Talk:Epigenetic inheritance

This article has a lot of interesting information, but I think that a lot of it belongs in another article (Lamark or Directed/Adaptive Mutagenesis) or should just be de-emphasized in this article. The first three paragraphs should be severely reduced because there isn't any discussion of epigenetics until the fourth paragraph.

We need to distinguish between epigenetics inheritance through mitosis and inheritance through meiosis (to distinguish between developmental phenomena and genetic phenomena). Most importantly, this article gives too much importance to EIS, and I think that the term "Lamarkian" is used in an overly broad manner.

I'll look at the references, but this article is targeted for drastic revision before the beginning of the spring semester unless someone can justify why an article about epigenetics should be dominated by discussion of adaptive mutagenesis and Lamark.

adam

Most of the information here is useful if not essential to understanding some of the concepts presented, particularly to those not particularly well grounded in the governing rules of molecular biology or those unfamiliar with the terminology. Yunyammka

inclusion of endosymbiotic hypothesis?

I'm trying to figure out if we should draw links between Endosymbiotic hypothesis and here. As far as I understand, the first organisms who developed endosymbiotic relationships with mitochondria did pass that information to their descendants without it being in the nuclear DNA. Should I do it? Someone with a better understanding of these topics should let me know. --Jimaltieri 22:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

examples

the first time I heard of EI was in a news article about rabbit fur colors being inherited in a lamarckian way. is this BS? i can't find any reference to it now. if it is a real study, can it be described? the article says this was also observed in maize, but neither this article or the maize article details it. i would like more details. - Omegatron 16:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

The article is fine, but what the heck does this have to do with Lamarck's discredited theory? I can't see any real relationship between this and any form of Lamarckian inheritance. Lamarckian inheritance acts as if mutations are created intelligently, for a purpose, and then passed on. However, that is not the case for epigenetic inheritence at all! - unsigned by 66.155.200.129 at 17:13, 18 October 2005

You're confusing yourself there, 66.155.200.129. Lamarckian inheritance is the inheritance of acquired characters. Remember the example of the giraffe stretching its neck to reach? Nothing to do with intelligent design. Read the articles and you will see! - Samsara 15:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History and etymology - Waddington

I think C. H. Waddington's role should be mentioned in this article. - Samsara 00:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenetic therapy

Just found this link (http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v5/n1/abs/nrd1930.html) in an article from nature with the subject of epigenetic therapy. You might want to consider if this is an emerging therapeutic field and how this would fit into your plans to merge entries. Cheers, Karl

Thanks for the link. My first instinct is that someone is probably trying to create buzzwords to get their next research funded under a new banner. The gulf in terminology and conceptual frameworks between conservative population genetics and epigenetics researchers is wide enough as it is. The article as just been appended to the bottom of my reading list, but do write something about it, especially if you feel you can refute my concerns! - Samsara 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]