Epigenetic and physical landscapes linked again?

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: February 6, 2014

We linked the epigenetic and physical landscapes in our 1996 Hormones and Behavior review. They have since been linked at least twice via the de novo Creation of olfactory receptor genes.

Nuclear compartmentalization of odorant receptor genes (2014)

Excerpt: “Significance

The mechanisms underlying odorant receptor (OR) monoallelic and monogenic expression are unclear. We show for the first time that the nuclei of olfactory neurons have a characteristic organization of facultative heterochromatin: it is highly concentrated around a large constitutive heterochromatin block located centrally in the nucleus.”

My comment: This appears to be another report that links the epigenetic landscape and physical landscape of DNA via the de novo creation of olfactory receptor genes.

See also: Smell of Genes Packed Away and my blog post from December 20, 2013 Biophysical evidence of Creation via adaptations: The holy grail of evolutionary biology?

Excerpt:  How keeping active pays off in the olfactory system
On 12/17/2012, I asked: Is what’s being elucidated the bottom-up epigenetic effects on stochastic gene expression via chromatin remodeling, which is controlled by the top-down epigenetic effects of pheromones on reproduction in species from microbes to man?
Also, in our 1996 review, TB addressed the location of heterochromatin in the nucleus in the context of sex differences linked from genes on sex chromosomes to hormones and behavior.
‘The Genome, positioning, timings. There are major structural differences between the X and Y chromosomes; e.g., centromeric aiphoid repeats sequences and distribution of heterochromatin (Graves, 1995; Wolfe et al., 1985). These structural differences correlate with sexually dimorphic chromosomal positioning within the nucleus and with male/female differences in replication timing of the active X, the inactive X, and the Y chromosomes, e.g., Boggs and Chinault (1994), Clemson and Lawrence (1996); Hansen, Canfield, and Gartler (1995). Increasingly the structure and timings within the nucleus are realized as contributing to gene expression regulation (Manders, Stap, Strackee, van Driel, and Aten, 1996; Stein, Stein, Lian, van Wijnen, and Montecino, 1996).”
What I’ve continued to see is experimental evidence that the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled alternative splicing of pre-mRNA establishes an epigenetic continuum of biologically based cause and effect in species from microbes to man via amino acid substitutions and chromosomal rearrangements. What I have not seen is any evidence that others are even vaguely aware of how my model has developed since 1996 .
Either my published works are being ignored, or others would rather continue reporting their “firsts,” which are appearing more than 16 years later. Alternatively, I could be wrong about the most obvious link between the epigenetic landscape and the physical landscape of DNA.  If so, no one has told me why I’m wrong. Many have told me that mutation-initiated natural selection causes speciation, but they have not provided experimental evidence to support what many others have been saying about mutation-driven evolution for several decades.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: