". enough with the straw men already

 

[Gibsons]

again you are way off target.

the subject of the thread cannot be more clear... "memories stored in DNA"

do i need to bold, italicize and underline that for you Gibsons???

No, but proper capitalization would be pretty cool.

DNA methylation has absolutely nothing to do with storing memories in DNA because memories are not stored in DNA, end of story.

Something you've yet to support with any evidence in any way whatsoever. You're just making a declaration.

DNA methylation may have a role in regulating the storage of memories, memory formation, etc... but that is completely irrelevant to this topic because memory storage occurs in neurons NOT DNA.

What do you think governs the behavior of a neuron? Please be specific, cite evidence where needed.

the topic of this thread is "memories stored in DNA". enough with the straw men already

What straw man argument have a I offered? Please be specific.

 

[colonelciller]

ok, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

i' done wasting my time

 

[Howard]

ok, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

i' done wasting my time

Please understand this behavior is not appropriate in HT.