Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

aecarol1 t1_j09b4u5 wrote

Any cell during your lifetime that acquires a mutation that is in direct motherhood of the egg or sperm you contribute, they can inherit it.

If your kidney has a cell that mutates, they will never see it. The same goes for 99.999% of the cells in your body.

But if a cell in your embryo that later divided to eventually (after several cell generations) become a sperm (or egg), then yes, they can inherit that.

EDIT: edited to clarify that it's "cell generations". There is a lineage of cells in your body that divided from the fertilized egg you came from, eventually leading to the egg or sperm cell you contribute to a child. If any of those cells develop a mutation, it's possible for your child to inherit that change.

752

EmilyU1F984 t1_j0amy55 wrote

Yea radiation to the testicles/ovaries or similar mutagens will cause inheritable mutations. Anything else getting damaged in OPs body is irrelevant.

158

nyaaaa t1_j0b8frb wrote

Is it really "inheritable" if you don't have it?

18

ScipioLongstocking t1_j0berjk wrote

Yeah. That's why people can be carriers for hereditary diseases, but they don't actually have the disease.

55

Quantum_Quandry t1_j0e44aa wrote

That’s generally due to recessive genes and not due to a mutation in the cell generations immediately before your gonads (though that too is possible).

2

Dal90 t1_j0bfx9f wrote

Epigenetics.

You may have a trait or mutation that doesn't express itself, but your kids my find themselves in the right behavioral or environmental situation it does.

25

avian_aficianado t1_j0m0hfn wrote

Its interesting for example how the emergence of epigenetic modifictions can affet both cognitive and endocrinological function. The amount of dopamine recepetors being deactivated during signal transmssion has been correlated with lower IQ test scores, but research into the exact modualtory mechanisms of epigenetics are still being studied. Lactose intolerance is another ntoaable case of methylation during ontogenic development.

1

sebwiers t1_j0bg5ul wrote

It's inheritable in that the person born with it can pass it down. You can't really mutate post birth to have a genetic condition; if you have the condition you were born with it.

7

MoobyTheGoldenSock t1_j0c3ucn wrote

Not fully irrelevant. That damage can still be passed in some form via epigenetics.

3

futurettt t1_j0dcvm7 wrote

Wouldn't the epigenetic modulation have to be implemented in germ line cells (in testes/ovaries)

2

MoobyTheGoldenSock t1_j0dftxe wrote

Yes. But that’s the entire point: epigenetic factors can and do affect gametes. You can have a surgery that results in DNA methylation that in turn affects your sperm that in turn gets passed to your offspring:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548616

Obviously, genetics is still by and large the main determiner, but epigenetics can result in genes being expressed or silenced in offspring.

2

morphinapg t1_j0b9zqq wrote

Can cells from other parts of your body eventually travel elsewhere?

1

shadowyams t1_j0bcd5v wrote

No, mammalian cells are programmed to survive only under a pretty narrow and cell-type specific set of biochemical and physical environments. You don't want bone cells setting up shop in your liver, or hair follicles growing out of your ovaries. If you've ever done primary mammalian cell culture, you know that they're super prone to just committing mass suicide. Cancer cells are the exception, because that's kind of their whole jam.

And at any rate, you can't just turn a random cell into a germ cell. Spermatogenesis and oogenesis don't work that way.

12

morphinapg t1_j0bcvgz wrote

Can the DNA from one cell travel to another, like for example from blood cells which travel all over?

1

shadowyams t1_j0bew8g wrote

  1. Red blood cells and platelets, which are the vast majority of blood cells, don't have nuclei.

  2. No, not generally.

4

screen317 t1_j0e4rhx wrote

Bone marrow cells can however travel all the way across the body to other bones though, pretty cool!

1

EmilyU1F984 t1_j0bycbs wrote

Yes, they can, to a limited degree.

But the germ line cells are very very well shielded against other cells intruding. And even if foreign cells went to say your testicles. They aren‘t germ line cells, they wouldn’t make sperm.

2

[deleted] t1_j0anbqd wrote

[removed]

−16

hey_look_its_shiny t1_j0asdko wrote

All of the cells in your body are constantly being exposed to low levels of radiation which can cause mutations.

Sterility occurs at higher levels of radiation, when the reproductive cells suffer enough damage (or accrue enough mutations) to make them functionally inoperable.

There's a meaningful amount of room for non-sterility-causing mutations between those two extremes.

84

grandBBQninja t1_j0azqde wrote

This is a very broad statement. You probably mean high doses of ionizing radiation. Even then, there are lots of other mutagens as well.

20

Goddamtoad t1_j0annrx wrote

But the oocytes in my ovaries were already there - already fully-formed oocytes - when I was born?

26

Plantpong t1_j0arhmi wrote

Living, non-dividing cells (such as oocytes) can still gather damage to their DNA through a variety of ways (mutagenic substances, radiation, etc.). Misrepair of DNA damage by the cells' own repair mechanisms can form mutations which can be inherited, if the mutations don't make the oocyte non-viable of course.

45

2legittoquit t1_j0b8r8q wrote

The most common ways of DNA changing is methylation of Cytosine in the DNA. It’s not damage but it blocks translation from happening at that spot and the spots local to it. It effectively changes the expression of that area of DNA.

3

aecarol1 t1_j0bvqmn wrote

They were there when you were born, but they could have mutated before your birth. There is a long line of cells between the fertilized single cell embryo that become you, until your oocytes were formed. Any of those cells along that line that develops a mutation may pass it on to their daughter cells until eventually the oocytes were formed, inheriting the mutation.

The egg they produce may well carry that mutation and then to your child.

1

scrangos t1_j0az9ao wrote

Does that mean the inverse is also true? a mutation on an egg or sperm (not ovaries or testes) will never affect the parent?

6

Alpacaofvengeance t1_j0b2ggr wrote

Sperm, not sure, but eggs can become a type of cancer called a teratoma. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/19/8/1867/2356435

16

Bax_Cadarn t1_j0b75uj wrote

There is this type of cancer called seminoma. Every cell that divides can become cancer.

6

scrangos t1_j0bevhu wrote

Ohh, interesting, I wasn't aware that eggs and possibly sperm even were able to replicate on their own, as they don't even have that as part of their regular function.

1

G3Minus t1_j0b3g0s wrote

For the sake of your mental health, please DO NOT learn what a teratoma is. Creepy af.

0

Xanjis t1_j0b3ikm wrote

If the mutation isn't cancerous it would probably be fine since those reproductive don't really do anything for the parent. If it is a cancerous mutation the problem is it will tend to spread to the rest of the body.

5

aecarol1 t1_j0bv18q wrote

Any cell that can divide can become cancer. I don't think it's possible for sperm to become cancerous because they simply don't have all the machinery to divide, but egg cells certainly can divide (not normally) and can initiate a cancer.

The germ cells, which divide to produce eggs and sperm, can also develop cancer.

1

kjaxz8 t1_j09cjn7 wrote

Yes and no. For the most part, the answer is no. If you get cancer (due to mutated cells) caused by smoking this does not pass to you kids. The cells in your body are somatic cells and the mutations in the DNA of those cells does not get passed on. Your germline cells (sperm and eggs) are different. Potentially though those cells could acquire mutations which would be “pass on” but those cells are generally more protected.

Then there’s also the matter of epigenetics and imprinting. But that’s a long rabbit hole to go down. So the simple answer is no but the more complicated answer is kind of yes.

213

Snapple207 t1_j0aczya wrote

While we're on the topic of sperm, doesn't the fact they're dying and being replaced frequently help prevent that as well? Unless the germ cells mutate, wouldn't sperm develop mutations individually?

20

dkysh t1_j0aragh wrote

The sperm cells themselves are very short-lived. However, they do originate from spermatogonial stem cells that keep on replicating theough all your life.

In a cartoon, these stem cells divide into two cells. One of these daughter cells (cell A) keeps being a stem cell and the other not (cell B), begining a chain of divisions into further daughter cells that end up being a bunch of sperm.

New mutations appearing on cell B will only be found in one "round" of sperm. Mutations appearing in cell A are there to stay in all future rounds.

27

kjaxz8 t1_j0b7yb1 wrote

Not really.

The frequent replacement of sperms cells is “helpful” in a sense to reduce the incidence of chromosome abnormalities like Down syndrome. For women, since they are born with all the eggs in their body, those eggs age with them and with that age it is thought that the chromosomes get kind of “sticky” and can have trouble dividing easily. This is why Down syndrome can be seen more frequently with older moms.

The same is not true to sperm. However, there are risks associated with advanced paternal age and those risks are associate with mutations. For example order dads have a high chance of having a kid with achondroplasia. This is thought to be related to the fact that the sperm of an older man has undergone more cell division leading to more chance of these small mutations.

3

RedditScoutBoy OP t1_j0ap85k wrote

Thanks for explanation. It's good you brought in the discutions epigenetics. I read about the Hongerwinter where kids were born for many generations with health problems. Did this happen because of the bad nutrition and harsh condition the mothers lived in that period, so while the children were in womb some genes turned on or off to accommodate that? And are the "mutations" acquired through epigenetics imprinted forever in the genome or will they revert back once the external factor that caused that is removed?

16

SaneButSociopathic t1_j0avpbn wrote

Like the parent comment said, it's a rabbit hole...

Some genes only remain epigenetically modfied untill the next cell division, others take multiple rounds, and still others can remain for 1-3 generations based on whether it was the father or the mother that carried the epigenetic modifications.

Simple example would be the Barr-body in women: most of the genes on one of the X-chromosomes in women get turned off shortly after germination - to keep the gene products balanced. But these modifications get reverted before one of the X-chromosomes can end up in an egg.

There is a lot about epigenetics we don't really understand but it seems extremely complex and setting up conclusive experiments is extremely difficult.

13

shadowyams t1_j0becmq wrote

> I read about the Hongerwinter where kids were born for many generations with health problems.

This is a common misconception. The Dutch famine cohort consists of individuals born during or shortly after the famine (i.e., prenatal exposure to famine). People have shown that these individuals have elevated risk for several metabolic, cardiovascular, and psychiatric disorders (recent review), as well as persistent changes in DNA methylation.

Whether these epigenetic changes can be inherited is rather controversial. There's been some followup (search "transgenerational") in the Dutch cohort indicating some transgenerational effects. However, the effects aren't super strong, and, as far as I can tell, nobody's done the molecular biology to show that these effects are due to genuine epigenetic inheritance, or something more banal like parental or environmental effects.

> [A]re the "mutations" acquired through epigenetics imprinted forever in the genome ... ?

This would violate a lot of what we know of meiosis. Briefly, there's a lot of evidence indicating that chromatin state is wiped and effectively reset during meiosis through to embryogenesis.

4

hernerrrrr t1_j0ahot1 wrote

Unless your sperm generating cells accumulate mutations because of proofreading errors, no. For eggs, unless they experienced a proofreading error upon their initial genesis during your fetal development, no. I guess it’s possible that if they’re somehow exposed to mutagens they could be affected, but that is less likely and more complex (especially in the case of eggs). Basically, your germ line cells will not develop mutations based on mutations you develop in other cell types/tissues. If you develop a somatic mutation (meaning that this dna was synthesized as you are already living, and during cell replication) in your skin cells, and the mutant skin cells divide and turn into cancer for instance- no, this will not affect your germ line cells.

13

Kailaylia t1_j0agbda wrote

Female humans are born complete with their full complement of eggs. Therefore a woman can only pass on mutations if someone has cased her already present eggs to mutate.

- I'm only going on common sense here, so if I'm incorrect I'd appreciate anyone explaining why.

8

mutandis57 t1_j0as6oa wrote

The egg cells will have already acquired copying errors when they were created inside the fetus still in the womb. They will accumulate additional DNA errors from random chemical/radiation damage during their dormant lifetime. It is nearly impossible for human offspring to contain no mutations on top of the parents.

8

MyWholesomeAlt t1_j0arbnu wrote

They could inherit your germline mutations (mutations to sperm or eggs, or the cells they originate from) but they wouldn't inherit mutations to somatic cells (cells other than germline cells). Hope this helps.

3

[deleted] t1_j09asqm wrote

[removed]

2

mdielmann t1_j09dxd2 wrote

Localized mutations happen all the time, throughout your life. The most common occurance the average person has heard of results in cancer. That said, these won't be passed on to your children.

12

ObligatoryOption t1_j09f7j4 wrote

Right, non-gamete mutations can affect you (but not your children). Thanks for clarifying that.

But you don't turn into Hulk.

1

Mutex70 t1_j09ngtu wrote

Are you saying I should stop running the microwave with the door open?

0

CorpFillip t1_j0b0y0v wrote

Concerned about the use of ‘lifetime’ — very strong NO that anything that happens to your cells is transmitted. Only things that happen to the egg’s cell, before it is inseminated.

Anything that happens during the rest if uour lifetime is irrelevant to the genetics if your offspring; your lifetime won’t affect them.

2

icryalotoflies t1_j0cau12 wrote

The cells in eggs are your cells...and obese women have a higher rate of children with birth defects, same with past and current smokers. Your health determines your kids that's an absolute fact

0

CorpFillip t1_j0dvwd6 wrote

An egg is a single cell, but my point was that the creation of each egg is the last time the woman’s genetics are relevant.

Anything that happens to her genetics later simply doesnt affect the children’s genetics

1

sdfree0172 t1_j0cuwr7 wrote

You’re dangerously close to asking if Lamarckian evolution is correct, which was disproven in favor of darwinian. But I think youre asking something a little more nuanced, about whether affected DNA gets passed on. And that only happens if your sperm/egg is affected And is based solely on how the sperm/egg is affected. Otherwise dna changes stay local and don’t pass. So, you would never see any visible mutation passed on.

2

Ok_Mall7281 t1_j0b1icw wrote

Very rare becasue most of mutations are happening on our somatic cells. My understanding is that there are machenisms protecting us from being too mutated from the respective of evolution...

On top of mutations, the heritable genetic information can be stored in a form of "epigenome", where the DNA got modified (methylation) and pass the modified information to the offspring. During fertalization, 99% of the DNA modifications of the reprodutive cells (sperms and eggs) will be erased, which is called "reprogramming". Again, another machenism protects us from "hyper-mutated". The fertilized eggs must be reset to develop into all types of cells as a fetus. However, 1% of them will escape the reprogramming and passed to the next generations, which means the inforamtion from epigenetics MIGHT be inheritable. We do not have solid evidence abt this yet, but good to have a thought about this.

1

geekpeeps t1_j0b96fx wrote

No, unless they are exposed to the same environment and do not undergo treatment, e.g. if you have a predisposition to cancer resulting from consuming alcohol, your children are unlikely to develop similar cancers if they don’t drink.

Ditto skin cancer, or mutations due to radiation.

1

Mlpaddict t1_j0bbm7f wrote

Edited: It seems I am mistaken.

Teratogens affect the developing fetus and not the germ cells themselves. The changes that teratogens make while awful are not heritable (will not be passed down).

In my defense, I was told the definition while working in a chem lab by a smarter colleague. I'd love to strike through my reply, but I don't know how.

Well it depends. Certain chemicals are labelled carcinogenic, which are scary. Others are labelled teratogenic. Those ones are particularly scary because they're know to alter your germ cells. Carcinogenic means it will cause mutations that possibly lead to cancer.

Teratogenic means the chemical can make changes to your egg or sperm cells. That will affect your children.

1

urs_sarcastically t1_j0bgjr8 wrote

I was born with short fingers. As in, the index, ring, and middle finger don't have the third metacarpal which has the nails. The thumb and little finger are fine though. I am given to understand that it was because of some medications my mother took during her pregnancy due to some complications. It doesn't affect me functionally. So all good.

Will my children inherit this mutation??

1

BioPac12 t1_j0byboj wrote

No. The medications did not affect your DNA, merely it's expression durring your development.

Edit: I'd also wager a guess that the medication was consumed between the 2nd and 3rd trimester before your fingers had fully devoped.

2

vibriojoey t1_j0bnnsw wrote

Yes its possible. Viruses are an example of something that can silently insert itself into your genetic material and lie dormant and be passed down to your kids before it undergoes its lytic cycle (if it ever does at all) when the right environmental stress factors are present to trigger it. Scientists theorize viruses have helped to drive evolution, may also be a cause for some genetic disorders and cancers.

1

theevilscientist666 t1_j0dpp8e wrote

Like others have said, mutation has to be in the green cell you're passing on. Also note that germcells are haploid, you could inherit one or the other allele, for CF this is important. Following the Lamarkian idea if passing on traits acquired during life, were talking epigenetics. This can turn genes in or off via mechanisms like chromatin methylation and acetylation. Fascinating field, I ran a small epigenetics core at Vandy long ago.

1

[deleted] t1_j0e42o6 wrote

Put simply, you can experience two classes of mutation: somatic, which is any mutation that happens to a non-germ cell (reproductive cells), and germline mutations which affect reproductive cells. If the mutation is germline, your offspring will inherit the mutation.

1

In_shpurrs t1_j0bbog5 wrote

It's logical that they will; children are now (within a generation) born without wisdom teeth. There are also seacreatures which have had physical changes within a generation or two due to the rising seatemperature.

0

Flashleyredneck t1_j0ap2pk wrote

No. If you do something to your body that could impact future generations (e.g. radiation) then yes. Your future kids will inherit those problems. If you eat msdonalds constantly your kids can still live a normal life (*********some studies point out problems with this but I don’t have the sources.)

−3