CUTAG:
An ongoing debate in the field of genetics is what is more
important, our genes, the “nature” in the debate, or the way we are raised, the
“nurture”. Recently scientists have found that certain transposons, or “jumping
DNA”, that previously have been found to have little effect on its’ hosts, has
developed a positive effect when inserted next to a certain gene. The effect in
this study is disease resistance in plants, an example of epigenetics at play.
What does this finding support in the nature vs nurture debate?
I agree with Sofia and that the "jumping DNA" indeed does make a stronger case for nature rather than nurture only because the combination of the two genes in the article, COPIA-R7 and RPP7.
ReplyDeleteAlthough for gene combination being primarily a topic for nature, I believe that nurture can be a part of the discussion if we talk about what pathogens can harm the plant and how scientists can augment the resistance of plants against adverse pathogens.
Overall, my final comment about nature vs nurture is that it is hard to compare nurture and nature with plants because nurture is simply vague. When I think nurture I think of external effects affecting a host and how that host will develop. In this case, it seems that the article states that a plant's genes, nature, will combat pathogens. With this in mind, I believe the case for nature is fairly obvious.
At first thought it seems that the finding of "jumping DNA" that enhances the immunity of some plants against fungus-like parasites supports the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate. The article specifically explains how the certain transposon jumps into the plant disease resistance gene, making it seem very obvious to me that nature dictated this change in genome. To me, nurture involves environment factors that cause us to act a certain way or inherit certain habits. Therefore, I also understand where Sofia is coming from in saying that it seems like nurture could possibly play a role because the molecular flag, H3K9me2, seems to have learned over time to promote RPP7 by not silencing COPIA-R7 like it usually does for other transposons. I have always been a believer that there shouldn't be a debate between nature and nurture because it seems so obvious that they both work together to shape an organism. And I think that that is what is happening in this case of the "jumping DNA". It seems clear to me that while nature seems to be the obvious choice, with a little more thought it also becomes apparent that nurture plays a significant role as well because genes are always responding to changes in the environment.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over nature vs. nurture has been going on for years, and there is no simple answer given the complexity of genetic information. This article seems to initially present the enhanced immunity of the plant due to “nature,” since the transposon jumped into the plant resistance gene (I’m assuming by chance) conferring better immunity. This immunity was due to the organism’s genetic code, and therefore leans toward the nature side. This jumping transposon reminds me of evolution and natural selection at work. Of course, we cannot see evolution at work in one generation, but perhaps this transposon wedging into the plant resistance gene would lead to future plants with this enhanced immunity. All of this initially swayed me toward the nature side. Then the article stated that the transposon affects the gene by interfering with the epigenetics. We went over in class that epigenetics can be affected by the environment of the organism – and thus this would lend to the nurture side of the debate as well. I realized that the plant’s conferred immunity due to the transposon is not enough to immediately take the side of nature in this debate. Nurture may also play an important part in affecting the epigenetics of the organism – as proven with the mouse example in class. Thus, I agree with Elisabeth that both nature and nurture are important. The nature vs. nurture debate does not have a black or white answer, but more often the answer is gray.
ReplyDeleteAs Elisabeth and Divya both point out, the article seems to further convolute the nature vs. nurture debate. Time after time, the impact of both nature and nurture on a species has been demonstrated. This article further proves the coexistence of both factors in biology. The transposon appears to have jumped into the plant resistance gene through a natural process, causing increased immunity. However, the research also revealed that the transposon is only effective in causing immunity when other genes have been silenced. Therefore, the function of transposon is dependent on epigenetics, which are modifications of gene expression that can be influenced by environmental factors.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear that both nature and nurture are playing an important role in this discovery of “jumping DNA.” As more and more information is uncovered surrounding epigenetics, I think that we may start seeing nurture play an even more significant role than we ever thought was possible.
I think the findings point very clearly that is is a mix between bot nature and nurture. There is clearly a lot of emphasis on epigentic factors and these would support the argument for nurture. However, the epigenetic, or nurturing, factors are what dictates and allows the "jumping DNA" to be expressed in the first place. Therefore I think that the expression of the nature aspect relies on the nurture, or environment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris' comment, that the environment influences a change in an organism' function, despite this possible evidence that a transplanted part of the gene improved immunity in this particular plant. This article focuses on the effect of the transposon in response to being inserted into the gene, but it appears that environmental, or "epigenetic" factors also influenced the outcome of this change. The surrounding genes must be "off" in order for the transposon to work. So in this sense, the debate between nature and nuture shouldn't even exist. I don't see how scientists would even be able to prove with this experiment that strictly a modification of genetics caused the plant's increased immunity to disease. Sure, in this case a change was observed after the transplantation, but couldn't there be other environmental factors? If not in this example, in others? I don't think this article necessarily supports the "nuture" portion of the nature vs. nuture debate, even though it should be considered. In fact, the proven collaboration of the two for proper organism function should be reason enough to stop the ongoing debate and start other investigations about organism development.
ReplyDeleteThe nature vs. nurture debate has been going on for years. This is because there is no doubt that both have effect on genes. There has never been a clear answer - and the transposons are no exception. At first reading this article, I was leaning towards nature. After it continued on to review the epigenetic factors, I saw that nurture also does have an effect. The "jumping DNA" naturally enters it's host but without the epigenetic factors it cannot be activated. There is no clear distinction between the nature and nurture of the transposons - both are needed.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a clear example of why epigenetics should be researched more. These "jumping DNA" or transposons have been found to be beneficial to our genetic code although previously thought to be "junk DNA". This is because they were useless until researchers discovered that they were inactive only because of the epigenetic "flags". While nature plays a critical role in our development, this article advocates that by nurture, we can enhance our epigenome by activating these jumping DNA.
ReplyDeleteBefore and after reading this article I stand by my opinion that nurture is more important than nature. Nature just provides us with the tools and nurture is what we do with the tools we are given. Do we use all the tools in the tool box or only use the ones we know how to use? I think that this discovery shows that 'nurture,' what we do to our bodies, our diet and lifestyle, has an effect on what we can become. This is a matter of epigenetics so it is clear that nurture is more important since we decide what will happen to our bodies depending on what we do to them. Since the scientists artificially moved the transposon next to a gene-- a good next step for this experiment would be to find out how transposons can be naturally maneuvered to be inserted next to specific genes. Meaning, we need to find out what lifestyle factors and dietary changes will cause a positive insertion of a transposon near a gene type.
ReplyDeleteThe nature vs. nurture debate has been an ongoing subject for awhile. Overall, the general conclusions that many have made is that we, as human beings, are complex and not one characteristic defines who we are. We are the sum of all our genes as well as the sum of all our experiences which help define who we are. Although the discovery of these transposons helped further the influence of the biology of our DNA and how influenced it can be, it is also another adaptive mechanism that all organisms undergo in order to survive. Under the Darwinism theory, organisms that are able to undergo stress but adapt to it will be able to survive and produce offspring that carry that same adaptation. In the end, this finding further supports both sides of the debate: it is naturally adapting to it's environment in order to be able to survive and procreate.
ReplyDeleteThe 'nature' vs. 'nurture' debate is an incredibly interesting one, because it forces us to take a step back and look at our actions and behaviors through a much more objective lens. Many students have discussed that the truth of the debate probably lies somewhere in the middle, and I agree.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is also incredibly multifaceted: it involves trivial things, such as where our preferences for tastes for food come from (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/fyi-are-people-born-tolerance-spicy-food), or it can involve much larger-scale things, such as sexuality or disposition to disease.
The article on "jumping DNA", as Professor Chan explains, has to do with genes having little value until they are chemically inserted next to other genes. Yes, this is nature because we did not artificially create the genes; the plant's genome provided the genes. However, we nurtured this change into being by performing actions to the plant. The plant, through years of evolution, has those genes in an order that was beneficial to them. To move them around may create short-term benefits such as resistance, but the long-term costs and benefits are yet to be discovered.
In the end, as scholars of genomics, we have a duty to learn as much as we can about our genomes and their influence in the world. But we also have a duty to step back, and to understand that our lives aren't completely dictated by our genes. Our ability to learn and express different behaviors are what truly makes us 'individuals', not just our individual genetic structure.
My initial thought was that these transposons support the nature debate because these are “jumping DNA” and have a lot to do with genetics. But after reading the article, I can see the nurture side of the debate. These geneticists have discovered an “adaptive transposon insertion” that can have beneficial effects for the host. Since these transposons are inserted, the plant’s DNA is modified by something, in this case a person, and not by nature. I agree with Hannah that the jumping DNA enters its host naturally but it cannot be activated without the epigenetic factors.
ReplyDeleteI think the findings described in this article very clearly support the important combination of both nature and nurture. It is nature that we have these "jumping genes" or transposons in the first place. However through further epigenetic studies and research we can nurture the genes by chemically inserting them near the genes that are required to activate them into generating immunity in our bodies. I really don't think the debate of nature vs nurture will ever be resolved because I truly don't think one overrules the other. They are both equally important to everything that we are and can both have immense effects on who we become. In my opinion, this research very clearly supports this.
ReplyDeleteThis is very exciting research and hopefully can lead to some wonderful changes in health and disease throughout the population.
A lot of the previous comments have stated my initial feelings, that I am somewhat confused as to what nurture means in reference to plants. Whenever I hear nurture, I think of how the environment in which a person was raised affects them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after reading the article, I have a better understanding of the nature vs. nurture argument in reference to plants. I understand how the nurture aspect could refer to the changing environment of the plants, but overall, I have to side with the nature argument. I feel that the transposons are a natural response to cause disease resistance in the plants. Instead of the plant adapting to the environment over time, the jumping DNA are a natural 'security' measure to provoke disease resistance.
I'm of the mindset that nature and nurture are inseparable in this context. The fact that these transposons are there to increase the plant's immunity cannot be simply defined as 'nature' or 'nurture' in this case. They may be defined as part of their environment or they may be defined as part of the plant's genetic makeup. I think that this article does little to sway the debate in any specific direction.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I have to disagree with the students that are picking sides. Although the nurture side of things in this context is, in fact, hard to define, I also think that the entire argument plays a very minimal role in the context of this article.
Even so, I am fascinated by the role these transposons play in the genetic makeup of the plants and I think that the better road to take would be to do more research on the how exactly such a phenomenon occurs and to apply our understanding of it to better the quality of human life; whether it be in medicine or in other aspects of life.
Due to the contents of the article, it is obvious that the article is more biased towards nature as opposed to nurture. In fact, the article makes very little mention of how nurture affects individuals. The only small reference is how plants can adjust their H3K9me2 signals to regulate the expression of RPP7. Depending on how one reads the utilization of the COPIA-R7 transposon, one could claim that "nurture" is the sole source of causation by bringing about a change in how COPIA-R7 is used. Another could claim that without the H3K9me2 signal, COPIA-R7 would have never influenced the RPP7 gene.
ReplyDeleteEither way, the nature vs nurture debate is long over. A large majority of people believe that it is the interaction between the two that brings about who we are as individuals. No one would be able to rationally maintain a view that nature or nurture has a clear dominance over the other. With different environmental factors, people can grow up to be drastically different people. With different genes, people would still grow up to be drastically different. Debating over which is the "right one" is narrow-minded and the wrong approach. Rather, the question should focus on what new information is shed between the interaction of nature and nurture due to the jumping gene.
I agree with John in his sentiments that rather than people constantly focusing on whether nature or nurture is more pertinent in a persons actions, explore how they compliment each other. Furthermore, to then use that to your advantage to exploit the interactions between the two. The article makes it seem as though Eulgem is on the brink of a new discovery that could potentially be very exciting. However, I am still skeptical as in the beginning of the article they talk about how this response is extremely rare and has not been seen many times in plants. In theory, this could be a great breakthrough. In nature, I do not see how they could make this response happen to wild plants outside of the laboratory.
ReplyDeleteAs many people above have stated- the debate between nature vs nurture is longstanding, interesting, and usually ends in discussion that both are at interplay. The article "Beneficial Jumping Gene Discovered" presents the issue no differently. It describes how epigenetic factors can "nurture" a transposon to have different outcomes in the hosts genome to have adaptive positive roles (eg protect against parasites in a plan cell) compared to the initial "nature" of the transposons silencing genes. I think this is interesting because it shows how a little "nudging" of a few transposons cells can have potentially positive affects, similarly to how humans may inherently be naturally disposed to act one way but can be positive influenced through environmental factors to have positive affects. T
ReplyDeleteThis article offers a small metaphor about how the debate of nature vs nurture in the environment relate to humans, for example in a psychological content. I saw a video last night about how expressing gratitude (nurturing this part of someone) can positively influence a person to be happier then they were at their original baseline set point (nature). http://www.upworthy.com/scientists-discover-one-of-the-greatest-contributing-factors-to-happiness-youll-thank-me?g=3&c=upw1
This article supports that nature is the most important in the nature vs. nurture debate. It focuses on the natural abilities of the transposons to be able to protect their host from disease and allow for accelerated evolution in their host. They talk about how when the transposons are inserted into other plants, the transposons are still very beneficial in protecting it from outside harm. This is showing that the nature of the transposons is what matters, not what foreign location they are being inserted into. Also, when epigenetic signals are being forced upon the transposons, they are not acting as beneficially as they would normally. Such would be an example of nurture on the transposons.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I would have to agree with some of my classmates that it is a bit harder to distinguish the "nurture" side to this article. In the beginning, I did not observe this article to being anything but on the nature side to this "debate". The article is overrun with words like "Manipulating", "silencing" methods, and "interfering". These biological method jargon do not exactly bring to mind the essence of nurture. But nevertheless, COPIA-R7 is said to effect the "epigenetic code" therefore setting what degree its expression or lack of expression will be. As we all know by now, epigenetics is the altering of DNA expression without changing the actual DNA sequence. In my opinion, epigenetics is inherently about nurture and the findings in this article seem to suggest so as well.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of nature versus nurture is complex and ongoing. As more research is conducted in a myriad of fields more is learned that furthers the argument of both sides. This article furthers the argument of nurture. The effect of the transposons studied in this case on plants was due to epigenetic change and increased their resistance to fungus-like parasites. The fact that transposons were thought to be junk before this research was conducted does not shock me. It seems as though a common theme of science is discovering the meaning behind commonly disregarded natural phenomena. But this recent discovery is just the tip of the ice burg. There is probably a lot more that can be learned from the effects of transposons. Furthermore, as mentioned in the article this epigenetic mechanism can be put into use when engineering crops. It seems that this research and continuing research may bring needed insight on the mechanisms of epigenetic changes.
ReplyDeleteThe research presented in this article is pretty incredible. From the nature vs nurture debate, I think one can find ways in which each principle is relevant. From the nature perspective, plants are given the means to make this research even possible. Having these transposon's in their genetic makeup is what makes this research possible. However, the moving of these transposons is what makes the whole process possible. Without human intervention, this wouldn't be possible to begin with. So there is a mix of both nature and nurture.
ReplyDeleteThe nurture perspective may be more favored in this instance, however. Technology plays such a pivotal role in placing these transposons in different places that, naturally, they wouldn't otherwise be. I believe that this article proves that the influence that the world has on a person's health cannot be disregarded.
Like most of the people who’s comments I read, I am a little confused about whether this applies to the nature or nurture side of the argument. Prior to this article, I viewed nature as the heritable traits and predisposition for certain things because of our biological makeup, and nurture to be the affect that upbringing, environmental exposures, etcetera has. Like my view on nature vs. nurture, I think that this article could present as an argument for either side. It seems a little stronger for nature though. These transposons, or “jumping DNA” seem to be part of the epigenome that is inherited, and that location and type affect function. From my limited knowledge I could be completely wrong though. If this is in fact heritable, that is a pretty strong argument for nature in this argument. Conversely, there are mutations, and different epigenomic changes that could lead to significant changes in how this gene is expressed. For example, insertions and deletions can change the orientation of genetic sequences, and could change the proximity of this gene to another where it could jump and possibly lead to immunity as was being studied in the article. There could also be a change in methylation around the area of a transposon, changing its ability to be expressed in an organism.
ReplyDeleteThe debate of nature versus nurture has been a long standing one that does not seem to be pointing towards a clear cut winner. There have been many valid points made from individuals advocating for both sides of the spectrum. These intellectuals range from John Locke, a philosopher who argued that humans are blank slates who acquire their traits from nurturing environmental influences, to Plato, a philosopher who believed that humans were just born with certain traits that occur naturally regardless of any environmental factors. I, like many of the students above, feel that nature and nurture work hand in hand with each other. I believe that we are affected and influenced by both genetic traits and the environment that we are surrounded in.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article, I feel that Tokuji Tsuchiya and Thomas Eulgem, are making a case for nature overpowering nurture. The COPIA-R7 transposon jumps into the RPP7 gene and helps enhance the plant’s immunity to pathogenic microorganisms. This suggests that the genes (aka nature) are involved while nurture is not evident. However, I must argue that the research, since it is not complete yet, is a bit ambiguous as to nurture’s lack of involvement. The H3K9me2 “flag” is supposed to suppress and silence the jumping DNA in most cases. However, as Tsuchiya and Euglem point out in the article, the H3K9me2 in fact promotes the activity of the disease resistance gene. While promoting RPP7, the function of silencing the COPIA-R7 seems to have disappeared, due to some epigenetic signal. I am curious as to what caused this change/epigenetic signal to occur. I don’t think that we can officially rule out the nurture aspect in this case just yet.
The debate over nature vs. nurture has been going on for years, and scientists still have not come to a conclusion concerning the difference. The article describes how epigenetic factors can "nurture" a transposon to have different outcomes in the hosts genome, which I think is really amazing. Working on the plant Arabidopsis, they found that the COPIA-R7 transposon, which jumped into the plant disease resistance gene RPP7, enhances the immunity of its host against a pathogenic microorganism.The ability of the transposon to do is revolutionary because this allows plants to sense a pathogenic attack and respond with the appropriate immune response. Furthermore, I believe this article highlights an important theory about jumping genes and their effect on nature. Local research theory gives proof to evolution and may help explain big evolutionary jumps in species.Jumping genes confuse the cell during chromosomal replication and cell division which can lead to large scale duplications or deletions of the genome causing species evolution on a larger scale. It is in theory that an abundance of jumping genes can be good to a species because it ignites more mutations helping a species adapt to an ever-changing environment.This argument ties into the debate that nature vs nurture are interrelated when it comes to jumping genes.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this article supports the “nature” side of the debate. These jumping genes were put in the organism by “nature,” not human intervention. The fact that these transposons can change their location in the genome on their own is entirely a natural phenomenon. Not only can they change location, they can increase immunity and affect the evolution of their host organism. The fact that these genes impact evolution is important to note because it exemplifies how a species can progress and grow without outside intervention.
ReplyDeleteThe nurture side of this argument could come into play when scientists start experimenting with ways to insert the genes into certain locations in the genome, or figure out ways to induce the genes to start or stop “jumping.” There are so many ways these transposons can be scientifically manipulated or modified; it is just a matter of time. I am curious to see how research on this topic progresses, will all transposons provide benefits, or do some exist that would hinder the development of the organism? For now, these transposons provide us with a strong argument for nature, making the nature vs. nurture debate even more complex.
I think that it is important to note that while this article talks about how transposons affect the epigenetic code, that is the nurture part of genetics, it does highly depend on the nature of the DNA. This can be seen in a quote from the article stating, “The ‘epigenetic code’ defines the activity states of genes and determines to what extent their genetic information is utilized.” That is, the genetic code, nature, determines what epigenetic code is present, and the transposons can help “turn on, off, up, or down” the epigenetic code. With this, it can be said that without the genetic, nature, code, there would not be the epigenetic code. It is because of this that I would say this article focuses more on the nature argument. I must say, however, that when they talk about agricultural uses of the transposons, and in genetically modified crops in general, it is as though we are trying to defy nature. I suppose that if we define genetics as nature, and epigenetics as nurture, though, that epigenetics would literally be defined as above nature. I ask though, to what extent is this necessary and/or beneficial?
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of my classmates who have expressed that nature and nurture work hand in hand. This article sheds light on the debate between nature and nurture by stating how both are equally important in this particular context of plant biology. Nature and nurture need not be treated as separate entities, as they often work in conjunction with each other; one is no more important than the other.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, both nature and nurture play an important role in how the RPP7 gene is expressed. Nature accounts for the "elements" at play, while nurture provides the "rules" of the play. If the COPIA-R7 transposon did not exist in any significant capacity, a factor of nature, then the RPP7 gene would not be affected. If epigenetic factors did not exist, factors of nurture, then the H3K0me2 signals would not be transmitted, and the RPP7 gene activity would not change. Therefore, nature affects the availability of genes, signals, and transposons involved in this process, while nurture affects the utility of these natural elements. Without one, the other would have no effect.
At first glance, the article seemed to support the nurture debate over the nature debate. However, the discovery of this jump seemed to be a force of nature. It is not clear whether this is a typical event, or one that happens only once every so often. Therefore, while nurture plays a huge role in how the RPP7 gene is expressed, nature probably affects the availability of the COPIA-R7 transposon to react.
I believe this article makes an argument for both nature and nurture in the “nature v. nurture debate.” Although it seems to support the argument for nature (jumping DNA enhancing the enhancing immunity of the host) over nurture, we should remember that epigenetic factors “ define the activity states of genes.” Furthermore, epigenteitc factors are influenced and can be changed by our experiences, otherwise known as nurture. I think this article, similar to most current scientific research, finds that it is not a question of nature or nurture, but rather a much more complex interplay.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely hard to distinguish which side of the nature vs nurture debate these "jumping genes" strengthens. Transposins are a naturally occurring part of an organisms DNA, so one may be first inclined to think that this must be a matter of nature playing out in either a negative or positive way, as in this example with disease resistance. However I think that this is just a very specific example of nurture's effect on a genome. Here, epigenetics is at play where a gene responds a certain way, only in response to some outside factor. When a COPIA-R7 transposon jumps into the RPP7 gene (the plant's disease resistance gene), it enhances the plant's immunity against certain pathogenic micro-organisms. But there's a genetic marker called H3K9me2 that causes the epigentic change. H3K9me2 effects RPP7 activity and therefore plant immunity.
ReplyDeleteI think that the ability to play with H3K9me2 levels to observe other possible effects further proves that this is a matter of epigenics, and inherently then proves that nurture has great significance in gene expression. Of course, however, this doesn't negate nature is important. I feel like your inherited genes are a map that includes many different possibilities of routes to follow, and your environment leads the way in choosing which paths to take.
In the study of the science, people to this day do not and may never fully understand some concepts. Specifically related to this article, we may never fully understand the differential between the impact of nature and nurture when it comes to one’s biological and physiological composition. When it comes to “transposons,” this previously named “junk DNA,” one may be further convinced that the attempts to fully comprehend human biology and the entire human genome prove very difficult indeed. Yes, maybe someday we will fully map and draw out the entire genome, but right now we have DNA jumping from place to place, making it entirely impossible for our time. This initiative now is learning to silence, activate, and replicate this DNA for further understanding of the human genome and how it works. However, there is still persuasion to be found by a type of “chaos theory,” that DNA acts upon itself and the environment so randomly that it will always prove hard to predict and will always baffle scientists.
ReplyDeleteThis article definitely touches upon the debate of “nature vs nurture,” which has come up multiple times in the past. I strongly agree that both nature and nurture are equally important. At first, I thought that the transposon of the jumping DNA enhancing the immunity of the host favored the nature side, but then due to epigenetic factors, the nurture side is also important. Nature and nurture works in conjunction in each other as one influences the other. In the Arabidopsis plant, although the genome is biologically determined, external factors such as the environment has influenced the expression of certain genes. Therefore I believe both nature and nurture are equally important in determining the overall function of the organism.
ReplyDeleteMany of my classmates have stated that this article strengthens the nature side of the nature vs nurture debate, and I certainly agree. The article specifically outlines how the transposon jumped into a different part of the plant's genome, and strengthened the plant's ability to resist pathogens. This part is definitely for the nature side of the debate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the only reason why this jump was possible in the first place was through human intervention, which strengthens the nurture part of the debate. Even though the plant had the transposon, it didn't do anything with it until humans intervened and put the transposon into RPP7. Therefore, it is more nurture than nature.
This article provides insight into both the importance of nurture and nature, but the main point has more to do with our ever-evolving knowledge base. The article discusses the importance of transposons in disease-resistance for some plants. This situation is both a mix of nature and nurture to produce disease resistance, as is often the case. The plants need the basic genetic codes to make these sequences as well as the original gene (RPP7) in order to have any benefit. The "nurture" part is of course the epigenetic factors which allow the genes to be expressed or suppressed. The article points to the importance of these two points mixing to provide optimal resistance. "Nurture" without any influence from "nature" or vice versa does not provide the optimal resistance. The other key point in this article is that the knowledge base we have now is neither complete nor absolutely correct. Our knowledge is evolving every day and areas of genetic code we once thought to be empty spaces are now being seen as areas of untapped opportunity. I think the importance of this article is that we should not rely solely on nature or nurture because our knowledge base is evolving every day and our understanding of genomics is evolving with it.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes each living thing unique is how nature and nurture play into our lives. There is no way to be complete without nature or nurture, because without either, there is no complete skill set to survive. Our genetics are important in giving us our body, functions, and instincts but without nurture, we don't know what to do with it. "Jumping genes" can give us an advantage in life that isn't naturally occurring within ourselves so that plays more to the nurture side of the debate, yet it is physically altering our genetic make-up which could be considered nature, though unnaturally. I feel that nurture has to deal with lifestyle and upbringing. Perhaps genetic alterations deserve their own category.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, this discovery about using genetics to build a resistance against diseases only applies to plants in this article, which don't necessarily get influenced by nurture. I feel that the nature vs. nurture debate applies to humans mostly, and animals as well but not plants.
This article demonstrates the intricate interaction of nature and nurture. The research surrounding this species of plant and its ability to gain resistance to disease involves epigenetics and evolution. Epigenetics describes the different mechanisms that activate or deactivate parts of the genome and in this case it directly determines whether or not this disease resistance will be present. The transposon or “jumping DNA” affects the epigenetics of a specific gene, regulating how it will be expressed. The fact that this mechanism developed in this species indicates the nurture side of this discovery. The nature of it is the actual mechanism used by the transposon to regulate the DNA in this way.
ReplyDeleteThese findings give great empirical support to the "nurture" side of the argument. However, one possible limitation is that in most cases, nurture is only be capable of either enhancing or deteriorating what was given to an organism by nature. These signaling manipulations by transposons may very well activate favorable functions within a collection of genes, but the genes have to possess that very potential to begin with. It is an exciting discovery, and may potentially revolutionize the convention of vaccination for purposes of communicable disease prevention, but there are so many other possible limitations on what these epigenetic signaling manipulations may potentially accomplish.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the “nature vs. nurture” debate, I believe this article, which describes the discovery of “jumping DNA”, accurately portrays the significant influence that both nature and nurture have on genes and genetics.
ReplyDeleteWhile “naturally”, certain genes in plants carry out clear and distinct functions, genes can be nurtured to implement completely different mechanisms in the cells of an organism. Specifically, by being able to control the immune response in plants through genetic modification, scientists are in essence nurturing the plant’s genes to carry out functions that are not considered “normal”, or characteristic of those plant cells.
In more ways than one, this epigenetic discovery in the field of genetics endorses the fundamental principles of the “nature vs. nurture” debate, and exemplifies the intricate, intertwined relationship between “nature” and “nurture” in the world of genes.
It is interesting to think about where transposons fit in the nature vs. nurture argument. The article considers transposon insertion to be an "adaptive" event. By definition, an adaptation is a characteristic that enhances the survival of an organism, especially in comparison to the ancestral condition in the population in which the adaptation evolved. Adaptations happen because of natural selection and help organisms to become better suited by their environment. Essentially, adaptations are caused by the organism's environment. Because transposon insertion is adaptive in nature, I believe that the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture argument is well supported. The adaptation confers disease resistance in plants and enhances plant immunity, and this adaptation would not have occurred had it not been for the plant's environmental influences. Therefore, nurture is a major influence on the plant's immunological capabilities, as it the plant species has been forced to adapt to its environmental conditions.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, nature also plays a role in transposon insertion. By definition, transposons are elements of DNA that jump around our genome that we now understand play a large role in epigenetic signaling. Transposons are literally part of our genes, our nature. The cellular structures and biological mechanisms by which transposon insertion works is made possible by cellular processes that are laid out in our genetic code, that are instilled in our DNA. Our biological characteristics, including DNA, RNA, proteins, and other cellular structures make it possible for us to have genetic and epigenetic modifications. In essence, nature and nurture work together to allow transposon insertions to occur, and more specifically, for beneficial adaptations to take place in our genome. We are currently becoming increasingly aware of just how big of a role transposons play in epigenetics. It will be quite interesting to see what information future research will bring to this aspect of the field of genomics.
In the ongoing debate between whether or not genes are important, I believe that nurture and nature are equally important when talking about our health. The way we are raised, “nurture,” affects our behavior and our personalities, whereas “nature” focuses on the health aspect. However, certain behaviors and activities can trigger certain predisposed conditions that are ‘coded’ out by our genes. For example, alcoholism has a genetic component that could be inherited. If this individual was ‘nurtured’ in an environment where alcohol wasn’t available, this behavior problem would never occur! Transposons are segments of the DNA that can move around to different positions in the genome of a single cell. Even though the article was not specific on what causes transposon to occur, the article made it seem like nature had a greater effect in the ‘health’ of the plant discussed. However, knowing more about the definition of epigenomics and how the environment can impact on how certain genetic codes are expressed, I still believe that the environment the plant was in still had the greater impact than its genetic code. However, the article did bring up an interesting point of researching the epigenetic mechanism of genes! Being able to know this mechanism will help us target certain genes that are more predisposed to change under certain environments--this can affect the future in health effects and medicine.
ReplyDeleteVanessa Merta
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my classmates on this topic in that nature and nurture are equally involved in “jumping genes.” This topic could go either way for many reasons. It could fall into the nurture category because these transposons are an epigenetic find, and epigenetics is a subject that lands in the nurture side of the argument. On the other hand these transposons could also be an argument for the nature side. This could be the initial thought simply because the idea of plants being nurtured is somewhat foreign. Also, these jumping genes are in the genomic make up naturally. They are not developed or added by a human, they are a naturally occurring event.
When it comes to the debate of nature verse nurture, there are many components you have to look into. It has been a debate that has been going on for years and there will never be simple answer to this extremely complex question. When it comes to the “jumping DNA” I do agree with most of the posts above stating that it makes a stronger case for nature rather than nurture. Overall I believe it is hard to truly compare nature verse nurture when it comes to plants because the nurture side of things is vague and hard to study and experiment fully. The emphasis on epigenetic factors helps support the argument for nurture as well.
ReplyDeleteThese findings don't do much to advance the debate, not that the debate ever advances, but it does provide new valuable information on how a genome can function. The studied transposons are part of an Arabidopsis plant's "nature" and can alter the organism within itself, particularly its resistance to pathogens. But epigenetic changes can affect those transposons to also impact the organism. This is an exciting finding, shedding more light on the complexities of biology.
ReplyDeleteBut for the nature vs. nurture debate, all this does is assert that when things interact with other things, stuff happens. Some things have a higher threshold of interaction required to make significant stuff happen. This may sound painfully obvious but it is the basis of nature vs. nurture and for some reason, there is controversy.
The only fruit that can come from this debate is the ability to somehow quantify and predict the likelihood of any given external force in whatever intensity or frequency to take a given effect on an organism. After all, isn’t the crux of the matter how much nurture affects nature? Before we get to that point, the jury is out. An organism has its nature and it will interact with the other atoms of the world, which we call the environment. Those other atoms may or may not induce a change. The change’s effect and likelihood are variable. Aside from the aforementioned ability of prediction, what more needs to be established?