The (Dual) Origin of Epigenetics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
08_Symp69_Haig_p.67_70 4/20/05 4:25 PM Page 67 Downloaded from symposium.cshlp.org on September 23, 2015 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press The (Dual) Origin of Epigenetics D. HAIG Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 “Epigenetics” has different meanings for different sci- is to my mind one of the points in its favour. We all entists. Molecular biologists are probably most familiar realize that, by the time development begins, the zygote with a definition of epigenetics as “the study of mitoti- contains certain ‘preformed’ characters, but that these cally and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene func- must interact with one another, in processes of ‘epigene- tion that cannot be explained by changes in DNA se- sis’, before the adult condition is attained. The study of quence” (Riggs et al. 1996). For them, epigenetic the ‘preformed’ characters nowadays belongs to the dis- mechanisms would include DNA methylation and his- cipline known as ‘genetics’; the name ‘epigenetics’ is tone modification. Functional morphologists, however, suggested as the study of those processes which consti- would be more familiar with a definition such as that of tute the epigenesis which is also involved in develop- Herring (1993), for whom epigenetics refers to “the en- ment” (see also Waddington 1939 [pp. 154–155]). tire series of interactions among cells and cell products Waddington targeted what he saw as the naive view of which leads to morphogenesis and differentiation.” She many geneticists that there was a simple correspondence continues that “among the numerous epigenetic factors between genes and characters. For Waddington, the influencing the vertebrate face is mechanical loading” course of development was determined by the interaction and that “epigenetic influences range from hormones and of many genes with each other and with the environment. growth factors to ambient temperature and orientation in Neo-Darwinism, he believed, involved “a breach be- a gravitational field.” In this note, I will argue that these tween organism and nature as complete as the Cartesian disparate definitions have come about because “epigenet- dualism of mind and matter; an epigenetic consideration ics” had at least two semi-independent origins during the of evolution would go some way toward healing it” 20th century. (Waddington 1953 [p. ix]). Waddington decried “the The adjective “epigenetic” has a much longer history reigning modern view . [that] the direction of muta- than the noun “epigenetics” because the adjective origi- tional change is entirely at random, and that adaptation re- nally referred to a different noun, “epigenesis.” Thus, the sults solely from the natural selection of mutations which Oxford English Dictionary gives the primary sense of happen to give rise to individuals with suitable character- epigenetic as “[o]f or pertaining to, or of the nature of epi- istics.” This he considered to be an “extremist” theory genesis” and defines epigenesis as “the formation of an (Waddington 1953 [p. 151]). Because Waddington organic germ as a new product” with the theory of epige- claimed to provide a richer paradigm for studying the in- nesis defined as “the theory that the germ is brought into teraction between organism and environment than the im- existence (by successive accretions), and not merely de- poverished view of genetics, an epigenetic approach has veloped, in the process of reproduction.” It is not my pur- appealed to critics of evolutionary “orthodoxy,” whether pose here to delve into the history of theories of epigene- these be biologists who feel that there is something lack- sis, except to note that “epigenetic” is sometimes still ing in the neo-Darwinian synthesis (see, e.g., Løvtrup used in this earlier sense as pertaining to epigenesis. 1972; Ho and Saunders 1979; Jablonka and Lamb 1989) Epigenetics was coined by Waddington (1942) to refer or philosophers who favor a less gene-centric, more holis- to the study of the “causal mechanisms” by which “the tic, view of biology (see, e.g., articles in van de Vijver et genes of the genotype bring about phenotypic effects.” al. 2002). Waddington (1939 [p. 156]) had earlier used epigenotype Waddington’s term gained few converts prior to the to refer to “the set of organizers and organizing relations 1960s. A notable exception was Huxley (1956) who en- to which a certain piece of tissue will be subject during couraged others to use epigenetics to mean “the science development.” He believed that genotype and phenotype of developmental process in general.” Later, in a review referred to “differences between whole organisms . of cancer biology, Huxley (1957) used epigenetics “to de- [and were] not adequate or appropriate for the considera- note the analytic study of individual development (on- tion of differences within a single organism.” Thus, epi- togeny) with its central problem of differentiation.” For genetics for Waddington referred to a subject similar to Huxley, “The method by which tissues and organs differ- what we would now call developmental biology. entiate in the course of normal development is at the mo- Waddington (1956) later provided some insight into ment the main blank space in biology’s map. [W]e his reasons for choosing epigenetics. He wrote, “The fact know little of the precise steps taken by epigenetic pro- that the word ‘epigenetics’ is reminiscent of ‘epigenesis’ cesses, of the biochemical factors involved, and above all, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Volume LXIX. © 2004 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 0-87969-729-6/04. 67 08_Symp69_Haig_p.67_70 4/20/05 4:25 PM Page 68 Downloaded from symposium.cshlp.org on September 23, 2015 - Published by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 68 HAIG of what determines the replicable specificity of differen- such as Nanney, who wished to maintain an important tiated tissues.” Thus, epigenetics was concerned with the role for the cytoplasm, or extranuclear factors, in heredi- processes by which a constant genotype gave rise to dif- tary. Nanney (1957 [p. 136]) had earlier expressed his ferentiated cell types and tissues, and perturbations of views on the relative roles of the nucleus and cytoplasm which could give rise to cancer. in political terms, and these comments give some insight Berry and Searle (1963) initiated an association of into his favored model of epigenetic control systems: “epigenetics” with the study of variation in skeletal de- velopment. They used epigenetic “in Waddington’s Two concepts of genetic mechanisms have persisted sense, to emphasize the developmental origin of the dis- side by side . The first of these we will designate the continuities being studied, with genetic factors determin- “Master Molecule” concept. In its simplest form the ing the main features of the ‘epigenetic landscape’ but en- concept places the “master molecules” in the chromo- vironmental forces influencing the final outcome.” Their somes and attributes the characteristics of an organism to their specific construction; all other cellular con- study of the rodent skeleton was later extended to a study stituents are considered relatively inconsequential ex- of epigenetic variation in the human cranium (Berry and cept as obedient servants of the masters. This is in Berry 1967). Herring’s (1993) definition of epigenetics essence the Theory of the Gene, interpreted to suggest (quoted in the first paragraph of this paper) is a direct de- totalitarian government. scendant of this usage. The second concept of a genetic mechanism is one The second 20th-century derivation of “epigenetics” which is more difficult to describe . This concept we can be traced to Nanney (1958). At a conference in Gif- will designate as the “Steady State” concept. By the term sur-Yvette on Extrachromosomal Heredity (March “Steady State” we envision a dynamic self-perpetuating 1958), Nanney contrasted what he called genetic and par- organization of a variety of molecular species which agenetic systems. However, Pontecorvo told Nanney of owes its specific properties not to the characteristics of any one kind of molecule, but to the functional interrela- the criticism he had received from a professor of Greek tionships of these molecular species. In contrast to the for Pontecorvo’s use of the term parasexuality (Ephrussi totalitarian government by “master molecules,” the 1958). By the time the published version of Nanney’s re- “steady state” government is a more democratic organi- marks appeared in July 1958, Nanney had substituted epi- zation, composed of interacting cellular fractions operat- genetic for paragenetic and added references to Wadding- ing in self-perpetuating patterns. ton (Nanney 1958). This history indicates that Nanney’s concept of what he came to call epigenetic control sys- By the time of the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on tems was independent of Waddington’s prior use of epi- Quantitative Biology, Nanney (1959) had refined his con- genetics, but that Nanney considered their two usages to ception of epigenetic systems. These he characterized as be compatible. “signal interpreting devices, yielding predictable results Nanney (1958) started his comments by noting the in response to specific stimuli from inside and outside the great recent advances of chemical genetics. These ad- cell. They are conceived as the integrative systems regu- vances had allowed a consistent hypothesis in which ge- lating the expression of genetic potentialities; mutual ex- netic control systems were based on a “template replicat- clusion, simultaneity of expression, and adaptive cellular ing mechanism” that determined the “library of transformation could scarcely be achieved without effi- specificities.” However, he believed that “auxiliary cient triggering devices.” He now conceded that epige- mechanisms with different principles of operation are in- netic systems were “presumably limited by the informa- volved in determining which specificities are to be ex- tion contained in the genetic library. An epigenetic pressed in any particular cell.” These auxiliary mecha- change should not result in a permanent loss of informa- nisms he called epigenetic control systems.