Huberman Lab - Dr. Oded Rechavi: Genes & the Inheritance of Memories Across Generations

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to the Uberman Lab podcast where we discuss science and science-based tools for everyday life. I'm Andrew Uberman and I'm a professor of neurobiology and Ophthalmology at Stanford School of Medicine. Today my guest is Dr. Oded Rakhavi. Dr. Oded Rakhavi is a professor of neurobiology at Tel Aviv University in Israel. His laboratory studies genetic inheritance. Now everybody is familiar studies genetic inheritance. Now, everybody is familiar with genetic inheritance as the idea that we inherit genes from our parents and indeed that is true.

Starting point is 00:00:31 Many people are also probably now aware of the so-called epigenome, that is, ways in which our environment and experiences can change our genome and therefore, the genes that we inherit or pass on to our children. What is less known, however, and what is discussed today, genome and therefore the genes that we inherent or pass on to our children. What is less known, however, and what is discussed today is the evidence that we can actually pass on traits that relate to our experiences.

Starting point is 00:00:54 That's right. There is evidence in worms, in flies, in mice, and indeed in human beings that memories can indeed be passed from one generation to the next. That turns out to be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how our parents' experiences and our experiences can be passed on from one generation to the next, both in terms of modifying the biological circuits of the brain and body and the psychological consequences of those biological changes. During today's episode, Dr. Rahavi gives us a beautiful description of how genetics work. So even if you don't have a background in

Starting point is 00:01:28 biology or science by the end of today's episode, you will understand the core elements of genetics and the genetic passage of traits from one generation to the next. In addition, he makes it clear how certain experiences can indeed modify our genes such that they are passed from our parents to us and even transgenerational across multi-generations. That is, one generation could experience something and their grandchildren would still have genetic modifications that reflect those prior experiences of their grandparents.

Starting point is 00:02:00 Dr. Rahavi takes us on an incredible journey explaining how our genes and different patterns of inheritance shape our experience of life and who we are. Before we begin, I'd like to emphasize that this podcast is separate from my teaching and research roles at Stanford. It is, however, part of my desire and effort to bring zero cost to consumer information about science and science related tools to the general public. In keeping with that theme, I'd like to thank the sponsors of today's podcast. Our first sponsor is Element. Element is an electrolyte drink with everything you need and nothing you don't. That means plenty of salt, magnesium and potassium, the so-called electrolytes, and no sugar. Salt, magnesium and potassium are critical to the

Starting point is 00:02:40 function of all the cells in your body, in particular to the function of your nerve cells, also called neurons. In fact, in order for your neurons to function properly, all three electrolytes need to be present in the proper ratios. And we now know that even slight reductions in electrolyte concentrations or dehydration of the body can lead to deficits in cognitive and physical performance. Element contains a science-backed electrolyte ratio of 1,000 milligrams, that's 1 gram of sodium, 200 milligrams of potassium, and 60 milligrams of magnesium.

Starting point is 00:03:10 I typically drink element first thing in the morning when I wake up in order to hydrate my body and make sure I have enough electrolytes. And while I do any kind of physical training and after physical training as well, especially if I've been sweating a lot, if you'd like to try element, you can go to drinkelement. That's elementy.com slash huberman to claim a free element sample pack with your purchase. Again, that's drink element elementy.com slash huberman. And now for my discussion with Dr. Ode de Rahavi. Ode de, thank you so much for being here. Totally my pleasure. Yeah. This podcast has an somewhat unusual origin because I am familiar with your work, but we essentially met on Twitter where you are known for many things but

Starting point is 00:03:55 lately especially You have been focusing not just on the discoveries in your laboratory and other laboratories, but also sort of meme-type humor that relates to the scientific process. And we'll return to this a little bit later. But first of all, I think it's wonderful that you're so active on social media in this positive stance around science

Starting point is 00:04:17 that it also includes humor. But today, what I mainly want to talk about is the incredible questions that you probe in your lab, which are highly unusual, incredibly significant for each and all of our lives, and very controversial, and at times even a little bit dangerous or morbid. So this is going to be a fun one for me and for the audience. Just to start off very basically, you get everyone up to speed because people have different backgrounds. I think most people have a general understanding of what genes are, what RNA is, and so on.

Starting point is 00:04:51 But maybe you could explain to people in very basic terms. And I'll just preface all this by saying that I think most people understand that if they have two blue-eyed parents, that there's a higher probability that they, their offspring will have blue eyes than brown eyes. Similarly, if two brown eye parents hire probability that they have brown eyes rather than blue eyes and so on. But that most people generally understand and accept that if they spend part of their life, let's say, studying architecture, that if they have children, that there's no real genetic reason we assume that their children would somehow be better at architecture because they contain the knowledge through the DNA of their parents.

Starting point is 00:05:35 They might be exposed to it in the home, so-called nature nurture, as a nurture in that case, but that they wouldn't inherit knowledge or other traits. And today I'm hoping you can explain to us why I color, but not knowledge is thought to be inherited. And the huge landscape of interesting questions that this opens up, including some evidence that contrary to what we might think, certain types of knowledge at the level of cells

Starting point is 00:06:01 and systems can be inherited. So that was a very long-winded opening, but to frame things up, what is DNA, what is RNA, and how does inheritance really work? OK, so DNA is the material, the genetic instructions, that is containing everyone of our cells. We have the set of genes, containing the entire set is called the genome. And this is present in every cell of our body, the same set of instructions. And genes are made

Starting point is 00:06:31 of DNA. And they're also contained, and chromosomes, they are containing chromosomes, chromosomes is the DNA and the proteins that condense the DNA because we have a huge amount of DNA in every cell if you need to condense it too. So like, um, thread on a, on a spool, right? Huge amounts that you have to condense. And we have the same gene on the same DNA in every cell in our body. Can I just interrupt and I'll do that periodically just to make sure that, um, people are being carried along. I sometimes find that even remarkable that a skin cell and a brain cell, a neuron, for instance, very different functions, but they all contain the full menu of genes and the same menu of genes. No, it is amazing. It is amazing. And perhaps it's good to have an

Starting point is 00:07:17 analogy, to understand how it works. So this is, I hope this is not a commercial, but this is like the IKEA book that you have in every cell in your body, the instructions to make everything that you need in your house, the chairs, the kitchen, the pictures, but in every room you want something else. So, in the kitchen you want things that fit the kitchen, in the toilet, you want things that fit the toilet. So, you only remove one particular page of instructions, which is the instruction of how to build a chair. And this you place in the living room, okay, and the toilet, you put in a toilet. So the DNA is the instruction to make the genome, the is the instruction to make everything. This is the

Starting point is 00:07:58 e-care book. And in every cell we take just the instructions for make one particular furniture, and this is the RNA. This is the RNA, this is the set. And then at the end for make one particular furniture, and this is the RNA. This is the RNA, this is the set. Then at the end, you'll build the chair, the chair is the protein. So the RNA is our instructions to make one particular protein based on the entire set of possibilities. This is true for one particular type of RNA,

Starting point is 00:08:23 which won't be the style of this conversation, which is messenger RNA. This is the RNA that contains the information for making proteins. In fact, this is just a small percent of the RNA in the cell. So, we have a very big genome and less than 2 percent of it encodes for this messenger RNA. However, a lot of the genomes transcribed to make RNA that does other things. Some of these RNAs we understand, and many of them we don't. I think it's a beautiful description, and IKEA is not a sponsor of the podcast,

Starting point is 00:09:01 so it's a totally fair game to use the idea catalog as the analogy for DNA, the specific instructions for specific pieces of furniture as the RNA and the furniture pieces being the proteins that are essentially made from RNA using messenger RNA. Right. Okay. Thank you for that. So despite the fact that the same genes are contained in all the cells of the body, there is a difference between certain cell types, right? I would say, is it fair to say that there is basically one very important exception, which is somatic cells versus germ cells? And would you mind sharing with us what that distinction is? So, so, so yes, every cell, every cell type is different,

Starting point is 00:09:43 because it expresses, it brings into action different genes from the entire collection and assumes an identity. And so we have cells in the legs, we have cells in the brain, we have in the brain, we have cells that produce dopamine, cells that produce a rotten, and so on. And we can make different separations, different distinctions, but we can make one very important distinction between the

Starting point is 00:10:12 somatic cells and the germ cells. The germ cells are supposed to be the only cells that contributes to the next generation that, out of which, the next generation will be made. So each of us is made just from a combination of a sperm and an egg. These are two types of germ cells. And then the fused and you get one fertilized egg.

Starting point is 00:10:34 And out of this, one cell, all the rest of the body will develop. And what happens in the summer, which are all the cells that are not the germ cells, should stay in the summer, should not be able to contribute to the next generation. This is very important and it's thought to be one of the main barriers for the inheritance of acquired traits, the inheritance of memory and so on, because for example, like the example that you gave in with learning architecture,

Starting point is 00:10:59 if I learn about architecture, the information is encoded in my brain. And since my brain cells can't transfer information to the sperm and the egg, because the information is supposed to reside in synaptic connections between different neurons in particular circuits that developed. So what happens is the brain shouldn't be able to transfer to the next generation. Even simpler example, you go to the gym and you build up muscles, you know that your kids will have to work out on their own. This short out won't happen. This is something that we know intuitively, even if we don't have any background in biology.

Starting point is 00:11:42 And this is connected to the fact that as we said at the beginning, every cell in the body has its own genome. And the next generation will only form from the combination of the genomes in the sperm and the egg. Even if you somehow acquire the mutation or change in your DNA in one of particular brain cells, it will matter because this mutation, there's no way to transfer it to the DNA of the germs that will contribute to the next generation. So despite that, there is, as you will tell us,

Starting point is 00:12:15 some evidence for inheritance of experience, let's call it. Or, and here we have to be careful with the language, right? I just want to put a big asterix and underline in a highlight that the language around what we're about to talk about is both confusing. And at the same time, fairly simple and controversial, right? It's a little bit like in the field of longevity. People sometimes will say anti-aging, some people say longevity. The anti-aging folks feel that longevity is more about longevity clinics.

Starting point is 00:12:45 They don't like that. Anti-aging is related to some other kind of niche clinics, sometimes FDA-proved or a government-approved sometimes not. And so there's a lot of argument about the naming, but it's all about living longer and living healthier. In this field of acquiring traits or the passage of information to offspring,

Starting point is 00:13:04 what is the proper language to refer to what we're about to discuss? There is this idea and I'll say it so that you don't have to that gates back to Lamarck and Lamarckian evolution very controversial, right? And maybe not even controversial I think it's very like offensive even to certain people this This idea of inheritance of acquired traits. The idea that one could change themselves through some activity, use the example going to the gym. We could also use the example

Starting point is 00:13:30 somebody who becomes an endurance runner, then decides to have children with an another endurance runner and has in mind the idea that because they did all this running and not just because they were biased towards running in the first place, but because of the distance they actually ran that they're offering somehow would be fabulous runners.

Starting point is 00:13:49 Okay. This Lamarkey concept is, we believe, wrong. So how do we talk about inheritance of acquired traits? What's the proper language for us to frame this discussion? Right. We have to be very careful, I just said, and there are many complications and many ambiguities. And maybe you could tell us why Lamarkey and evolution, for those that don't know, is so such a stained thing. Right. So it's not polite. Right. Perhaps we'll start with just to just say that we can talk about inheritance, aquarides,

Starting point is 00:14:20 the transmission of parental responses, inheritance of memory, all of these things. And we can also talk about epigenetics and Transgenerational epigenetics and intergenerational epigenetics there are many terms that we need to to to make clear for for the audience the the reason that is so toxic or controversial is very complicated and it goes a long time back

Starting point is 00:14:43 Even way before a. So even the Greeks they talked about inheritance acquired traits. Lamarck is associated with the term but it's probably a mistake, although everyone talks about including people who studied. So Lamarck worked, he published his book about a little more than 200 years ago. And he believed in inheritance acquires trades, absolutely. But just like anyone else in his time, just everyone believed in it. It seemed obvious to them that it was long before Mendel and the rules of genetic inheritance.

Starting point is 00:15:21 And also Mendel was long before the understanding that DNA is the heritable material. So this happens a long time ago. Everyone believed in it, including Darwin. Darwin was perhaps more Lamarke and the Lamarke. Really? Yes, absolutely. Now we're getting into the mean of it.

Starting point is 00:15:38 And this is in the origin of the species. It's in all of his writings. Lamarke didn't even really make the distinction between the generations. He had many other reasons for being wrong, but he connected the terms in Hurtz-Fakwara traits to evolution, and this is some of the reason that he was very controversial even in his time.

Starting point is 00:15:57 There were other reasons, for example, he rejected current day chemistry and thought that he can explain everything based on Aristotelian fluids earth wind fire and water There's still some people on the internet. I think they can discard with chemistry and explain everything That's our earth when we're in fire and fire and this wasn't only biology. It was also the weather and everything So that was part of the reason but Lamar so Lamar made many mistakes, but he did have a full tier of inheritance, which was a big step towards where we are today.

Starting point is 00:16:33 So he had important contributions nevertheless, although he was a mistake about the mechanism, what he believed, like everyone else, drives evolution, is the transmission of the traits that you acquired during your life or the things that you do or don't you do. We talked about use and disuse of certain organs that shape our organs and eventually also the organs of the next innovation. He sounds a little bit like the first self-help public figure, right? Well, this idea, you know, I mean, this is heavily embedded into a lot of the, I'm health and fitness space on the Twitter and Instagram and on the internet, which is that,

Starting point is 00:17:12 and it's the idea that we're sold very early in life, at least here in the United States and probably elsewhere, which is that we can become anything that we want to become, and then that will forever change the offspring, either because of nature or nurture. And this is a very dangerous idea, as I'll explain in a second, and we let two horrible things. This is part of the reason that this is such a taboo.

Starting point is 00:17:34 It's not only self-help, you're helping all this helping yourself. The problem is when you apply to others, and this happens in a very dramatic and horrible way in recent past, as I'll tell you in a second. So Lamak, this is what he believed, and he thought this is how evolution progressed. And later Darwin showed that it's really natural selection, the selecting of the people, of the organisms that are already contained, the particular qualities are selected based on whether they survive or not in particular environments,

Starting point is 00:18:17 and therefore the evolution progresses, they become more common and take over. This is very different, two different explanations. The most common way this is contrasted is the neck of the giraffes. This is a classic example. According to Lamarque, the giraffes had to stretch their neck towards the trees to eat when the trees were high. And because of that, they transmitted these traits

Starting point is 00:18:41 long neck to the children who also had long neck. By the way, you only mentioned this example, a handful of times. It didn't really focus on that. And, of course, into that we just, the Geratet, what happened to be born with the long necks survived because it ate, so it's genetic, heritable materials, you know about genetics,

Starting point is 00:18:59 but take over. And the rest of the Geratet have different heritable materials just die. So this is natural selection versus inheritance for quadrates. There are many reasons why Lamarcki's and in heritons for quadrates became such a bad term. One of the biggest is what happened in the Soviet Union under Stalin, there was a scientist called Lysenko who thought that Mendelius' normal genetics is bourgeois science, shouldn't be done. And whoever did normal genetics was either killed or sent to the Siberia.

Starting point is 00:19:37 And he thought that, just like you said, we can not only we can become everything that we want, but we can grow everything that we want in every field can take. Frozen field and raw potatoes there and so on. And this led to massive starvation, ruined agriculture in the Soviet Union, also ruined sites for many, many years and put a very dark cloud on the entire field. And only probably in the 80s or something like this, the field started to recuperate for that. Aside for that, which is a very dramatic thing, there was also crazy stories around an

Starting point is 00:20:15 attempt to prove the inheritance or quite rates. Despite the realization of many scientists, it is something that is very rare or that normally doesn't happen. That is not a normal way that inheritance works. And I can tell you about two such dramatic cases that will illustrate it. So in the beginning of the 20th century, in Vienna, there was a researcher called Paul Camere, who was a very famous and also very colorful figure, was a very famous and also very colorful figure, who did experiments on many different types of animals. He did experiments on toads,

Starting point is 00:20:50 that are called the midwife's toad, because the male carries the dx. And there's a beautiful book about it from Castler telling the story of what happened there. And there are a couple of types of toads. Some of them live under water and some of them live on land. And these toads are different in the shape and in the behavior. So of course, the capacity to live under water is one thing,

Starting point is 00:21:22 but also the morphology and appearance changes. The totes live underwater, develop these noopital pads, these black pads on their hands that allow the males to grab onto the female without slipping for mating, for mating. And the ones on land don't have them. He claimed that he can take the totes and train them He claimed that he can take the totes and train them to live under water, changing the temperature and all kinds of things. It's a very difficult animal to work with. Eventually, according to camera, they will acquire the capacity to live under water

Starting point is 00:21:56 and also change the physiology and develop these black, noopital pads on their heads. With this discovery, he traveled the world, became very famous. This was just the beginning of the previous century. As the person who found the proof for inheritance for carat traits, despite the controversy and so on, and the beginning of the realization of how it actually works with DNA and so on, not with DNA, but with the natural selection DNA came later. And people didn't believe in he was actually under a lot of attacks, but it seemed convincing. At the end, what happens is that they found that he injected ink to the totes to make them become black,

Starting point is 00:22:46 to have this noepital paste. So we fake the results. And it couldn't stand at the accusations and kill themselves. Wow. In this book by Kessler, it's just maybe it was the assistant to did it. Who killed him?

Starting point is 00:23:01 No, no. We injected it to sort of saving from because the the samples lost the coloring or something like that. So it might be who knows what. Well in science, whenever there's a fraud accusation or controversy, it's not uncommon to see a passing of responsibility. There are recent cases, there are ongoing cases now where it's a question of who did what, etc. Actually I have two questions before the second story. I'm struck by the idea that he was traveling and talking.

Starting point is 00:23:29 I'm guessing this was before PowerPoint and keynote, but also before transparencies, which are actually were still in place when I was a graduate student. For those of you who don't know transparency, they're basically transparent pieces of plastic paper that you put onto a projector, and then you can write on them and do demonstrations, but you can show photographs and things like that. So how is he giving these talks and what he traveled with the toes?

Starting point is 00:23:55 So he traveled with a samples. I see. And I'm basing this on this Kessler book, which is on its own, very controversial, it's more of a beautiful story than perhaps the truth. But according to the story, he had to stand on one side of the lecture hall with his hands behind the back while others would examine the samples and pass them around. But he cheated, someone cheated. He probably did it, at least that's what most people think. But this wasn't replicated.

Starting point is 00:24:25 I mean, also, I don't think anyone tried to replicate it. Interesting, this is just a point about replication, and actually another tragic example, not, but a few years ago, Sakai, who was, as far as we knew, was doing very accomplished work on the growth of retinas, literally growing eyes in a dish. I think everyone believes that result, but then there were some accusations about another result

Starting point is 00:24:50 that turned out to be fraudulent and Sakai killed himself. This was only about five, 10 years ago. So it still happens. Yeah, I think it's rare, but it does happen. Especially in this play high-poly. I would argue, I'd love to know what your number is, but I would argue that 99% of scientists are seeking truth and are well-meaning honest people. I totally agree.

Starting point is 00:25:13 And I think that even when people are wrong, it's mostly not because they're evil and trying to act like they maybe don't really want to believe their results or they're all kinds of way to be wrong and even to bend truth without just blatant fraud. But this is according to the story, an example of a very bad fraud, which is I agree is rare because most scientists, as you said, this also, my opinion, are just trying to discover truth and do the best they can. Well, why else would you go into it? Because it's certainly not a profession to go into if you want to get raised.

Starting point is 00:25:48 It's not the money yet. And it's probably not even a profession to go into if you want to get famous. If you want to be famous, you should go to Hollywood or become a serial killer, because they'll make specials or not. Please don't. But please don't do either.

Starting point is 00:26:00 No, Hollywood, I suppose, for some is fine. But in any case, okay, so camera around 1907, 1906. This is slightly before the whole the controversy broke out after the first world war. Okay. Yeah. Great. So camera is gone, his toads with their either ink or whatever, nupital pads, they have to go back to mating on land. I'd like to take a quick break and acknowledge one of our sponsors, Athletic Greens. Athletic Greens, now called AG1,

Starting point is 00:26:31 is a vitamin mineral probiotic drink that covers all of your foundational nutritional needs. I've been taking Athletic Greens since 2012, so I'm delighted that they're sponsoring the podcast. The reason I started taking Athletic Greens and the reason I still take athletic greens once or usually twice a day, is that it gets to be the probiotics that I need for gut health.

Starting point is 00:26:51 Our gut is very important. It's populated by gut microbiota that communicate with the brain, the immune system, and basically all the biological systems of our body to strongly impact our immediate and long-term health. And those probiotics in athletic greens are optimal and vital-term health, and those probiotics and athletic greens are optimal and vital for microbiotic health.

Starting point is 00:27:08 In addition, athletic greens contains a number of adaptogens, vitamins and minerals that make sure that all of my foundational nutritional needs are met, and it tastes great. If you'd like to try athletic greens, you can go to atlettegreens.com slash huberman, and they'll give you five free travel packs that make it really easy to mix up athletic greens while you're on the road and the car on the plane, et cetera. And they'll give you a year supply of vitamin D3K2. Again, that's athletic greens.com slash huberman to get the five free travel packs and the year supply of vitamin D3K2.

Starting point is 00:27:36 Yeah, okay. So this is, forget about that. We also had the Lisbonquay episode. You know, that's a very big thing. And then in the US, there was in the 70s and 80s, So this is, forget about that. We also had the Lisdenko episode, you know, that's a very big thing. And then in the US, there was in the 70s and 80s a researcher named McConnell, who did very different experiments. And he was also a character.

Starting point is 00:27:55 He worked on, so he was the Joker type of thing. And he published many of his results in a journal that he published that was called Warm's Breeders Gazette and had many cartoons and he started his own journal. Yes, and that's one way to publish a lot. But I also published in very respected journals in Paul, but it was a psychologist, American psychologist, and he worked on a warm, which is a flat warm, which is called Plenarya. This is very interesting.

Starting point is 00:28:26 This is different than what we'll discuss today, different type of worm. You know, worms are very common. So four out of five animals on this planet is a worm. Really, yes, numerically, if you just count the individuals. So we are the exception. But I'll talk about it very different warm later. This is a flat one, this is called Plenarya.

Starting point is 00:28:49 And it is remarkably many ways. It was also a model that many people worked on, including the fathers of genetics, that people who started genetics like Morgan, they worked on it in the beginning, but it's very, very how to study genetics in this warm. Because unlike us, unlike what we explained before about how we all develop from sperm and an egg,

Starting point is 00:29:09 these worms, most of the time, reproduce just by fission. They're tered themselves apart. So they have a head and a tail, and the part of the head would just ter itself apart from the tail. Growing new, the head will grow a new tail, the tail will grow a new head. You can even cut them to 200 pieces, each piece will grow into a new one.

Starting point is 00:29:29 Wow. And they have centralized brains with lobes and everything. And even this degenerate eyes. He studied these worms, and he said that he can teach them certain things. Associations by pairing all, I don't remember exactly what he did. I think it was either lights or electricity with shock them with shock them with other things and he could train them to learn and remember particular things.

Starting point is 00:29:58 Like if they get shocked on one side of the tank. Exactly. And then avoid that side of the tank. Yes. And then I guess the question is whether or not they're ripped apart cells and their subsequent generations will know to avoid that side of the tank without having ever been exposed to the shock. Right.

Starting point is 00:30:15 So without ever being exposed to shock or whether the new generation, the new heads will be able to remember to learn faster. That's another subtlety that you might have. And this is what he said, he said, he can teach him certain things, remove cut of their heads and new heads with all the brain will grow and that he will contain the memory. This was the start of the controversy, not the end of it, only the beginning. Then he said something even much wilder, which is he can train them to learn certain things and then just chop them up, put them in a blender and feed them to other worms because they are cannibalistic, they eat

Starting point is 00:30:56 each other and that the memory will transfer through feeding. This sounds such a dramatic feel. And by the way, this this opened the field. So people did experiments that not only in Plenary about engulfed fish and certain rodents and did this memory brain transfer essays in planting brain. And this is in the back when they they had an idea that some memories could be more like coolers, could have a more like a form, which is very appealing, it's almost like science fiction, you can have a memory in a tube. And like the way we think about memory normally,

Starting point is 00:31:31 which is something that is distributed in neuronal circuits and encoded in the strength of particular sign ups and so on. But the idea that you can take a memory and reduce it into a molecule and transfer it around is very, very interesting. So this way, it's attracted so many people this ended up in a catastrophe. So there was an NIH investigation,

Starting point is 00:31:53 couldn't no one can replicate anything. It was a big mess. Although there were always scientists who said, yes, we can replicate this and this. So they were in the back. McConnell's stuff was different. Again, people thought that they couldn't, that's their problem, replicating,

Starting point is 00:32:10 but it wasn't necessarily, but some people replicate, but it wasn't necessarily about replicating the whole thing. But the question was, did the memory the transfer is specific or is it an overall sensitization that transmits and so on? Right, like you could imagine that what gets transmitted is a hypersensitivity to electricity as opposed to the specific location that the electricity was introduced.

Starting point is 00:32:31 Or even more than that, even just, you know, hypersensitivity in general, more, you're more vigilant and you'll learn anything so fast. That's also possible. But his problem wasn't the accusation, it was much worse, that he was targeted by the Yuna bomber. This terror is to send letters with bombs to many scientists for 15 years. And he's assistant, again, it's assistant, I think, exploded, and this is how his line of research ended. Just recently, a few years ago, a researcher from Boston,

Starting point is 00:33:03 Mike Levin, and his postdoc, Tal Shomrat, replicated some of McConnell's experiments with the cutting of the head, but in a very, using very fancy equipment and automated tracking. And they could say that they couldn't replicate some of these his experiments. Really? And they don't open packages in that lab. They have, they have interesting stories. You should have Mike over familiar with his with a bit of his work. Now, I didn't realize they had done that experiment. So they published it a few years ago.

Starting point is 00:33:34 And this is very interesting, but of course, they don't know how it happens. The mechanism is unclear. McConnell went a step further than this this and what's fascinating is that these are experiments of Werdani in the 70s and 80s. He said that he can not only transfer the memories through chopped animals, but he can take the animals that learned and break it down into different fractions. So just the DNA, just the RNA, just the fats, the proteins, the sugars. And he said that the fraction that transmits the memory is the RNA. And this is very, very interesting because it was a long time before everything that we know about RNA today.

Starting point is 00:34:14 I'll soon go into my research, explain what we do. And then you'll see that you can actually feed worms with RNA and have many things happen. This is everyone knows this is true. So this way was so appealing to go back to and study it by the way. At the time, it became popular knowledge. Everyone knew this experiment. There was a Star Trek episode about it from 84.

Starting point is 00:34:38 There are comics books about it, books about it. And people were eating RNA because they thought that there was RNA in memory. This was, of course, complete nonsense. But this was, it made a lot of noise in these years. Which is part of the reason it was so toxic until recently. You couldn't touch it because it was considered

Starting point is 00:34:56 pseudo-science, likely Senko, like Camernaulovice. So this was just something you didn't want to touch at all. Okay. And then we go back to these studies about inheritance of memory or inheritance for acquired traits in other organisms, in members, in humans, and aside from the dark clouds that these episodes left. There were also theoretical problems of why this can't happen. Barriers that have to be breached for this to happen. And you can talk about many different types of barriers.

Starting point is 00:35:38 And you can also narrow it down to two main barriers. First barrier, we mentioned it. This is the separation of the summer from the the German. Right, the somatic cells, they can change in response to experience, the sperm and the egg, the so-called germ cells, cannot. That's the idea. Oh, they are isolated when what happens in the soma. Okay. The main who first thought about this barrier is called Weisman, August Weisman, is what is in the 19th century. So it is called today the Weisman barrier, separation of the summer from the German, only the German line transmitting

Starting point is 00:36:10 for matter to the next generation. And this is also called the second law of biology. So this is very, very fundamental. So natural selection is the first one, this is the second one, because it's so important to how we work, to how our bodies work. Weisman, by the way, thought that if you will have direct influence of the environment on the germ cells,

Starting point is 00:36:29 then perhaps this could transfer to the next generation. So he wasn't as strict as his barrier suggests, but this is not how most people remember it. But he thought that this is unnecessary. It's possible that natural selection can expand everything. And he compared to a boat, which is in the ocean, it is sailing, and it has a sail open.

Starting point is 00:36:54 So you don't have to assume that it has an engine. The wind is blowing. You don't have to assume other things. The natural selection might be enough. So this barrier is still standing, but not entirely. It is breaching some organisms. We'll go into that in a second. The other barrier is the, now we have to understand the other

Starting point is 00:37:17 barrier. We have to talk about epigenetics. We have to define epigenetics and what it is. An epigenetics is another term which people misuse horribly and say about everything that is epigenetics, even people from the field. The word itself, the term was defined in the 40s by Wettington, Conrad Wettington.

Starting point is 00:37:41 And he talked about the interactions between genes and their products that in the end bring about the phenotype of the consequences and how genes influence development. Later, people discovered mechanisms that change the action of genes, the different mechanisms, and started talking about these as epigenetics, for example, the DNA is built out of four basic elements. It's out the ATG and C, right?

Starting point is 00:38:14 And they can be chemically modified. So in addition to just the information that you have in the sequence of the DNA, you also have this information in the modification of the bases. The most common modification that has been studied more than others is modification of the letter C of cytosine, methylation, addition of a methyl group to this C. And this can be replicated, so after the DNA, the cells divide and replicate their genetic material. In certain cases, also these chemical modifications could be added on and replicated and be preserved. For those who aren't as familiar with thinking about genes and gene structure and epigenetics,

Starting point is 00:39:00 could we think of these, you mentioned it for nucleide bases, TGA, D, but could we imagine that through things like methylation, it's sort of like taking the primary colors and adding a changing one of them a little bit, changing the hue just slightly, which then opens up an enormous number of new options of colored integration. Absolutely, just more combinations, more ways, more information. There are the modifications of the DNA, and also there are the modifications of the proteins which condense the DNA that are called histones. So they are also modified by many different chemicals. Again, methylation is a very common modification.

Starting point is 00:39:40 A methylation, even serotonin, the serotonination of histones. Serotonin. This is a new paper from Nature from a few years ago. Can change DNA. Not the DNA itself, but the protein that condenses it. Essentially how, in the analogy I used before, of how the threat is wrapped around the spool, essentially. Yes.

Starting point is 00:40:00 And this determines the degree of condensation of the DNA, whether the gene is now more or less accessible and therefore can perhaps be expressed more or less. This is one way to affect the gene expression and bring about the function of the gene. There are many additional ways, not the only one. So then when all of this was starting to be lucidated, people talked about epigenetics.

Starting point is 00:40:27 I started talking about these modifications. Forgot the original definition. And when people said epigenetics, they talk about methylation and things like that. And again, to just frame this up, so we could imagine two identical twins, so-called monozagotic twins. We could go a step further and say that their monocorionic

Starting point is 00:40:44 and they were in the same placental sac because twins can be raised in separate sacs, slightly different early environments. Let's say those two twins are raised separately. One experiences certain things, the other things they eat different foods, etc. And there is the possibility through epigenetic mechanisms that through methylation, acetylation, serotonin, production, et cetera, that the expression of certain genes in one of the twins could be amplified relative to the other. So we know that even I totally identical twins,

Starting point is 00:41:14 genetically, they are identical, but they look different. And they are different. We experience, we all experience it. And this can happen because of these epigenetic changes. Or it can happen because of other mechanisms, because genes respond to the environment, genes don't exist in a vacuum. There are, genes need to be activated

Starting point is 00:41:33 by transcription factors, and there's a whole, there's a lot of machinery that is responsible for making genes function. So we are a compilation of our genetic material and the environment. So when people talk about epigenetics and talks just about the modification, they're also not exactly right. My definition of epigenetics is inheritance, which

Starting point is 00:41:58 occurs either across cell division, or more interestingly, also for this podcast now across generations, not because of changes to the DNA sequence, but through other mechanisms. I think this is the most robust definition that allows you to understand what you're talking about. And then again, and then the question is, if this happens, then what are the molecules that actually transmit information and questionations? Are they these chemical modifications to the DNA or to the proteins that condensate DNA

Starting point is 00:42:36 or are there other agents that transmit information and which molecules can do it? And I actually think that the most interesting players today are RNA molecules. But before I go into that, I just want to say that when we talk about the barriers to epigenetic inheritance or the barriers to inheritance of acquired traits, in addition to the separation of the summer from the germland

Starting point is 00:42:58 that we discussed, the other main barrier, it's called epigenetic ripogaming, which is that we acquired our cells, the genetic material in our cells, acquires all kinds of changes, this chemical changes, modifications we discussed. But these modifications are largely erased in the transition between generations. So in the germline, in the sperm and the egg, and also in the early embryo, most of the modifications are removed so we can start a blank slate

Starting point is 00:43:34 based on the genetic instructions. And this is crucial, otherwise, according to the theory, it's not clear that actually true because in some organisms, it doesn't really happen. We will not develop a causing to the species' typical genetic instructions. To preserve this, we raise the oldest modifications that start on you. This is in memories and in humans. This is allowed to do most of the modifications in the sperm and in the egg are removed about 90% of them.

Starting point is 00:44:06 Some remain, which could be interesting. So the idea, if I understand correctly, is that there's some advantage to wiping the slate clean and returning to the original plan. In the context of the IKEA furniture analogy, the instruction book is the one that's issued to everybody, okay, or every cell, right? Only certain instructions are used for certain cells, say a skin cell or a neuron or a liver cell or any other cell for that matter.

Starting point is 00:44:38 Through the course of the lifespan of the organism, those specific instructions are adjusted somewhat. Okay, so maybe like Ikea furniture, sometimes you send you seven, not eight of particular screws, or they send you the proper number, but you put them in the wrong place, and it sort of changes the way that the thing works a little bit. Once that assuming furniture could reproduce, but here in the analogy of the furniture as the cell or the organ in that makes with another organism, that needs to be replicated. And so the idea is to take the instruction, but go through and erase all the pen and pencil

Starting point is 00:45:14 marks, erase all those additional little modifications that the owner used or introduced to it, and return to the original instruction. Right. Because if you want to bring back the instruction book, you want it to have all the potential to make all the furniture. You don't want it to be restricted to the ones that you made in the particular room. So it's essentially the opposite of acquired traits and characteristics based on your, what we say in biology, geek speak, lineage based experience, but what your parents'

Starting point is 00:45:40 experience, right? In some ways, we want to eliminate all that and go back to just the genes they provided. Yes, but it's more complicated. It's more complicated because we have some very striking examples, even in memos, where some of the marks are maintained. For example, the classic example is imprinting. Imprinting is a very interesting phenomena. The way DNA works is that you inherit a copy for every chromosome from your mother and your father.

Starting point is 00:46:14 And then you have in every cell of your body two copies, if you're a human, of every chromosome. And then, so every gene is represented twice. These are called alleles, the different versions of the genes. And the thought is that once you enter the neural generation, the two copies that you inherited are equal. It doesn't matter whether you require them from your mother or from your father, right?

Starting point is 00:46:42 There are some situations where it does matter. There is a limited number of genes that are called imprinting genes where it does matter whether you inherited from your mother or your father. And this is happening through epigenetic inheritances, not because of changes to the DNA sequence, but because of maintenance of these chemical modifications

Starting point is 00:47:02 across generations. And as I recall from the beautiful work of Catherine Dulach, however, that especially in the brain, there is evidence that some cells contain the complete genome from mom or the complete genome from dad. And it can also switch during your life. So for her work show that early on in your life, it's different, whether you express the

Starting point is 00:47:26 maternal or paternal copy than when you're more mature. So parents and children take note, you know, for those of you that are saying, oh, you know, the child is more like you or more like me, that can change across the lifespan. And if you're thinking about your parental lineage and wondering whether or not you quote unquoteunquote inherited some sort of trait from mother or from father, it can be of course both or it can be just one or just the other. Which I think most parents tend to see and describe in their children from time to time. That's just like the father. That's just like the mother. Right, right. But it's important to know that in this situation, the environment played no role.

Starting point is 00:48:09 This was just whether it passed to the mother or the father. It's not that something that happened to the mother or the father affected this, okay? So this is slightly different. The question is now, can the environment change the hereditary material? Okay, so it's very important to understand that there's a difference between nurture and nature. And this is very confusing. People are, it's a little subtle.

Starting point is 00:48:35 So for example, people tell me, I'm growing horses for many years. And I just know that this horse has a particular character. It's very different from the other holes. And so this is epigenetic inheritance. No, it could be just genetically determined, yes, this horse inherited a different set of genetic instructions. So it is different.

Starting point is 00:48:55 It doesn't have to be about epigenetics. Epigenetic inheritance means that the environment of the parents somehow changed the children. And there are these two main barriers that are fear as bad, bottlenecks that we have to think what type of molecule and how they can be bridged. So one possibility is that it's really this limited number of chemical modifications that survive, which is about 10% also. That could be very interesting.

Starting point is 00:49:24 Not a small number. Not a small number, but perhaps, perhaps. that survives, which is about 10% also. That could be very interesting. Not a small number. Not a small number, but perhaps, perhaps. This is one possibility. The other possibility is that there are other mechanisms. The situation now in humans is that it's just really unclear. What transmits? If it can transmit, and which molecule does it.

Starting point is 00:49:45 We'll talk later about other organisms where it is a lot more clear. But in humans and in mammals in general, there are many examples for environments that change the children. Whether you need to invoke an epigenetic mechanism to explain this phenomena, this is unclear. First of all, because it's how to separate nurture from nurture. And second, because the mechanism is just not understood. So there are classic examples. For enumens, there were periods of famine, starvation in different places in the world.

Starting point is 00:50:23 In the Netherlands, in China, in Russia, where people did huge epidemiological study to study the next generation and saw that the children of women who were starved during pregnancy are different. have different birth weights, glucose sensitivity, and also some neurological higher changes of getting some neurological diseases. And this has been shown in very large studies. Is there ever an instance of which starvation or hardship of some kind, some challenge, sensory challenge, or survival-based challenge led to adaptive traits. Yes, there are in different organisms, it could be as a result of a trade-off, so there could be a downside as well. But for example, there are two examples that come into mind. One of them is that if you stress male mice or rats, I don't remember,

Starting point is 00:51:29 this is work of Isabelle Mansui in the ETH in Switzerland. If you stress the males, you can do it in many different ways. I don't remember exactly how they did, but you can do, you can separate them from their mothers, you can do social defeat, all kinds of things. Then the next generations are less stressed. They show less anxiety. So the threshold for stress is higher? Yes. However, I think they have memory deficits and other metabolic problems. Which may be an advantage for dealing with stress. Could be. It could. I don't have any direct evidence up, but there's some simmering ideas that, you know, our ability to anchor our thoughts in the past, present, or future seems very adaptive in certain context, in other context, it can keep us ruminating and not, right, you know, adaptively present to our current challenge.

Starting point is 00:52:16 Another example is that nicotine exposure, this is, I think, the work of Oliver Hando from UMES is, from not mistaken, these are not my studies, but they improve the tolerance to exposure to similar drugs in the next generation. The interesting thing here is that it's very non-specific. So you treat them with nicotine, but then in the next generation, they are more tolerant to nicotine,

Starting point is 00:52:42 but also to other thing cocaine. That sort of makes sense to me because obviously nicotine activates the colonergic system, the dopaminergic system, epinephrine, etc. And you can imagine that there's crossover because other drugs like cocaine and fetamine, mainly target the catacolomines, the dopamine and norepinephrine. In this particular study, if I remember correctly, they show that this happens, this heritable effect, even if you use an antagonist to block the nicotine receptor.

Starting point is 00:53:12 Wow. So it's something more about clearance of xenobiotics and hepatic functions that is transmitted and is very non-specific. What I love about all the examples you've given today, and especially that one is, and I hope that people, if you're just listening, I'm smiling because biology is so cryptic sometimes.

Starting point is 00:53:32 You know, the obvious mechanism is rarely the one that's actually at play. And people always ask, well, why? Why is it like this? And I would say, you know, the one thing I know for sure is that I wasn't consulted the design phase. And if anyone claims they were, then you definitely want to back away very fast.

Starting point is 00:53:49 And there could be so many trade-offs, so many trade-offs. So for example, we started and also other many, and many other people studied, effects, these are in warms. We'll go deep into that in a second, but the show that when you start them, the next generations live longer. And this, I think, could be a trade of it, other things like fertility.

Starting point is 00:54:14 So the next generations are more sick and less fertile, and perhaps because of this, they live longer. So that could be, it's not necessarily a good thing, right? I don't want to draw you off course, because this is magnificent, what you're doing and, and, and, and, playing out for us here. But to recall, there was a few years ago, it actually ended very tragically. It was an example. I think it was down in San Diego County. There was a cult of sorts that were interested in living forever. And so they castrated, the male self-castrated themselves in the idea that somehow maintaining some pre-pubescent state or reverting to a pseudo pre-pubescent state

Starting point is 00:54:51 would somehow extend longevity. The idea that sexual behavior somehow limited lifespan, this has been an idea that's been thrown around in the kind of more wacky longevity communities. They also shaved their heads. They also all wore the same sneakers, but then they also all committed suicide, right? As the hellbop comet came through town.

Starting point is 00:55:08 But that's just, but one example of many cults, aimed at sort of, that obviously was not life extension, that was life truncation, but aimed at kind of eternal life for some sort of, through caloric restriction. That's right, this cult also was very into the whole idea that by, through caloric restriction, we can live much longer, which may actually turn out to be true. I think it's still debated. Hence all the debate about intermittent fasting, etc. But also it is known

Starting point is 00:55:35 that if you overeat, you shorten life, this is this is clear. It's known that big-bodied members of a species live far shorter lives than the smaller members of a great gain versus a Choa, for instance. So there is some sort of shards of truth in all of these things, but it seems to me that the real question is, what is the real mechanism and why would something like this exist? And why questions are very dangerous in the hell, right? Right, but very interesting goes on. And so when it comes to metabolic changes and nutrition, there are numerous examples where you either overfeed

Starting point is 00:56:13 or starve and get effects in the next generations. Many of the, sometimes the effects contrast, depending on the way you do this. Again, we don't do any of that in memos, but people show that you're starving or overfeeding the mothers, all the faddles change as the body weight of the next generation and also the glucose tolerance and other and also a productive success. So the fact that there's an effect, that there's something transmits, this is clear. The question is, how miraculous is it and whether you need new biology and epigenetics

Starting point is 00:56:50 to explain it. What do I mean by that? If you affect the next generation, it doesn't necessarily have to go through the all-side or the sperm and involve the epigenum. You change the metabolism of the animal as it develops and obviously it will affect it. When you, for example, as stars, we men that are pregnant, as happened during this famous starvation studies, the baby is already in utero exposed directly to the environment. So it's not even a heritable effect. The baby is itself in utero exposed directly to the environment.

Starting point is 00:57:25 So it's not even a heritable effect. The baby is itself affected. It's a direct effect. Very interesting, important, and has many implications. And it will be separate from the genetics. You'll have to take it into account to understand what's going on. It doesn't require necessarily a new biology, a new biology of inheritance.

Starting point is 00:57:46 Not only is the embryo affected, the embryo while in utero already has jumpsense. So it's also the next generation is directly exposed. And you don't need any new biology necessarily to explain it and you doesn't have has to involve genetics or epigenetics. It's clear to me that in the female fetus, the total number of eggs that she will someday produce and potentially have fertilized by sperm exist. But in males with a 60 day sperm cycle,

Starting point is 00:58:16 leads me the question, do fetal males as fetuses, living as fetuses in their moms already start producing sperm, or it's the primordial cells that give rise to sperm. So I'm not an expert, so I don't wanna go into the details of exactly when, in mammals, but yes, exposure of the mother also affect eventually the transmission of genetic information

Starting point is 00:58:43 through the sperm's father. And there are also many examples of just stressing the fadders, affecting the sperm and affecting the next generation. There, if you go to the F2 generation, if you go to generations down the road, not to the kids, but to the grandkids, then it is a real epic genetic effect because you examine something that happens

Starting point is 00:59:05 although the next generation was never exposed to the original challenge. So when we say about epigenetic inheritance in through the paternal lineage, through the founders we talk about two generations, and when you go through the mother, it's pre-generation. To talk about, when you need to invoke mother, it's free generations to talk about when you need to invoke some real epigenetic mechanism.

Starting point is 00:59:28 And there, the evidence becomes much more scarce in menace. There are examples, more or less convincing, the field is evolving and improving a lot. So for example, now, to many people use the cutting edges to use IVF in vitro fertilization or transfer of embryos to make sure that you actually it's the heritable information and not the environment or that it goes through the germline. So this is something that is being done now. There are studies. You've just met the three parent IVF where they take the DNA from mom, the sperm from dad, and they take the DNA from mom and put it into a novel cytoplasm. No, none of this, or you just take the sperm and transfer it and fertilize it, the

Starting point is 01:00:13 egg. So standard IVF? Yes, standard IVF. Yeah. You can do it in many different ways, but this idea that you separate the environment, the environment of the mother from the inheritance or the environment of the father and to control and separate nature from nature. The environment becomes the culture dish.

Starting point is 01:00:31 Yes. So the field is improving. People do experiments that have a higher end, so more replicates and better controlled. And there are some examples for effects that transfer. And it depends who you ask whether people believe it or not. Many geneticists do not believe it, and many people do believe it, and it depends on the community.

Starting point is 01:00:54 There are strong resistance for many reasons. Some of them are justified, some are less justified, and are part of the scientific process of how things work, because it's a new, it's challenging the dogma. So this is very interesting on its own. If you ask psychologists, many psychologists believe that there's a terrible trauma and things like that. Population geneticists, less so.

Starting point is 01:01:19 So this really depends. And I think that we are just at a point in time where we don't really know whether it happens to what extent. And we need bigger studies. Even if you think about normal, just genetic studies, where people try to understand the genetic underpinning of complex traits, like anything that involves their brain pretty much, we now know that you need to study many, many, many people. So now this big genome-wide association

Starting point is 01:01:50 studies, big genetic studies involve hundreds of thousands of people. No one did an experiment like this for epigenetics. It's much more complicated because you need to also take into account the environment. And I'm not even sure we know how to design such an experiment. It's very, very challenging. So, the part of the resistance to the idea is based on the theoretical grounds because of these barriers and because of the controversies. On the other hand,

Starting point is 01:02:26 On the other hand, there's people really want to believe it. People really want to believe it. Because it's sorts of gives your life, meaning if you can change your biology through changing your kids through changing your biology. So, psychologically, I can understand why many people want this to happen. Even Schraddinger, the famous physicist, so he wrote a very important book in 44. So this was before the double helix, and it's called What is Life.

Starting point is 01:02:55 This is actually a book that was drove many physicists to establish molecular biology. It's very, very important. And he talks about the heritable material. It also talks about evolution, and he said, unfortunately, Lamarck is a more inheritance of a quadrate. It's untenable. important. And he talks about the heritable material. It also talks about evolution. And he said, unfortunately, the market is a more inheritance of a quadrate. It's untenable.

Starting point is 01:03:08 It doesn't happen. And it writes, this is very, very sad or unfortunate because unlike Darwinism or natural selection, which is gloomy, doesn't matter what you do. The next generation will be born based on the instruction in the sperm and the egg. It doesn't, you can't influence it. Of course, you can give your kids money and education, but you can't biologically influence it.

Starting point is 01:03:30 You can also, one thing I'm fascinated by for a number of reasons is partner selection. I mean, in some ways, we think, oh, we want to find someone who is kind. That does seem to be, by the way, the primary feature, at least in the data, tell us we had David Boss on the podcast of how women select men that people are kind. There's also resource potential, there's also beauty or aesthetic attractiveness in males and females, et cetera. Male, male, female, female, as the case may be, but in terms of reproduction, sperm egg, male, female, obviously.

Starting point is 01:04:01 So we're selecting for a number of traits, but presumably subconsciously, we are also selecting for a number of traits related to vigor and in the idea that if we were to have offspring with somebody that those traits would be selected for. Right. And we actually have a work on that in nematodes that I'll be happy to tell you about. In a second after we're dating in the dating in the dating in warms and and where we understand the mechanism and we'll go into that in a second but or in a few minutes after we we dive into the warms but but yes the original calculations of how population genetics work to simplify things and to do the math so it will be is it was random mating of course it

Starting point is 01:04:44 doesn't work like that. So it's complicated, I think, because we know. And there's research about potential capacity to somehow sense immune compatibility and things like this, which is, I don't know, I'm not an expert on that, but- And neither am I, but my understanding is that, of course, we're familiar with the other traits

Starting point is 01:05:01 we select for, like for potential nurturing ability. Whether or not someone is reliable predicts something about their nurturing ability and offspring potential. I mean, you can draw lines between these things without any direct evidence, but they seem so logical that somebody kind will also stick around or be honest in these kinds of things that it makes sense. But that one would be selecting for certain biological traits like immune function or some other form of robustness that we're not aware of is I think a fascinating area of biology.

Starting point is 01:05:32 Yeah, so this is where the work in Nemals stands. However, there's also one additional thing to mention, which is that on top of chemical modifications to the DNA and the proteins that condense the DNA, which are called histones, there are also other mechanisms that might transmit information, including transmission between generations of RNA. And there are different types of RNA, not just the RNA that we mentioned before, the messenger RNA, which

Starting point is 01:06:12 encodes for the information for making protein, but also other RNAs that regulate gene expression. And this is, and I think that in recent years, also in the mammalian field, RNA, as the molecule that has the potential to transmit information between generation, took center stage. So I think this is the cutting edge. And a lot more to understand than no, but RNA has a lot of potential for doing that, as we'll explain soon,

Starting point is 01:06:35 but we have to go to worms first. Thank you for that incredible overview of genetics and RNA and epigenetics, and it was essentially a survey of this very interesting and on the face of a complex field, but you've simplified it a great deal for us. In our transition to talking about worms, I would like to plant a flag in the Hubertman lab podcast and say that what we are about to discuss is the first time that anyone on this podcast has discussed so-called model organisms.

Starting point is 01:07:09 I may have mentioned a fly paper here or there, or a study on honeybees and caffeine and flower preference at one point, but typically that's done in passing and we quickly rotate to humans. I know that many, if not most of our listeners are focused on humans and human biology and health, etc. But I cannot emphasize enough the importance of model organisms and the incredible degree to which they've informed us about human health, especially when it comes to very basic functions and cells.

Starting point is 01:07:38 Right? I mean one could argue, okay, there and there's been some debate telling meers and mice to that really lead to the same sort of data on humans. Okay, there are these those cases certainly but Model organisms are absolutely critical and have been in basically informed most of what we understand about human health so before we Start to go into the description about worms per se could you just explain to the a general audience? What a model organism is right? They're not modeling, they're not posing for photographs, obviously. What that means and what some of the general model organisms are, and why you've selected or elected to work on a particular type of worm to study these fascinating topics that in there's zero question also take place in humans at some level.

Starting point is 01:08:26 So it's a real pleasure and an honor to represent the model organisms here. I'm really happy just for that. It was worth it. Because as you said, model organisms are extremely important and we learn so much about biology through them. The model organisms mean that it's an organism, that many people work on. So there's a community of people that work on. People work study many types of organisms, but not around every organism. There's a huge community of researchers

Starting point is 01:08:56 that combined sources to create all the resources, the tools, and the understanding that accumulates. There is just a handful of model organisms in the short history of the field of biology. It's not so long. We learned about every aspect of biology through them, including many important diseases, human diseases. And these are E. coli bacteria, phage, which is a virus of bacteria, and flies, warns, they're called theolegans nematotes, this is what we study in the lab, fish, which are called thebophish, it's a particular... Daniel, Daniel, right.

Starting point is 01:09:42 And of course, there are also model organisms, and now and also plants, important plants, the most studies one is the Arabi dopsis. And perhaps less so nowadays, but non-human primates. Macachmonkey's Marmoset squirrel monkeys mainly. These, I don't know exactly how to definition this, but emerging model organisms, there are many of model organisms that are emerging and there are communities that are formed,

Starting point is 01:10:07 including also around the planaria that we mentioned before, this flatworm that regenerates, this is a great model for studying regenerations. If we could develop new heads, it would be incredible. And we can learn from these organisms. And the reason that we can learn a lot also about humans by studying these animals is that we all evolved from the same ancestor. So we shared a lot of our functions with them and also a lot of our genes.

Starting point is 01:10:36 See elegans, and they have the different, modell organisms have different advantages that serve us. They sometimes have some things that are much more apparent in them, the WICAN study. For example, learning and memory was largely studied in the beginning in a snail, a plizia, where many of the discoveries were made because it has big noils that you can easily study and examine. And yes, snails learn. Yes, they learn. Even C elegans, these nematodes that we study learn, and they are much simpler than what.

Starting point is 01:11:11 Another important reason to study them, of course, is you can actually experiment on them. We can't do these to humans, the things that we do to these animals. And we can change their genes, do all kinds of things for them. And in some, sorry to interrupt, but in some cases, I think you're going to tell us, for instance,

Starting point is 01:11:27 in C. elegans in particular, the presence of particular cell types is so stereotyped that you can look at several different worms, and you can, the community of people that study C. elegans is literally numbered and named each neuron so that two laboratories on opposite sides of the world can publish papers on the same neuron

Starting point is 01:11:47 knowing that it's the same neuron in the two different laboratories. Something that is extremely hard to do in any mammalian model, mouse or certainly in humans, and has posed huge challenges that give great advantages to studies of things like C. Helians. Yeah, so C. Helian, this is the star now of what we study. These are nematodes, small worms, round worms,

Starting point is 01:12:13 that are just one millimeter long, so you can't see them with the naked eye. You have to look under the scope. Where do they live in the natural world? So they used to call them soil nemat thought, but this is not really true. There are in many places, but they are mostly in rotten fruits and leaves. And you can find them in the ground as well, but you can also find them and there are free living, so they're not parasites, but you can sometimes also find them in snails. But the best way to isolate them is from rotten fruits.

Starting point is 01:12:43 Okay. I like the idea that they're not parasites. I'm one of these people who gets a little screen-missure about the notion of parasites. Yeah, so they're not parasites. They're really fun to handle because they're so small and easy. You just grow them on plates with egg or equalibacteria. This is what they eat in the lab. You can just pick them with a small pick, wire pick, move them around, and change their genes and do many things for them. But they have many advantages for neuroscience and for studying inheritance. As you mentioned, they have always a certain number of cells in the body.

Starting point is 01:13:19 So a cell against them, I thought, always has 959 cells in its body. That's it, okay? Not 960 not 958 959. Okay. And out of which 302 are neurons always 302. There's a huge debate now over Twitter on whether it's 302 or 300. I mean, I don't want to get into trouble. Okay, but people take this very very hard. I think it's 302, but let's to get into trouble, okay, but people take this very, very Hard I think it's 302, but let's not get into it because I'll get into trouble Well, we can equilibrate all things here by you say 302 Granted, you're far more informed in this model organism that I am or ever will be I'll say 300 and then we were balanced in terms of

Starting point is 01:13:59 Partisan politics and the C elegance So so it's and it's always the same. And each neuron has a name, like you said. And not only does every neuron has a name, many of them we know what they do. So there's a few cells that are sensory neurons that sense particular chemicals. In certain situations, we know that a chemical

Starting point is 01:14:22 will be sent just by one neuron. There are other motor neurons and internal neurons. We know how many dopamine neurons there ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז עוד שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה שישה ‫אז like a subway map that tells us which neuron talks with which other neurons and it is the same. It was used to think, people thought that it was exactly the same between genetically agentical worms. Now we know that there's slight differences but by and large it is the same and we have a map, a road map that we can use to study. The so-called connectome. The connectome. Not only that, the worms are transparent so we can actually see the neurons Not only that, the worms are transparent, so we can actually see the neurons fire using particular tools.

Starting point is 01:15:09 And we can activate genes and silage genes using optogenetics. Like I was discussing on the podcast, we can make the worms go forward or backward or lay a neg by shining different waves of light on them. So we have very powerful tools for manipulating the brain. On top of that, we have great understanding of the genetics of the worm, of the genome. This is, the first animal to have its genome sequenced before humans.

Starting point is 01:15:42 For that, of course, they were bacteria, but. And we know that in each worm produces each mother, produces about 250 babies, which are almost genetically identical. So we can, and we know where we grow them, that the environment is very controlled. So we grow them in the plate, we just bacteria so we can easily separate it with nature and nurture. And one thing that I wonder about often is generation time, you know, even though mice are not humans,

Starting point is 01:16:15 mice have certain advantages because they're mammalian species, you can't do all the magnificent things that you can do and see all the guns and mice, but one major issue with mice is that the generation time is somewhat long. You pair two mice, they may, you get a mouse, a litter of mice 21 days later, it might seem like, okay, that's only 21 days or so. But if you are a graduate student or postdoc trying to do a project, I mean, that can extend the time to do experiments out three or four years compared to what you could do in

Starting point is 01:16:44 CLG. You're absolutely right. This is one of the major advantages. The generation time in CLI cance is three days, three days. So you can do hundreds of warm generations in one PhD. This is very important. Not only that, every warm will produce hundreds of progenies, so you will have that are genetically identical, so you will have great statistics for your experiment. And the worms probably don't mind living on these agar plates, you know, munching away on E. coli, where it's the good life. You know, it's questionable whether or not mice or certainly, listen, I'm a proponent of well controlled over and as long as there's oversight, animal research, it's necessary

Starting point is 01:17:20 for the development of treatments of diseases that, that that under humans, but it is always a little bit of a kind of a cringe and go kind of thing when you're dealing with with mammals that are living so far outside their natural environment. You know, I'd be lying if I didn't say that it gets to you after a while and if it doesn't get to you, you kind of have to wonder about your own psyche a bit. Right. I also think that this is important, but for me, it's much easier to work on worms. I don't have to feel bad about it. Yeah, they're happy. If a worm dies, it's less painful to the human than if other more sensitive animals. Yeah, I would argue, yes, I agree.

Starting point is 01:18:02 So there are many advantages for studying CO elegance. And in the one, we now have very obvious and clear cut proof that there is inheritance of acquired trades. So much so that I don't think that anyone pretty much in the epigenetic field argues against it. Well, and in large part, thanks to you and the work you've done. So could you tell us what was the first experiment that you did on C elegans that confirmed for you that there is inheritance of acquired traits?

Starting point is 01:18:37 Because of course, the best experiments and experimenters always set out to disprove their hypothesis. And when the hypothesis survives, despite all the control experiments and poking and prodding and attempts to contradict oneself, then it's considered a victory. But it's one that you have to be, we all have to be very cautious about enjoying

Starting point is 01:18:59 because of the tendency to want our hypotheses to be true. So what was the first experiment where you were convinced that inheritance of acquired traits is real? The first experiment I did was when I, in my postdoc, I did with Oliver Hobart in University of Colombia, and we set to test whether worms can produce transgenerational, for long, multiple generations resistance to viruses. to test whether worms can produce transgenerational,

Starting point is 01:19:25 for multiple generations resistance to viruses. Oh wow, this is a very pertinent topic. Which is relevant. And worms, these worms don't have dedicated immune cells like we do, they don't have T cells or B cells. They defend themselves from viruses very efficiently using RNA. So in fact, when we started this experiment,

Starting point is 01:19:47 there wasn't any natural virus that was known to infect the elegance, which is amazing, because viruses are very good as we all experience now in infecting. And the worms are resistant to viruses because of RNA molecules, short RNA molecules that destroy viruses. And these are called smaller nays. Now we need to discuss them before I explain my experiment. In 2006, two researchers that were studying C elegance

Starting point is 01:20:21 and Rafael and Craig Melog got the Nobel Prize for showing that there is a mechanism that regulates genes ולגן, אין רופאי רגמלוג, עוד נובלטרס, שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לד לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות שיש לדעות are double-stranded, they lead to the shot of the jeans that correspond that match in sequence to this RNA. So sort of like taking the specific instructions for the coffee table from your Ikea handbook and you insert a copy of that into the book and in doing so you prevent the expression of sort of a race the original page. Perfect explanation. Perfect explanation. into the book and in doing so, you prevent the expression of, you sort of erase the original page. Perfect explanation, perfect explanation.

Starting point is 01:21:09 And for, they found that double-strand RNA RNA that has two strands is what starts the response, leading to the production of small RNA molecules, which are the ones that actually find the messenger RNA and leads to its destruction, silence it, so you don't get proteins in the end. For that, they got the Nobel Prize. After people found that this is conserved

Starting point is 01:21:30 in many organisms, including humans, and now there are now drugs. This was only in 2006 that the Nobel Prize paper was published in 98. There are now drugs that use this mechanism, also in humans. And I'll just interject and say that not only is it a recent discovery in an incredibly important one, but Andy, fire and Craig Mellor are also really nice people. Yeah. They just have to be

Starting point is 01:21:52 very nice people. And Craig Mell is an excellent, I think he's a kite surfer. When I, the only time I met him in person was at a meeting in a black eye and I thought, okay, wow, I guess he's also a pugilist or something, but turns out he had done that tight surfing. So scientists actually do things other than go to the laboratory, Nobel Prize winning scientist that is. Okay, I'll let you continue. Thanks for allowing me that. Yeah, incredible scientists.

Starting point is 01:22:18 And there were also studies in many organisms on the mechanisms of how this happens. It is called RNA interference. RNA interferes in the expression of a gene in the function of a gene. And it's also called gene silencing because these RNAs enforce the silencing of genes instead of the genes being expressed. They are silenced and you don't manifest a function. Already in the first paper that they published about this, where they've shown the double-strand RNAs, ולא מייסטרסיטה הפונקציה. שום כבר עוד פרסיטה שאתה ארהה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאת ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאת ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאתה ארה שאת ארה שאתה ארה ארה שאת ארה ארה שאת ארה שאת ארה שאת ארה שאתה ארה א� You don't only see the action in the cell that you injected or in the tissue that you injected, but you see it all over the worms body. It spreads.

Starting point is 01:23:09 It wasn't exactly clear what spreads, but it was clear that it spreads. You see the silencing all over the body. This includes also the germ cells. So if you injected up a cylinder and a just to somatic cells, even to the head, ‫אז כבר נעשה את עבודה רנק, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים,

Starting point is 01:23:41 ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז כשפנטיקטים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, ‫אז זה אורדים, אשלתם, the site of ingestion from the gut, where the bacteria are eaten, to the rest of the body and also to the next generation. Okay? So before I will last, when I mentioned this cannibalistic experiments of

Starting point is 01:24:15 meconel with the Plameria, and now you see that it can happen, and this is not controversial, at all. This is being done routinely every day by any sea elegance biologist in the world. This has been replicated a million times. Not only that, you can also feed planaria, these other worms with RNA. You can just put it in chopped liver and let them eat it. And again, this will sign in just throughout the body. Wild.

Starting point is 01:24:42 And this is what we do routinely. We always, when we want, we use this technique to see what genes do. If we want to see whether a particular gene is important for a certain behavior or certain something, the way to study is to neutralize the gene activity. And we do it by just introducing the worms with double-strand RNA that correspond in sequence, that match in sequence this gene.

Starting point is 01:25:07 This will lead to the silencing, this activates the gene's activity. And then we, and if then the effect stops, we know this gene is involved in the function. And we never want to just examine one worm. So we feed the mother with double-strand RNA and then we examine all of its children children So we can have the statistics over hundreds of worms or thousands of worms So this is validated and not controversial in all and totally routine Is it fair to say that Maconnell's experiments of chop blending up these worms? Graphic image blending up these worms and then feeding them to other worms

Starting point is 01:25:44 Plenary that those experiments can, yes, be explained by double-stranded RNA, which and through RNA interfere. Potentially. It hasn't been done yet. We are working on it in my lab now in collaboration with other labs, but it wasn't published, but yes, this could be the explanation. So, um, so mellow did these experiments, some other people did these experiments. When I started my work,

Starting point is 01:26:12 I wanted to see whether in addition to artificial double-strand RNA, some natural traits can also transmit across generations because of RNA, because of small RNAs. Right, because injecting RNAi or in, in short, or in freeing RNAs, that is, or, you know, putting worms into an environment within abundance of inhibitory RNAs as an experiment is very

Starting point is 01:26:37 different than worms experiencing something and then passing on that acquired trait to their offspring. And it's a world apart, in my opinion, because one is an extreme manipulation that illustrates an underlying principle. The other is something that, in theory, occurs in the passage of generations just naturally. We're going from the lesser artificial to the moral artificial. The advantages, just like with modern organisms, that the moral artificiality is the easy piece to know exactly what you did. Just now introduce one factor and you can follow the result.

Starting point is 01:27:08 So this is always the trait. What I did was in Oliver's lab is to see whether the part of the magic for the warms resistance to viruses is the capacity to transmit information in the form of RNA molecules, inhibitory RNA molecules, to the next generations. And it has been shown before in C elegans that the worms resist viruses using this mechanism, this smaller anase. Okay?

Starting point is 01:27:36 In fact, this is probably the reason that this smaller anase evolved in the first place to get rid of viruses and other parasitic genomic elements. And this is a mechanism to fight them. And what I did is a very simple experiment. I took warms and I infected them with a virus. When you do this, this also has been shown in the past. The warms destroyed a virus.

Starting point is 01:28:03 Okay. We demonstrated this very clearly using a fluorescent virus. So if the virus replicates successfully, the worms just turns green. And if the virus is destroyed, the worm stays black. This is very simple. It's a clear cut. It's not this.

Starting point is 01:28:24 You don't examine the worm and ask whether it feels good. You just see this green light. Binary response. Yes. And so we took worms, we infect them with the fluorescent virus, they destroyed. This also has been done in the past. But then what we did is, we neutralized ‫אז ניותרלו על המשינרי ‫הוא נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫הוא נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫אז הם לא נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫הוא נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫אז הם לא נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫אז אנחנו נהיה עוד קצת מלרנז, ‫אז הם לא נהיה עוד קצה עוד שאתה עוד ‫הוא עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת שאת עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאת the warms progeny, although they don't have the gene that is needed for making the smaller anase, are black, they sign the valves. And this also continues for additional generations. Okay. So the parent worms effectively put something into the genetic instructions of the offspring

Starting point is 01:29:36 that would afford them, let's call it an advantage in this case, but afford them an advantage if they were to be confronted with the same thing that the parents were. And we know exactly what this advantage is. The advantage is our small RNAs that match the viral genome, then just chop up the virus in the next generation. And we can identify these small RNAs in the inhibitory RNAs in the descendants, although they don't have the machinery to make it, just because we can identify them by sequencing.

Starting point is 01:30:09 By RNA sequencing, which is like DNA sequencing, you actually get the actual sequence of the RNA molecules. And we can see that they correspond to the virus, and they have the inherent in smaller RNAs, only if their parents were infected with them. So there's specificity there. There's specificity. Yeah, it's not some just general resilience passage. I have to be careful in drawing an analogy

Starting point is 01:30:31 that isn't correct. And I want to acknowledge that what I'm about to say with certainty cannot be entirely correct. But the analogy that comes to mind in mammals is this idea that if one generation is stressed, that their offspring may, in some cases, have a higher stress threshold, the resilience to stress. I could imagine why that would be advantageous.

Starting point is 01:30:51 I do parents have a hard life. They have offspring, and they want their children to have a higher threshold to stress, because stress can inhibit reproduction, et cetera. And I always say, you know, at the end of the day and at the end of life, evolution is about the offspring, not about the parents. And every species pretty much seems to want to make more of itself in protectix, young,

Starting point is 01:31:11 one way or another, either through nature or through nurture. This is a nature-based protection of young. Is it fair to say that in the mammalian experiment with a passage of stress resilience, that it could be RNA-based, that that would be perhaps set some new threshold on glucocorticoid production. Here I'm speculating, and I want to highlight that I'm speculating. I'm speculating with a reason, which is I think for people that are hearing about this in

Starting point is 01:31:37 worms, you've done a beautiful job of spling out why monologonyms are really important, but to think about how this may operate in the passage of human generations, I think is a reasonable thing to entertain. Right, and it is true that also in mammals, now RNAs and smaller RNAs are a leading candidate for somebody that could mediate the transmission of stress protection or also harmful effects that transmit between generations. Perhaps RNA do it. However, in worms, the RNAs have one more trick that we don't know the equivalent in mammals yet.

Starting point is 01:32:15 And this is something very crucial that we showed in that particular paper, in the first paper. Which is? So the effect that I described, this transmission of resistance to viruses through these RNAs, doesn't only affect the next generation. It also affects multiple additional generations. So it gets passed.

Starting point is 01:32:32 It gets passed and you have to ask yourself, how does it get diluted? Why is it diluted? Right? Because everyone produces 250 babies. So you dilute by 250. And if something is diluted for four generations, so it's 250 times 250. After four generations, it's a dilution of four billions,

Starting point is 01:32:53 completely homopathic would never work. It's just there's nothing left. The secret of these worms is that they have a machinery for amplifying the smaller and the average generation. This is called RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. It's a complex, which uses the RNA to find, and once it finds the messenger RNA, just create many, many, many, many smaller RNAs. So they don't get diluted, and they pass on for additional generations.

Starting point is 01:33:24 And this is the trick. We later also identified genes that regulate for how long an effect would last. Otherwise, if in the beginning we ask, why does it need to stop after one generation? Now we have to ask why it doesn't need less forever. And it doesn't. Typically, we see that the response is

Starting point is 01:33:43 less, not only with the valoristicts, but also with adotrates for a few generations, three to five generations. We found genes that function as a sort of a clock, the times the duration of the inheritance. What sorts of genes are those? So we call these genes Motec genes. Motec, I don't know how is your Hebrew, but motech means sweet heart in Hebrew. But the acronym is modified transgenerational epigenetic

Starting point is 01:34:09 in genetics. There are different types of genes like that. And some of them, if you mutate, if you disrupt their function, now the effect would transmit stable for hundreds of generations. It would never stop. Because their role is to stop the inheritance from just the effect would transmit stable for hundreds of generations, it would never stop. Because the role is to stop the inheritance from going from just, you don't want to carry

Starting point is 01:34:30 over something forever, otherwise it will no longer fit the environment of the parents and you will be prepared for the wrong things. So this is important. There are what type of genes are they? One gene that we studied, it's called MET2, it's actually a gene that functions in methylation of the proteins that condensate DNA. So this is, and there are other genes that affect also production of smaller anise. Is there some mechanism that controls the duration of passage in a way that logically links up with the lifespan of the organism.

Starting point is 01:35:08 So for instance, I knew my grandparents met them. I did not ever meet my great-grandparents, and I certainly didn't meet my great-great-grandparents. I could imagine that my great-great-grandparents or my great-grandparents experienced certain things that were passed into their children and perhaps into their children. But it seems reasonable given that humans live somewhere between zero and 100 years, typically what now, 80 years, is that the typical lifespan? More or less, okay?

Starting point is 01:35:39 That if I were going to design the system, and again, I was not consult the design phase, I would want an adaptive trait to be passed for two generations, because given the way that our, given how long our species lives, and certainly given the way the world looks now as opposed to the turn of the previous century, the turn of the previous century, different stressors, different life environments, and what I would want to pass on to my offspring,

Starting point is 01:36:07 I can basically hedge pretty well. I can place a good bet on the next 100 years, maybe the next 200, but I don't have the foggy as clue what the world is gonna look like in 300 years. Is it what I'm saying make any sense whatsoever? It makes a lot of sense. And really, we need to talk about two things in response to this question.

Starting point is 01:36:25 First of all, yes, you can imagine that the reason that the worms in herds typically for free to five generations is that this is relevant to something that happened in their amounts. For example, we also showed that when you start the worms, it affects the next generations, again, for a few generations. Which itself is amazing. I just want to highlight that. I mean, you can imagine next generation sort of like a genetic version of be careful kids, but I'm going to give you this extra lunch pack in your genome that protects you against the possibility of starvation.

Starting point is 01:36:58 But it's also saying, and we're you to have kids. Right. They have it also. Yeah, so I have to, but I just have to just make a disclaimer that we know that we don't know that necessarily it's adaptive. It could also be damaged. As I said, when you start them, the next generations live longer, but this could be a trade off for fertility or something. So other labs is also a virtual shone following our work, that if you start the warms, the next

Starting point is 01:37:20 generations are also more resistant to how she'll starvation. This sounds, this is not my artwork, but this sounds adapt. But when whenever you're talking about the patient, you have to see it in the context of evolution, there's also this famous saying, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. And so it's very hard to say, without doing the lab evolution experiments, we actually see who wins the ones that inherit

Starting point is 01:37:44 or the ones who don't have it, who takes over. Otherwise, it's hard to talk about whether it's adaptive or not. But when it comes to the duration of the response, yes, it could be programmed to fit something. For example, if you're talking about starvation, warms transition between periods of starvation and periods where they have a lot of food. So let's say they sign an apple for a few generations They will consume the apple and then they will be styled for a while Perhaps this is the number of generations that takes them to finish an apple or perhaps other responses also to higher temperatures If you grow worms in higher temperatures the orphans are different. They change

Starting point is 01:38:22 How they made so I'm I'm, I looked it to before. We're gonna get back to this, because it relates to cold exposure, which many listeners are. And perhaps it is somehow correlated with the cycle of the year, okay? But to tell you the truth, I don't know. As I said, we go from the more artificial

Starting point is 01:38:41 to the less artificial. If double-strand RNA, just synthetic RNA is the most artificial, starvation is more natural, but it's not starvation in the real context of the world in a real apple. It's a plate with or without E. coli bacteria, but it's not an apple on a tree exposed to the elements with other worms, with bacteria, with all kinds of complications. And it could be that we will see different durations of heritable effects, the more natural we go, with just much less controllable and hard to do.

Starting point is 01:39:15 And again, when we're talking about humans, part of the argument where people, where the disbelievers, it's not about safe. The critics say that this wouldn't happen in humans if they say the warms generation time is just three days. The chances that the parents' environment will match the children's environment is very high. Because there's not a lot of time for the environment

Starting point is 01:39:40 to change it, plus they can go very far. Small, there are many examples of epigenetic inheritance in plants. This is a big field where there are very established proof for inheritance of aquaite rates. For epigenetic inheritance, I'll be more careful, epigenetic inheritance of aquaite rates, more loaded than. But in plants, it also happens. And there you also say these are sessal organisms, they can't run away, so the environment is more constant. Well, ideas, maybe just a quick example that I've heard before. Tell me if I'm wrong. I very well, maybe.

Starting point is 01:40:11 For instance, a particular species of plant that grows a straight, maybe slightly-bended stock might be exposed to some environment where in order to capture enough sunlight and other nutrients might need to grow in a quartz screw form. The quartz screw form can be inherited several generations for. This is an example that I don't know, but perhaps it's something like that. I seem to, someone will tell, trust me,

Starting point is 01:40:34 the one thing we know about podcasting and YouTube is someone will tell us in the comments. So, and please do, we invite that. Right, but there's a long history of epigenetic inheritance studies in plants with excellent studies, well controlled, showing that it happens also there. Right, but there's a long history of epigenetic inheritance studies in plants with excellent studies, well controlled, showing that it happens also there. So this is very clear. When it comes to humans, you could say maybe my kids will go off to live in a different continent and they will be on the computer every day and everything will be different. So it makes

Starting point is 01:41:01 less sense to prepare them for the same hardships that I experienced. However, this in my opinion, this is this argument comes a lot. It's not the best argument because it depends on the scale of how you look at things. We experience we meet for example, I'm not saying that this is inherited, but in humans, but we experience the same pathogens in the same virus is all the times, so perhaps it's worth preparing for them. Again, I'm not saying that it happens, but it depends on the scale. Well, what you're describing makes perfect sense, and I do want to acknowledge these critics, whoever they may be. I do have the advantage that I don't work in this exact field, and so I'm happy to stand on toe-to-toe with those critics now and say that at least in terms of inheritance of reactions or adaptive or maladaptive traits to stress or to reward, you talked about nicotine

Starting point is 01:41:53 before, you know, passage of response to drugs of different kinds, not being specific to nicotine. It was sort of a more general passage of some sort of information related to reactions to chemicals present in nicotine, but other drugs. I have long been irritated and a little bit tickled by the fact that people say, oh, you know, we have this system for stress that was really designed to keep us, you know, safe from lions and saber-toothed tigers. Sure, but the hallmark of the stress system is that it generalizes. I mean, if I get a troubling text message, or if I suddenly see a dark figure in the hallway when I go to the bathroom at night that I don't recognize, both of those have

Starting point is 01:42:35 the same generic response, which is the deployment of adrenaline in both brain and body, you know, changes in the optics of the eyes, quickening of the heart rate. Stress is by design generic. One could imagine that a passage of some sort of stress resilience or a maladaptive passage to stress would be also somewhat generic, and that's actually advantageous overall. Same thing with the reward system. We essentially have one or two chemical systems of reward. There's the opioid system and there's a cannabinoid system, but in large part, anticipation and reward

Starting point is 01:43:08 is governed by the dopamine circuits. And anticipation and reward of an ice cream cone for a kid is the same neural circuitry that's going to be repurposed when they get to reproductive age and they are anticipating creating children with their mate and assuming they want to do that, the dopamine energy system is gonna be engaged. So ice cream sex, you know, stress to weather, creating children with their mate and assuming they want to do that, the double energy system is going to be engaged.

Starting point is 01:43:25 Ice-cream, sex, stress to weather, stress to famine. The biology of these more modal systems, especially in the nervous system, are, again, I have to be careful with the words by design, are certainly generic. And so I don't see the need for immense specificity. I mean, it's not like where COVID just happened. So could you imagine that there's the passage of a COVID-19 specific resilience? No, I think what would probably be passed along would be some sort of, if it does occur, would be some sort of resilience to viruses more generally.

Starting point is 01:44:00 And that would be advantageous. Right. So I agree. And this opens a question of what is the bandwidth of inheritance? How specific can it be that it makes sense for it to be specific? And in the case of C elegance, the response can be very specific. Through this inheritance of RNAs, which are just sequence specific, they downregulate the control, one particular gene.

Starting point is 01:44:25 Okay. With other cases, it could be a very general response. And it's very interesting to think about it when we talk about inheritance of Memoes, which is the most interesting thing we could imagine. Can brain activity of some sort transmit, at least in these words? I said, Noah, I said this is claimed a multiple times

Starting point is 01:44:46 in memories we don't know, times we'll tell, in worms we know a lot. So can worms transmit brain activity to do they have the specificity to do it? Before I'll say that, I just say that we over the years learned a lot about the mechanisms that shuttle the RNAs between generations. We know about genes that are needed just for that.

Starting point is 01:45:08 About worms that would be perfectly okay, but just don't have the capacity to transfer the RNAs to the next generations. We know about genes that will make the responses longer or shorter. We know about genes that prevent the transfer of RNA between different issues. About genes that make certain small RNAs.

Starting point is 01:45:26 So we know a lot about that. And then the question arises, we can finally ask, can memory transfer between generation? I think that, first of all, we need to define memory for that. And the broadest definition would be any change in your behavior because of what happened in the past, or in your response, because what happened in the past or in your response because what happened in the past or because of your history. The more interesting

Starting point is 01:45:49 part of course is to talk about memories that are encoded in the brain and the reason is that the brain is capable of holding much more specific and elaborate memories. I think that any tissues that transmit transfer to transfer RNA to the next generation and affect the next generation is interesting. The gut muscles everything, but the brain can synthesize information about the environment and about internal state and can also think ahead. And the most provocative thing you can say is that you could plan how somehow the fate of your of your nation using your brain, you know, after taking anything into the code. This is about talking to them.

Starting point is 01:46:28 Right. Without talking. Right. And then structure. So it's, again, we go back to this instruction manual. It's like writing something into the instruction manual based on your own experience. Right. And can it happen? Okay. And what is the bandwidth? Can we transfer specific things?

Starting point is 01:46:40 And, and then I have to agree with you that I would imagine that what can transfer and I could be wrong is a general sensitivity. You can make the analogy to being inflamed or not hyper-sensitive to pathogens, hyper-vigil, something like that. But it can also be something very specific. Now we have to understand that the brain uses a different language than the language of inheritance. The brain, the way we normally think about the brain, is that it keeps information in synopsis in the connection between different neurons.

Starting point is 01:47:25 When you learn something, you make some connections stronger and some other connections weaker. And you wire the nervous system in a different way. The information in the brain is synaptic. And it is in the connections. On the other hand, heritable information of any sort has to go through a bottleneck of one cell, הטובים אינטרארט, איך זה עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם עוד שם ע So the question is, can you or do you translate the information, this free distracture information of synapses and the connection between brains in the architecture of the brain, can you somehow translate it to heritable information

Starting point is 01:48:13 to a molecular form? It's an incredibly important and deep question. It brings to mind something that was once told to me, which as soon as I heard it was obvious, but was very important in formulating my understanding of biology, which is that a map is just the transformation of one set of points into another set of points, right? So a map of the world, essentially, is just you take what's been drawn out in terms of the architecture and the coastlines, et cetera, and divisions between states. And you transfer that to an electronic map or a piece of paper. It seems so obvious.

Starting point is 01:48:47 It's sort of a duh. Why are we talking about this? But just to make sure that people understand what you're really talking about is, let's say the memory, and I have a very distinct memory for my childhood phone number. Phone number doesn't exist anymore. Mm-hmm. And I won't give it out because then some other person might get you with repeated calls. But in any case, I remember it.

Starting point is 01:49:06 It's totally useless information, but it lives in my, you know, cortex or my hippocampus are somewhere as a series of connections between neurons at the locations that you call synapses. Would my grandchildren know that phone number? There's no reason- Absolutely no. No, right? Would my children know that unless there was some adaptive reason or some other reason for them to know and the and this passage of acquired traits.

Starting point is 01:49:29 And what you're saying is in order for that to happen, there has to be a transformation of the neural circuit, literally the wiring of neuron a, b, c, d that relates to, and carries the information that number into the kind of nucleotide sequences that are contained in DNA or patterns of methylation or RNA more likely. So it's the transformation of one set of points in physical space to a translation of points in genetic space. Right. Right. And then we have many problems. When, first of all, we don't know a mechanism to translate between the two different languages, the language of the brain and the language of the brain. We are not familiar with a mechanism like that. ‫הוא המקניסים שצרקה ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים. ‫אבל אני לא חושב שכן ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים.

Starting point is 01:50:08 ‫פה שני, קודם כבר ‫אז לא התחלטת כתובים, ‫אז אני חושב, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים. ‫אז כתובים, כתובים, ‫אז כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים. ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, ‫הוא מתחלטת כתובים, the wiring of the brain and the particular new owner circuits will be different. This is true for twins. It will always be true because it depends, because it's partially random and it depends on the environment, even if you have the same genetic structures.

Starting point is 01:50:35 So let's say you somehow had a mechanism, a miracle mechanism to take the freely information and translate it to the language of inheritance, you would then in the next generation have to translate it again to the brain, although it is different. This sounds very unlikely. I'm playing a trick on you now, okay? I believe it. Okay, but it's easy to trick. But if this is how it happened, or if this was required, it could never happen in my opinion, which means,

Starting point is 01:51:07 and I still think that there are certain memories that cannot transfer transgeneration, and these complex, and things that you learn about the environment that are betraying. None of our listeners' kids will remember this conversation. No way. This is impossible. Unless they're listening.

Starting point is 01:51:24 They're listening to them. There are some families or parents that tell me Unless they're listening. There are some families or parents that tell me they're listening. But it cannot transmit because it's random. And it's these are connections that are arbitrary. So this seems to be a limitation on what can transfer. On the other hand, so perhaps more general things could pass. Some these types of things I doubt they could pass. However, you can nevertheless imagine that some things that are very specific,

Starting point is 01:51:51 some memories that are very, very specific, could nevertheless transmit from the brain after learning to the next generation. I'll give you an example. You can teach worms, even though they have just 300 to neurons, you can teach them simple things about the world. For example, you can take an although that they're worms like, ‫אז כבר שאולי שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו,

Starting point is 01:52:10 ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר שחרשו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשווו, ‫אז כבר שחרשו, ‫אחרשו, ‫אז כבר שחרשוו, ‫אז כבר נעשה את זה, ‫אז לא אדם שזה יצאה ‫אז עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫אז עוד פרית ובחר כבר ‫הוא עוד פרית ובחר כבר,

Starting point is 01:52:34 ‫אז לא עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫אז עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫הוא עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫אז עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫אז עוד פרית ובחר כבר, ‫אז עוד פרית וזה זה מה שזה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה זה פוספלית. זה פוספלית, זה פוספלית, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את זה, זה לא נעשה את that, not in CLAGANs, but people have shown things like that in mammals. They said that you learn certain thing, and then just in the next generation, that's a particular receptor would be methylated or would change, and this would transmit the response.

Starting point is 01:53:22 And on the one hand, it could be true. On the other hand, you need to understand ‫הוא תרציב את זה. ‫הוא עוד שאתה עוד שאתה ‫הוא עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת עוד שאת עוד שאת עוד שאת עוד שאתה עוד שאתה עוד שאת the concept or need to operate. And this is a challenge. This is the current state of the field that this is something that needs to be proven. What we didn't see elegance is we showed that the brain can communicate with the next generations using smaller NAs. And the disk can change behavior. And it doesn't require any translating between any language.

Starting point is 01:54:04 It is very simple. What we've shown is that if you take a worm and you change the production of smaller nays just in its brain, in the next generations, their behavior will be different even though you don't mess with their brains. This is a paper that we published in 2019 in Cell. We show that you just manipulate the production of endogenous natural RNAs in the worms brain that are always made, but you change their amount. And this changes the capacity of the worms

Starting point is 01:54:34 in the next generation to find food. To find it. Not only in one generation, but three generations down the road. And the way that it works is that protruding the production of this smaller anase in the brain affects in the end the expression of a gene in the germline. One gene is called sage-2. Don't know how it works. But we can do all kinds of controls where we manipulate

Starting point is 01:54:59 the activity of the gene and the cilitis also affects the behavior. And this gene works in the jumpsets. The information needs to go from the brain to the jumpsets. It doesn't need to go back from the jumpsets to the brain to affect behavior. And this depends. We know that these are two epigenetic effects because it goes on for multiple generations.

Starting point is 01:55:19 And also because it requires the machinery, the transfers are in between generations. If you don't have the protein that physically carries the RNA between generation, it doesn't happen. So it has to be RNA. It has to be RNA. And we can actually, we can also find the RNAs in the next generation that change. We sequence the actual RNAs that change in the next generation. You mentioned that you don't know what sage this gene sage does, but is it reasonable to assume that it does something in the context of the nervous system or that's unclear as well? It is possible. It is possible, but we have reasons to believe or

Starting point is 01:55:54 experiments to show, although there could be alternative explanations, that it functions for the germine. Now, you may ask, how can you affect behavior just by changing the germs? Right? Well, it would have to change the germ cells in very specific ways because as people probably recall, the germ line, the germ cells are where the inheritable information is contained. But you can imagine, for instance, adjusting the gain or sensitivity, rather rather on some sort of sensory foraging system. Right. And the interesting thing is that it again can be quite unspecific. So it sounds weird that you change themselves and it changes behavior, sperminic.

Starting point is 01:56:40 But if you think about it, it's trivial. If you castrate a dog, it behaves differently, right? Sadly, yeah, I did that to my dog, and I ended up putting him on testosterone therapy later, and it brought him back just as a side, as an aside. Yes, this is because the germ cells affect the soma, including the brain in many ways, by secreting certain chemicals. And also, because the other cells develop from the germ cells.

Starting point is 01:57:07 So some information could be transmitted over development. Oh, the course of development could be altered because of changes that occur in the germ cells. And for example, in Memes, one of the explanations for how heritable information transmits is that it just affects something very own in development. I told you that the secrets to warms inheritance is that they have the capacity to amplify this smaller and smaller time. This is what keeps it going and prevents the dilution.

Starting point is 01:57:36 In memos, we don't know of such an amplification mechanism. So you ask, how can a little bit of RNA or something without amplifying affect land-laying tyroorganism. And it could be that you just perturb something in the very beginning. When you just have a few sets, or even in the placenta, the develops in pregnancy. And this later throws everything off. And because of the US, you have many problems,

Starting point is 01:58:00 in metabolism and so on. And this is called the, it's an idea of the developmental, developmental origin of health and disease. Many of the functions occur early on in development. So you raise a number of incredibly fascinating aspects to this. I do have a question about one particular aspect and feel free to pass on this for a future episode

Starting point is 01:58:19 if it's going to take us too far off track. But something you said, it really captured my attention, although I was listening to all of it, which is that the germ cells, so in the case of males, it's going to be sperm in the case of females, it can be eggs. Something perhaps not coincidental about those cells in the environment that they live in, is that yes, they contain the genetic information

Starting point is 01:58:43 that passed off spring, right? Of course, you explain how that works. But also, it's a, those cells live in a region that is rich with hormones that can be secreted and in fact are secreted and through so-called endocrine signaling, communicate with other cells, not just at the level of receptors on their surface, but also can enter the genomes of those cells and modify those cells. In other words, it seems to me that the microenvironment of the germ cells, not just at the level of receptors on their surface, but also can enter the genomes of those cells and modify those cells.

Starting point is 01:59:06 In other words, it seems to me that the microenvironment of the germ cells, the testes and the ovaries, are rich with information, not just for the passage to next generations, but also for all the, as you said, all the somatic cells of the body, they're telling the somatic cells of the body what to do and what to become. And the best example I can think about this would be puberty, right? I mean, I would argue that the, that one of the greatest rates of aging and, and transitions we go through in life is from puberty. I mean, a child becomes a very different person after puberty.

Starting point is 01:59:36 They look at the world differently. They think about it differently. The growth of, it's not just about the growth of the hair and the jaw and the Adam's apple and breasts and so on. It's a transformation of the somatic cells from the same microenvironment that the DNA containing cells reside. Right. So once you think about it like this, it becomes obvious that just by affecting the germ cells, you can affect the rest of the body. And in sealagans, there are experiments that show it very clearly. So for example, if you just take worms and prevent sperm production, it changes the The other thing is that, in the case of the DNA, the DNA is not the same.

Starting point is 02:00:05 The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same.

Starting point is 02:00:15 The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same.

Starting point is 02:00:23 The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is not the same. The DNA is to subsequent generations. You're also... Limiting communication. Limiting communication. Yeah, without question, my bulldog, Castile, changed after castration. And it was a wonderful dog, but at some point developed some health issues. The introduction of a small amount of testosterone every other day changed him fundamentally. In that case, for the better, back to a version of himself that I had only observed earlier, but also a different version of the same dog.

Starting point is 02:00:44 And no, he wasn't humping everything. Maybe the occasional knee, um, particular beable, who has names I won't mention. But it was absolutely clear that the hormone was not just taking a system and amplifying it. It was actually modifying the system. So anyway, I just wanted to highlight that. And then now, um, thank you for indulging me. I let's, um, if you will, let's me. Let's continue down this path that we were going on because I want to make sure that we absolutely get to this issue of transmission of information about sex choice of offspring.

Starting point is 02:01:15 So the worms are her muscle diets, which means that they make both sperm and eggs, but they are also mails which are much more rare. And they can choose to mate with their males or not. And when they mate with the male, it's a huge decision because it's very costly energetically and they also risk predation and all kinds of troubles. The males hurt them and reduce their lifespan when they mate with them. People are going to draw all sorts of analogies here, but it's inevitable, but hey, here we go. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:01:46 And most importantly, for evolution, when you mate with another animal, you dilute your genome in half. Because the worms can just self-fertilize and transmit the exact same genome to the next generation, but when they mate, they dilute it in half. So this is a big price to pay. On the other hand, when you made, you diversify all genome.

Starting point is 02:02:07 So maybe some combination of gene will be good. And we know that in humans, I mean, it's kind of interesting that the brain circuits that are associated with a version and with approach are fairly hardwired for a number of things. Like puddle of vomit, almost everybody kind of cringes, plate of cookies, if you like cookies cookies you move towards it. But there's one particular word in the English and Brazilian-Israeli language that

Starting point is 02:02:31 ought to evoke disgust and that's incest. Because incest is actually not just disgusting as a practice, but it's dangerous genetically, right? Because of the inbreeding creates a deleterious mutation. Right, so there are studies on how people in Israeli kibbutz, for example, where they all grow together, the children live together. It used to be like that. Don't date each other because this is the classic thing. I talk to some of them, the kibbutz is telling me that's not true. But yes, that there are studies like this, let's say, but it

Starting point is 02:02:56 makes sense. And in some countries, Scandinavian countries are in a lapel and isolate more populations are small. They keep exquisite records of lineage in order to avoid inbreeding. Right, so you're absolutely right, but the worms, it's the safe choice for them is to self-made, and if they're made with a male, they take a risk, but they diverse it. What we found is that if you take the hermaphrodite, we can call it the female for just one second, and you stress it with high temperatures. Then the next generations of worms for free generations

Starting point is 02:03:34 made batch more with males, and they do it because their female starts secreting a pheromone that attracts the males. It's very cryptic mechanism. It's not that she somehow changes and then goes seeking males. It's very cryptic mechanism. It's not that she somehow changes and then goes seeking males. It draws males. It draws men. Oh, and we know how it works. We think we know how it works. What happens is that the stress, the high temperatures, confirmize the production of sperm in the hermaphrodites. So the hermaphrodites don't, they make sperm enough to make

Starting point is 02:04:01 generations, but the sperm, because of the the effective small RNA inherited, because RNAs are not inherited, okay. The sperm is not made optimally, so they make less sperm. And when they don't make a lot of sperm, they feel that they don't self-fertilize correctly. So they call the males by secreting the pheromones so that it would provide its own sperm and they can continue to make babies. And we know this also from experiments, you just take a methyl diet and you kill its sperm, it starts acoustic a pheromone and the male's come.

Starting point is 02:04:31 It's a need-based system. Exactly. Incredible. And I hope people can appreciate as they're hearing this that none of this, we assume, I don't know how to speak worm, none of this we assume is a conscious decision in these animals. Much like human mating behavior, which to us always seems so conscious, but is being governed by both conscious and subconscious decision-making. None of this is an active decision to secrete the hormone to draw in more males.

Starting point is 02:05:00 It's simply a biasing of probabilities, right? The hormone is now secreted in greater quantities or more greater frequency. The males therefore approach more. So it's just increasing probability of interactions, is that right? Right. What happens naturally, normally, if you don't stress the answer starts, is that the worms start secreting the pheromone only when they are old. There's also no people will... When they're running out of their own fertility.

Starting point is 02:05:24 Exactly. Because they only make the sperm at a particular time. And then they run out of stealth sperm, they can sell satellites. So they have to call them as if they want to continue to make. Well, there's this sort of the plastic surgery approach. Okay, I'll take the heat for that one. But, you know, but it's true, I think as, as certain people age to a certain point and they feel that their fertility is waning, if they want offspring, they need to take any number of different approaches. They could get a, here we're talking about a female, but we could also do the reverse, right? We'd sperm donor, right?

Starting point is 02:05:54 Or but if they want to attract a life long made or co-parent with somebody, oftentimes they will do things to adjust their attractiveness in any number of different ways. Psychological attractiveness or physical attractiveness. I'm not afraid to bring this up because I think that the parallels are very important because I do think that every species and individuals within a species, of course, decides whether or not they want to reproduce or not, but has an inherent understanding, conscious or subconscious about where they reside in the arc of their lifespan. I do believe that, not just based on experience.

Starting point is 02:06:25 Some people are very attuned to the passage of time being very fast, others very slow. I think that knowing how long your parents and their parents lived makes a big difference. I have friends whose fathers and particular died fairly young and all these guys basically got married and had kids really young. Right, so here, luckily for me, I don't have to get into psychology of the warms.

Starting point is 02:06:47 The explanation is just like an instinct when they run out of sperm. They start to kidnap the pheromones and attract the males. The R-studis also enumerates about older fathers. The children of older fathers have more, has a higher chance of becoming autistic. 40 and up basically. However, in this case, it's not clear that this is something epigenetics could be just because of DNA damage because it accumulates.

Starting point is 02:07:13 And actually nowadays, we have an episode on fertility coming up, both male and female fertility. And there's actually DNA fragmentation kits at home, DNA fragmentation kits are sperm analysis. You send the sperm back in, you don't do the DNA. People pipe heading, semen at home would be an odd picture. Let's not go there. But there are clinics that do this for a nominal charge.

Starting point is 02:07:36 But I did want to ask about autism and human disease in particular. Another thing that you hear sometimes in here, I wanna acknowledge autism is on a spectrum. Some people get upset if you call it a disorder, there are some adaptive autistic traits and et cetera. But one thing that often comes up is this idea that two people who are more of the kind of engineering, hard science, if you will, of phenotype, mate and have children, higher probability

Starting point is 02:08:03 of the offspring being on the spectrum. Some people would argue, but that's already selecting for people that might have already been partially on the spectrum. So maybe it's a gene copy issue. I'm not asking you to comment on autism in particular, but when you hear things like that, that the children of older fathers, born from older fathers, tend higher probability of autism, what is that at the level of intuition? Does that strike you as an epigenetic phenomenon,

Starting point is 02:08:30 as a nature mishmash, or the possibility that it's RNA passage, or anything, does anything sort of trigger the whiskers, your spidey sense? So in that case, I would go with the most parasymonious explanation, which is it just less fidelity or ever, less DNA maintenance and some damage that passes on, it doesn't have to be an epigenetic thing. But the sperm are

Starting point is 02:08:56 generated at once every 60 days. So the damage must be at the level of the germ cells, not having the proper machinery might occur in a container or something or the DNA repair machinery. The DNA repair machinery could be defective or could work less well in all the people leading to the constant production of germ cells with more mutation. This is the possibility. Do we know exactly what the DNA repair machinery is? Yes. There are many types of DNA repair. And there's one that use other copies of the DNA to correct.

Starting point is 02:09:31 There are ones that just recognize all kinds of religions on the DNA and remove it. It's a very elaborate and complicated system. And is it a system that is now tractable that can be modified through pharmacology or through anything like that? So I know about drugs that correct that improve it. Maybe they exist and I'm not aware that it's very well understood and many people are studying these types of things. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:09:57 One thing that came across in the exploration of the fertility work is that what I'm about to describe is not legal in the U.S. it is illegal, but is legal in the U.K. and in other countries is this notion of three-parent idea where it does seem that some of the eggs that persist in older females don't even if fertilized don't produce healthy embryos. They have chromosomal abnormalities, replications, and deletions that are problematic for the development of the embryos, they have chromosomal abnormalities, replications, and deletions that are problematic for the development of the embryo, such as trisomy 21, aka, Down syndrome, in part or in large part because of deficits in the mitochondrial genome.

Starting point is 02:10:36 So what they now do is they take the, because the mitochondrial genome resides mainly in the cytoplasm, they'll take the, and egg from the mother, the sperm from the father, but they'll take the nucleus from the mother and put that into a cytoplasm of a younger woman whose mitochondrial DNA is healthy, then use the sperm to fertilize that egg, and that's why it's called three parent IVF, then implant that into the mother. And this has been done several times for, in case of mitochondrial damage or mutations into the mother. And this has been done several times for in cases of mitochondrial damage or mutations in the mother. It works. The question is whether or not those offspring

Starting point is 02:11:10 will grow up to be healthy. So this, of course, is not just a pure divergence. It raises a bigger question that I have for you, which is in terms of the work in either CL against or in other model organisms, but in particular in CL elegans, where do you see this going next? And if you would, Indulges, I would love you to tell us a little bit about the admittedly

Starting point is 02:11:31 unpublished work that you're doing on temperature, exposure, and environments. I mean, how malleable is this system? Because to me, it just seems incredibly malleable. And yet a lot of us still cloaked off to us. There's still a ton to learn. So assuming that we will discover similar things in humans, which we don't know that this is the case, but let's say we find it. I think there are many things you can do before you change it.

Starting point is 02:11:57 For example, you could also change it, change a parent inheritance by having the parent exercise, for example. And some things like this have been done, for example, and their experiments in rodents were a show that overfeiting the rodents creates problems for the next generations, for the children. However, if you let the rodent exercise, then it corrects the aberrant in health. So this is one possibility. And you can also manipulate it at the

Starting point is 02:12:32 source. You can change if it's RNAs, let's say you could in the future, perhaps if we understand how it works, actually change the composition of the heretabularinase. By eating RNAs just like the worms, RNAs sandwich. No, so the RNA sandwich would be difficult because it's not, I don't know. But you could, if you do IBS, if you do Vito fertilization, you could perhaps change the composition of the RNAs

Starting point is 02:12:54 in the stuff that you introduce. But way before that, what you could do, perhaps, even in the not so far future, is use these for diagnostics. DNA-based diagnostics for every couple that wants to have a kid. You can, in Israel, this is done for most couples. You can look at the DNA and look for genetic disease. But no one is looking at the RNA at the moment.

Starting point is 02:13:20 If we understand how it works better, we'll have another level, a whole new world to look at. And perhaps there will be some RNAs that correlate with disease that will say, okay, you know, the beauty is that this unlike DNA, it's plastic. So with DNA, this is your DNA, perhaps we can choose another embryo. But here you could say, perhaps, or again, in the future, this is science fiction, doesn't happen now. But if we understand this, and it's true, we we can say maybe you should run on the treadmill a little bit, this will change the profile of your RNAs and then we will use it for IVF.

Starting point is 02:13:53 This seems more because just it correlates with healthy profiles of RNAs. This is a level that no one looks at now and holds great potential. Again, with a disclaimer that we know how it works in humans at all. Yeah. Yes. But of course, it's why it's so interesting. Yeah, it's super interesting, incredibly promising. So along the lines of things that one can do in the short term,

Starting point is 02:14:17 and your experiments on C elegans, I'd love for you to share with us what you're observing about cold exposure and how that impacts subsequent generations of sea elegance. And if you would indulge us with the story of this discovery, like some of the earlier stories you told us, it is a surprising and fascinating one. And let me tell you about this. This is not a story about trans generation I mean, it's a story about memory within one generation. Excuse me. Within one generation.

Starting point is 02:14:46 And as you said, the story of how it happens, it's totally by accident. It's a funny story. And I'm bringing this up because I know Dana Lenschaf who's a huge fan of your post-rust will really be happy. This is her work. This is her work, and this is unpublished work. We didn't even finish it.

Starting point is 02:15:05 So we're working on it. Okay, well, when it's published, we will feature the paper because I love this story. So great. So, so what happened is that when you, we talked about transgenerational memories. And I said that in warms, there are very long transgenerational memories. If a generation time for ceilings just three days, some memory is less for many generations. So way beyond the lifespan of the of the one. The lifespan of the worm is three weeks. Okay. Generate. You have a new generation that we three days, but every worm lives for three weeks. But there's a lot of research that shows that unlike heritable memory, which can be very long, The memory that the worms acquired during the lifetime is very short-lived.

Starting point is 02:15:47 So if you teach something, after two hours, it forgets. So for example, you can teach the worm, you can take an auto that it likes and pair it with starvation, and then it would dislike the auto. And then there's a simple test, you just put it in a plate, you put the auto in one side and a control auto in the other side, and you see whether it prefers this order or not, and it stops preferring it. There is 30 years or more of research, 40 years of research on this showing that the worms forget after two hours. The reason I went to study C elegance is that I wanted to understand memory, because such a simple nervous system, you say maybe I have the potential to actually understand

Starting point is 02:16:25 how it works. But this is slightly disappointing because they forget after two hours. So what is it exactly? My idea was, and I tried to convince students to do it for 10 years, is to take the worms, teach them this association to dislike the order that they innately like, and then just put the worms

Starting point is 02:16:43 in minus 80 and freeze them, freeze them completely, throw them and see what they still remember after their thought. The Han Solo experiment. And I didn't want to do it because of cryocreservation or something like this. I wanted to do it because, as you know better than me, many theories about memory say that you need the electrical activity to maintain the memory. You need to reverberate it in the brain. During dreams or replay of the thing or whatever. And if the memories will nevertheless be kept, even though the worms were frozen in minus 80,

Starting point is 02:17:14 it would mean that it was kept in the absence of electricity, because there's no electricity in minus 80 degrees. This was the idea. I asked many students, no one wanted to do it, because it's not so easy and also a little crazy. Well, and when the PI, the principal investigator, a lab has a pet experiment, no one wants to do that experiment. That is the university tool.

Starting point is 02:17:35 So, and then I agreed to do it, done a luncheon. I was very happy only later to find out that she ignored me completely and did a different experiment. The experiment that data did instead is to just take the worms, teach them the association, and place them on ice. She wanted to see how the kinetics of memory and forgetting change in low temperature, because maybe whatever memory is, the breakdown of the memory is affected by the temperature. A very simple idea. Different experiments.

Starting point is 02:18:11 A different experiment. By a cool experiment. Very cool. And what you found is that when you place the worms on ice, after you teach them, they just don't forget. If even 10 times longer than control worms. At that point, after 24 hours, if no one worms forget after 2 hours, after 24 hours,

Starting point is 02:18:29 the worms will become six. So normally, we do shorter experiments. But for 2 hours, the worms don't forget. This is cool, but it was only the beginning. Because the Boeing explanation is just what I just said. If everything slows down in low temperatures. So the breakdown of memory, again we don't know what it is, but whatever it is, happens slower in low temperatures. But this is not the case, it's not merely the physical,

Starting point is 02:18:53 it's the response, it's the changing of the internal state of the worms, which affects the memory kinetics. How do we know this? There's a beautiful work of the last one years on cold tolerance in the elegance nematodes. If you take the worms and you place them on ice like she did but longer for 48 hours they all die. However if you take the worms acclimate into lower temperatures for a few hours, five hours is a minimum and then place them on ice they also live. They become cold tolerant and people who study this show that this involves changes in lipid metabolism and many things. So Dana took the worms and acclimated them to slightly lower temperatures, made them cold resistant and then taught them the association and placed them on ice and now they forgot

Starting point is 02:19:41 immediately which means that when they change their internal state to become cold tolerant, they no longer extend memories on ice, which means it's not only the temperature, because the temperature was at any way low, now they know the memory. We took this as a starting point to understand which genes change when the worms are becoming cold tolerant on enough ice. And we found genes that when you mutate them,

Starting point is 02:20:03 the worms just remember longer always, even when they're off ice, because these are found genes that when you mutate them, the worms just remember longer always, even when they're off ice, because these are the genes that normally change when they're surprised on the ice. And these genes are expressed just in one pair of neurons, just two out of the 302. Now I just said 302, not 300. And we can manipulate the activities of these genes in these neurons to extend memory. And then the punchline of everything that happened is that we found out that this neuron where this genes function, this one pair of neuron, is the only neuron in elegance which is sensitive to lithium. Lithium is a drug that is being given to bipolar these other patients for decades, although it's not entirely clear how it works, it's very, very interesting.

Starting point is 02:20:56 It's also interesting, there's an episode, of course, in your podcast about this, you know more about this than me a lot, but it's also interesting because it's just an atom created in a big band, yet it works on our brains in such a fundamental way. And we wanted to see whether it works on the world, because this neuron was tied to this memory extension phenotype that we found. So Dana grew the worms only to remove them from lithium, taught them the association and found out that they remember

Starting point is 02:21:23 a lot longer than control worms. Not only that, if you first make the worms called tolerant, then lithium doesn't work on them. So lithium switches this forgetfulness mechanism on and off. And it all connected to called tolerance. Amazing. And amazing for a number of reasons. And so at risk of being long-winded in my response, I just wanted to highlight something that I think will be of relevance to most people, which is when at some point we did a few episodes on memory. And I highlighted a review that was written by the great James McGaw, one of the great mammalian memory researchers, who just worked a lot on humans and mice.

Starting point is 02:22:04 And I was shocked, pun intended, and amused to learn that in medieval times, if people wanted children to remember lessons, they could be religious lessons or school doctrine or whatever it was, mathematics, whatever they would take children, teach them, and then throw them into cold water to introduce a memory instilling event. And we now know that the memory instilling event is the release of adrenaline in the body, which makes perfect sense if you think about traumatic events, but it also, this whole general mechanism also applies to the learning of other types of information. And so if I understand correctly about the role of lithium and the role of cold in the

Starting point is 02:22:41 experiments that you just described, There's some general state switch, some internal state switch that says what happened in the minutes or hours preceding this was important. It acts as sort of like a highlighter pen in the book of experiences. And I'm absolutely curious to know, whether or not this is an RNA dependent mechanism

Starting point is 02:23:03 in some way. So it's just literally like the highlighter in the A key instruction book. This we don't know. This we don't know. And as I said, this is not even a finished work. It's not peer reviewed. It's just the state that I told you about. But it's very exciting for me to go into this new feeling.

Starting point is 02:23:21 You know, once it's out, I'll be happy to talk more about it and think about the implications on the connections or other things and more about the mechanisms. Yeah. Well, thank you for sharing it with us despite the fact that it's not finished. Well, people now know that it's also not finished. And I love a good cliffhanger. So we await the full conclusion and interpretation of these results. Today, you've taken on an amazing journey through the genome RNA, short interfering RNAs, a ton of history of prior experiments,

Starting point is 02:23:53 some of which ended tragically, many of which, unfortunately, did not. They were true triumphs in, in particular, the work in your laboratory, which is just incredible. And also this introduction of model organisms. So, and I only mentioned a short handful of the things that you've taught us about today. So first I wanna extend thanks for the incredible teaching. I also wanna say thank you for something equally important, which is that absolutely came through, but is what initially brought me to explore you and your work more,

Starting point is 02:24:26 although I had certainly heard of you, which is that your spirit and kind of approach to biology is an extremely unique and intoxicating one. It's even, I'd venture to call it seductive. It's, you know, there's a, I do believe that whether or not it's music or poetry or science or I do believe that whether or not it's music or poetry or science or mathematics that the spirit behind something dictates the amount of intelligence and precision with which that thing is is carried out and It absolutely comes through so if I'm making a feel on the spot about this I have succeeded Thank you. Thank you very much, but I know that the listeners can feel it. It's a felt thing. So thank you. There are many scientists out there,

Starting point is 02:25:09 a fewer with this phenotype. And even fewer that, I think that can communicate with such articulate precision. So thank you so much. Thank you. It's been a real pleasure. Pleasure was all mine. Thanks, Phil.

Starting point is 02:25:22 Great. Well, we'll do it again. And we'll learn about all the incredible things you're doing, trying to transform science as it were at the level of publishing, at the level of social media, because there's a whole other discussion there. Meanwhile, we will, of course, point people in the direction of you and to learn more about your work.

Starting point is 02:25:36 And I look forward to hearing the conclusion of Dana's studies. Thanks, Philos. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you for joining me today for my discussion with Dr. Oded Rakhavi about genetics, inheritance, the epigenome, and transgenerational passage of traits. If you're learning from and are enjoying the podcast, please subscribe to our YouTube

Starting point is 02:25:55 channel. That's a terrific zero cost way to support us. In addition, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify and Apple. And on both Spotify and Apple, you can leave us up to a five star review. If you have questions for us or comments or suggestions about topics you'd like us to cover, or guess you'd like me to include on the Hubertman Lab podcast, please put those in the comments section on YouTube. I do read all the comments.

Starting point is 02:26:16 In addition, please check out the sponsors mentioned the beginning and throughout today's episode. That's the best way to support this podcast. Not so much on today's episode, but on many previous episodes of the Hubertman Lab podcast, we discuss supplements. While supplements aren't necessary for everybody, many people derive tremendous benefit from them for things like improving sleep, improving focus, and for hormone support. The Hubertman Lab podcast is proud to partner with momentous supplements.

Starting point is 02:26:41 We've done that for several reasons. First of all, momentous supplements are the very highest quality. Also, they tend to focus on single ingredient formulations, which makes it very straightforward to build the most cost effective and biologically effective supplement regimen for you. We've also partnered with Momentus because we realized that many listeners of this podcast reside outside of the United States. Unfortunately, momentous chips internationally. If you'd like to learn more about the supplements discussed on the Uberman lab podcast, you can go to Live Momentus ships internationally. If you'd like to learn more about the supplements discussed on the Hubert Minlab podcast, you can go to LiveMomentus spelled OUS, so that's libmomentus.com slash Hubert Min. If you're not already following us on social media, please feel free to do so. We are Hubert Minlab

Starting point is 02:27:16 on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And at all those places, I cover information, some of which overlaps with the content of the Uberman Lab podcast, but much of which is distinct from content on the Uberman Lab podcast. So again, it's Uberman Lab on all social media channels. The Uberman Lab podcast also has a so-called neural network newsletter. This is a zero-cost monthly newsletter that consists of podcast summaries and so-called toolkits and those toolkits range from things like a tool kit for sleep, for focus, for controlling dopamine, deliberate cold exposure, for increasing focus, and much, much more. If you want to sign up for that newsletter, you can go to hubermanlab.com, go to the menu, scroll down to newsletter,

Starting point is 02:27:55 you simply provide your email, and I assure you we do not share your email with anybody. And again, it's a completely zero-cost newsletter, find it at hubermanlab.com. Thank you once again for joining me for today's discussion with Dr. Ode de Rakhavi, and last, but certainly not least, thank you for your interest in science.

Huberman Lab - Dr. Oded Rechavi: Genes & the Inheritance of Memories Across Generations

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.