It’s the Environment

Summary: The environment we live in makes us who we are.

With the development of the atomic bomb during WWII, much research was initiated to understanding the mechanics of genetics especially the process of mutations. Scientists most famously made extensive use of the fruit fly. The hazards of radiation exposure to living organisms was trying to be understood as the leading nations of the world pressed forward with frequent above-ground nuclear weapons testing from the late forties through the fifties and beyond. Finally in 1963, the US, Soviet Union and the United Kingdom signed a Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Even though there is much more to the nuclear weapons saga, our interest lies mainly with the fact that genetics research exploded in the post war years and has not slowed down since.

Genetics became the new colored glasses of biological and behavioral sciences. In 1953, Crick and Watson published the correct structure of DNA. This began to codified what scientists were investigating but did not necessarily uncover the nuances of the genetic code and how it really worked.

Regarding humans, debate has raged for years about whether intelligence, for instance, was a factor of genes or of the environment [conditions of existence]. The seesaw would titter back and forth over the years with so much attributed to genetics and so much to the environment. No doubt there were many well-funded scientific studies of all sorts to justify future pronouncements of ‘scientific’ findings. It seemed that philosophical bias played a not so minor role. Nobody could say that the phenotype [physical manifestation] was one hundred percent due to the genotype [genetic composition]. To the layman, it was easy to see that the environment influenced the development and function of a living organism at least to a certain extent but now there was a new element to make sense of.

We’ve all seen the effects of different social/economic milieus on people. It was commonsense that environment was a shaper of individuality. Even cells in a laboratory petri dish could be easily changed in function and appearance by the nutrients that were in the agar they were growing on.

On the other hand, genes could be crudely manipulated by exposure to ionizing sources of radiation or certain mutagenic chemicals. These caused errors in the replicating genome to occur during cell division. In this case, it was the environment that caused the mutation in the genome. Once a new cell was created the genomic change was irreversible so this implied that genetics was fundamental but fragile. It did promise, though, that with enough finesse genes could be subject to our whim.

Not too long ago, genetic supremacy was intimated again with the advent of genomic sequencing of viruses and bacteria and eventually with the entire [not exactly true but close] human genome. This promised to be the headwaters of a new revolution in biological sciences. Everything about an organism could or would eventually be known by its DNA sequences. Diseases were opined to be practically cured. Life could be extended beyond the normal span. Even totally new synthetic organisms could be created via the new gene sequencing machines that were popping up in labs around the world. Could designer babies be next? Can you say Brave New World? Of course, it was going to be a kinder and gentler version of the fantasy literature from many past decades. Who was going to guide this new genetic ship was never really publicly discussed, though.

Nowadays, specific genes can be ‘knocked-out’ to create a very specific metabolic or anatomical dysfunction. This has been used with great efficacy to determine some of the minutia of cell function and the consequences to various organisms, Unfortunately, I see this as analogous to our ‘can-do’ attitude toward space exploration. We choose to act like we understand the nature of what we are doing but in fact surprises pop up around just about every corner. The pieces of the puzzle just don’t seem to fit together the way our knowledge says they should.

So, I have skipped forward very quickly to just give a taste of the trend in understanding the popular version of the science of genetics. So what about the environment?

It turns out that genes are not etched-in-stone blueprints. Genes can be flexible in the short term even if they are not quite fluid. The epi-genome which is a chemical structure that surrounds the chromosomes in the cell’s nucleus is now understood to turn on and off genes whether it be for protein synthesis for enzyme production or anatomical differentiation during fetal development. Something flips those switches on and off. Genes can even repair themselves under some circumstances if damaged.

We all know that the purpose of sexual reproduction is to gently mix up the genes in a controlled way. Nature wants to create just enough diversity to maintain resilience for a species to survive in a non-static environment. Nature does not put all her eggs in one basket so to speak. Long term survival is what counts.

What’s hiding from our focus on only the nuclear genome is that it is not just an organism’s appearance and function but what kind of power is ‘under the hood’. In this case, I am talking about the energetic engine that powers all non-bacterial cells called mitochondria. Actually, there are hundreds to thousands of them in each cell depending on the cell type (except red blood cells). Consider that If the engine does not work well then you don’t go ‘down the road’ very fast or reliably. In the case of mitochondria, the power that they supply runs just about everything that a cell does from reproduction to protein building to communicating with other cells to coordinating the 100,000 chemical reactions per second. When cells start sputtering energetically then tissues in an organism start to not keep up their necessary functions. In other words, things work less well. And working less well is not a linear process. At some point a threshold is reached where a catastrophic failure to function is breached. It could be something like a failure of the retina’s macula to keep up with daily regenerating chores or it could be the heart muscle slowly being sufficiently starved of oxygen to the point of failure of that organ and the organism. Mitochondrial inefficiencies account for about 95% of all disease according to mito expert Dr. Doug Wallace who has studied this for 35 yrs. (Youtube video lecture– 0:55:00-0:59:15 is a nice summation).

So what is up with the mitochondria? Do we need more minerals or protein in our diet to keep them strong? Or perhaps some special phyto-nutrient or anti-oxidant polyphenols? Surely there is something we can do so that we don’t age before our time.

A bit more information is needed to make some sense of the situation. First off, mitochondria have their own DNA. Those DNA only get passed down along the maternal lineage in sexual organisms. It’s Mom’s and Grandma’s genes you’ve got in your mitos. Their health reflects in your health to an important degree. Dad’s status is not nearly as significant.

The second piece is that those mito genes for a variety of reasons have a mutation rate of about 1000 times that of the cell’s nuclear genes. That does not sound like a positive situation but there is a good reason for that – rapid adaptability to a new environment.

The third bit is that mitochondria are essentially like specialized bacteria that live inside each of our cells. They very efficiently create the energy molecule ATP for the cell’s usage. They move around in the cell to a certain degree and they also reproduce and die inside the cell. If they don’t reproduce and die (mitochondrial biogenesis & mitophagy) on a timely and regulated basis then the inefficient mitos remain and increase in relative numbers. This lowers the cell’s overall energy flow. Over time we grow old because the bad mitos reach thresholds that severely limit cell and tissue function. You might think of it like a car engine with burnt valves that can barely develop sufficient compression to move the pistons.

For instance, now you might understand why young adult reproduction is better. Overall, adult mito function does not remain the same. It only gets worse over time. That’s called aging. Selecting that perfect egg cell out of the millions of oocytes that a woman possess for ovulation becomes a more daunting task when energy is not as abundant. It is not a random process. And then there is the process of gestation which is surely demanding on a woman’s body. This all becomes something for our culture to think about without a biased modern social paradigm getting in the way.

For those of us not involved with reproduction, our hope is to reduce the rate of degradation. The body is amazing in what it can do if given a chance. Mitochondrial status can be improved over time with some knowledge and effort. It is a seasonal timed process (summer). Tissues can be reformed and rebuilt at least some degree if mito energy is increased. It has very little to do with your nuclear genes. It does have to do with the environment that you allow your mitochondria to experience, i.e. how you live actively as well as passively. This means food and water, nerve and hormonal stress and exposure to unnatural forms of energy (artificial light and EMF) and environmental toxins all have an cumulative impact. You can be the victim of ignorance or the victim of poor choices but, without a doubt, it is the environment that shapes your future self.

Grandpa can be buff if he chooses!