See also: Tasting light links energy from creation to adaptation

Developmentally defined forebrain circuits regulate appetitive and aversive olfactory learning

reported as: When neurons are ‘born’ impacts olfactory behavior in mice

My summary:

The de novo creation of different cell types is placed into the context of their energy-dependent birth and the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of molecular mechanisms that link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology via olfaction, food odors, and human pheromones.

See for comparison: Metabolism and neurogenesis

…it seems quite obvious that cellular metabolism determining for example the cell’s energy status will be linked to NSPC activity and neuronal differentiation processes, as cell division and differentiation are associated with an increase in cell volume and biomass production and require substantial amounts of energy for DNA replication and organelle synthesis [7].

See also: Extensive variability in olfactory receptors influences human odor perception

…the underlying amino acid sequence can vary slightly for each of the 400 receptor proteins, resulting in one or more variants for each of the receptors.

See my comments:

1) The truth revealed in the context of amino acid substitutions is that the theory of mutation-driven evolution does not make sense and it never did.

See for example: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model

“…the epigenetic ‘tweaking’ of the immense gene networks that occurs via exposure to nutrient chemicals and pheromones can now be modeled in the context of the microRNA/messenger RNA balance, receptor-mediated intracellular signaling, and the stochastic gene expression required for nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution.”

One reason you may not know this yet is that you were taught to believe in a theory that was never supported by experimental evidence from any species.

See for review: An experimental test on the probability of extinction of new genetic variants.

2) For contrast, note the insistence by the moderator of the International Society for Human Ethology’s yahoo group. He thinks that random mutations are the substrates on which directional natural selection acts. This is what happened when I told him that natural selection is for food:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/human-ethology/conversations/topics/48182

Jay R. Feierman, best known to me for his ridiculous question: “What about birds?” wrote:

“It is very sad for me to see that when several different people on this group, all with doctorate degrees, tell you that you are not correct, you don’t consider that they might be telling you something helpful. Instead, you respond with arrogance and ignorance. I’ll add my voice to the other people on this group who have told you that you are not correct in terms of your understanding of what “variation” means in Darwinian biological evolution and what is doing the selecting. Variation is not nutrient availability…”

All experimental evidence of biologically-based energy-dependent cause and effect has proved that Jay R. Feierman and others like him are biologically uninformed and that they choose to remain that way. This evidence from December 2012 shows that nutrient availability is the only variant that can be directly linked from the energy-dependent physiology of reproduction in bacteria to neurogenesis in the human brain!

See also: No two people smell the same

A difference at the smallest level of DNA—one amino acid on one gene—can determine whether you find a given smell pleasant.

See also: Human-specific genomic signatures of neocortical expansion

 My unedited comment:

The genomic signatures are energy-dependent and biophysically constrained by the availability of nutrients. Supercoiled DNA links what is known about nutritional epigenetics to all cell type differentiation in all living genera.

See: Metabolism and neurogenesis

  “…it seems quite obvious that cellular metabolism determining for example the cell’s energy status will be linked to NSPC activity and neuronal differentiation processes, as cell division and differentiation are associated with an increase in cell volume and biomass production and require substantial amounts of energy for DNA replication and organelle synthesis [7].”

I have access to this excellent review on the subject.

See for comparison: [MODERATOR NOTE: Edited for publishing. jrf]

RNA-mediated.com

Now that Clarence Williams is back and jrf is again editing the responses he allows me to post, I hope everyone will see more than 800 examples of what they have missed.

The examples link energy-dependent epigenetically effected alternative RNA splicing from amino acid substitutions such as BDNF Val66Met and COMT Val158Met to cell type differentiation in all cell types of all living genera via what is known about biophysically constrained biologically-based cause and effect.

In the context of what is known about animal models, Samir et al (2016) published: MicroRNAs in the Host Response to Viral Infections of Veterinary Importance MicroRNAs in the Host Response to Viral Infections of Veterinary Importance

 Many people are now aware of the role that virus-driven energy theft plays in all pathology . . ..

Feierman’s passive/aggressive ignorance and his editing of my comments has reached peak efficiency. I do not expect any attempt to contribute to discussion to appear without his editorial omissions of my content.

He exemplifies academic suppression at its finest, and has done that for more than a decade. His legacy of ignorance may be historically significant. His question “What about birds?” was answered by researchers who linked epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones to chromosomal rearrangements in white-throated sparrows, which led others to look for, and to find, evidence of chromosomal rearrangement and biodiversity in other species.

See: Estrogen receptor α polymorphism in a species with alternative behavioral phenotypes

…our results illustrate a detailed chain of events linking a chromosomal rearrangement to changes in overt social behavior.

Their results were perfectly predictable, and so were the Nobel Prize winning results of these two researchers.

  1. Ben Feringa (2016 Chemistry)
  2. Yoshinori Ohsumi (2016 Physiology or Medicine)

1) Dynamic control of chirality and self-assembly of double-stranded helicates with light Feringa with co-authors (2016)

2) Structural Basis for Receptor-Mediated Selective Autophagy of Aminopeptidase I Aggregates Ohsumi with co-authors (2016)

The works, cited above, predictably linked the works of these two 1933 Nobel Prize-winner to everything currently known about biophysically constrained energy-dependent RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry

  1. Thomas Hunt Morgan (Physiology or Medicine 1933)
  2. Erwin Schrodinger (Physics 1933)

1) Thomas Hunt Morgan (September 25, 1866 – December 4, 1945)[1] was an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, embryologist, and science author who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1933 for discoveries elucidating the role that the chromosome plays in heredity.[2]

2) Schrodinger monograph (1944) What is Life?

Thermodynamic cycles of protein biosynthesis and degradation link Schrodinger’s claims about higher temperatures from autophagy to nutrient energy-dependent fixation of RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions and all cell type differentiation in humans via transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.  Everything known to all serious scientists about all cell type differentiation suggests that our immune system typically functions at it best when the supply of nutrients is linked from natural selection for codon optimality to ecological adaptation via the nutrient energy-dependent pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction.

See also: When neurons are ‘born’ impacts olfactory behavior in mice

My summary: The de novo creation of different cell types is placed into the context of their energy-dependent birth and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of the molecular mechanisms that link virus-driven energy theft to all pathology via olfaction, food odors, and human pheromones.

See also: TET proteins drive early neurogenesis

All neurogenesis is energy-dependent and biophysically constrained by RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry. Energy drives neurogenesis.

Proteins do not evolve. If they did, biologically uniformed theorists could claim that virus-driven energy theft linked mutated proteins to the evolution of the human brain without linking the physiology of reproduction to behavior. Simply put, as others have learned sex is a biological variable.

Addressing sex as a biological variable

Each new misrepresentation of biophysically constrained cell type differentiation outside the context of energy-dependent differences or sex as a biological variable must be viewed in the context of how theorists must continue to try to deceive those who might otherwise become serious scientists.

In this case, the journal article about the TET proteins, Tet proteins influence the balance between neuroectodermal and mesodermal fate choice by inhibiting Wnt signaling, claims: “…Wnt3 was shown to activate Nodal expression directly through its proximal epiblast enhancer at the gastrulation stage (58, 59).

58. Blaschke, K., Ebata, K. T., Karimi, M. M., Zepeda-Martinez, J. A., Goyal, P., Mahapatra, S., et al. (2013). Vitamin C induces Tet-dependent DNA demethylation and a blastocyst-like state in ES cells. Nature, 500(7461), 222-226.

59. Hashimoto, H., Pais, J. E., Zhang, X., Saleh, L., Fu, Z.-Q., Dai, N., et al. (2013). Structure of a Naegleria Tet-like dioxygenase in complex with 5-methylcytosine DNA. [Letter]. Nature.

If you are not told that the epiblast enhancers must first link nutrient energy-dependent changes in base pairs to cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions before the structure of functional proteins can be linked to anything else, you are less likely to learn that fixation of the substitutions in organized genomes only occurs via the physiology of reproduction. The pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction links the metabolism of nutrients to all morphological and behavioral diversity in species from microbes to humans via the conserved molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.

There is no question that transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is nutrient-dependent and pheromone-controlled is species from microbes to humans. That fact is now appearing in articles co-authored by the guest editors of a special issue of “Nutrients” who invited me to submit this review of nutritional epigenetics.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems

This atoms to ecosystems model of ecological adaptations links nutrient-dependent epigenetic effects on base pairs and amino acid substitutions to pheromone-controlled changes in the microRNA / messenger RNA balance and chromosomal rearrangements. The nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled changes are required for the thermodynamic regulation of intracellular signaling, which enables biophysically constrained nutrient-dependent protein folding; experience-dependent receptor-mediated behaviors, and organism-level thermoregulation in ever-changing ecological niches and social niches. Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological, social, neurogenic and socio-cognitive niche construction are manifested in increasing organismal complexity in species from microbes to man. Species diversity is a biologically-based nutrient-dependent morphological fact and species-specific pheromones control the physiology of reproduction. The reciprocal relationships of species-typical nutrient-dependent morphological and behavioral diversity are enabled by pheromone-controlled reproduction. Ecological variations and biophysically constrained natural selection of nutrients cause the behaviors that enable ecological adaptations. Species diversity is ecologically validated proof-of-concept. Ideas from population genetics, which exclude ecological factors, are integrated with an experimental evidence-based approach that establishes what is currently known. This is known: Olfactory/pheromonal input links food odors and social odors from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man during their development.

My invited review was returned without review. Since then, one of the guest editors incorporated my claims into this: Insights from Space: Potential Role of Diet in the Spatial Organization of Chromosomes Published: 10 December 2014

The other guest editor incorporated my claims into this: The Interaction between Epigenetics, Nutrition and the Development of Cancer  Published: 30 January 2015

Many academics clearly cannot be trusted with accurate representations of biophysically constrained biologically-based cause and effect. Unless they have a record of accurate representations they are forced to try to establish a record after-the-fact. For example, see: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. This is the 2013 published review that led Justin O’Sullivan and Lynnette Ferguson to request the invited review of nutritional epigenetics, which they returned without review.

My model was cited in Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction

Future work on O. vulgaris olfaction must also consider how animals acquire the odours detected by the olfactory organ and what kind of odour the olfactory organ perceives. The OL acting as control centre may be target organ for metabolic hormones such as leptin like and insulin like peptides, and olfactory organ could exert regulatory action on the OL via epigenetic effects of nutrients and pheromones on gene expression (Kohl, 2013; Elekonich and Robinson, 2000).

It was also cited in Two fatty acyl reductases involved in moth pheromone biosynthesis (see #10)

Studies over the last two decades have pinpointed that the epigenetic effect of pheromone-driven adaptive evolution is one of the major factors driving the successful diversification of Lepidopteran insects10. In moths, a few substitutions in critical amino acids in the key pheromone biosynthetic enzymes are sufficient to create a novel pheromone component11,12.

If others had not cited my model, which is a refutation of neo-Darwinian pseudoscientific nonsense, there would be no record of experimentally established facts that link energy-dependent changes in the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to all cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in all invertebrates and vertebrates.

Keep Reading