Andrew Huberman· PhD
And this depends, we know that this is a true epigenetic effect because it goes on for multiple generations, and also because it requires the machinery that transfers RNAs between generations.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
And this depends, we know that this is a true epigenetic effect because it goes on for multiple generations, and also because it requires the machinery that transfers RNAs between generations.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
What we've shown is that if you take a worm and you change the production of small RNAs just in its brain, in the next generations, their behavior will be different, even though you don't mess with their brains.
It has to be RNA. We can also find the RNAs in the next generation that change. We sequence the actual RNAs that change in the next generation.
And this changes the capacity of the worms in the next generation to find food, to find not only in one generation, but three generations down the road.
And this works is that perturbing the production of these small RNAs in the brain affects, in the end, the expression of a gene in the germline. One gene, it is called SAGE-2, we don't know how it works, but we can do all kinds of controls where we manipulate activity of the gene and see that this also affects behavior.
What we did in C. elegans is we showed that the brain can communicate with the next generations using small RNAs, and that this can change behavior.