Articles and Scientific paper about Genetics, Epigenetics and the influence of stress, traumatic life events and health.
Genes are activated by stress and conflict shocks
The Ghost in Your Genes - genes are shaped in part by your ancestors' life experiences.
Biology of Believe
Epigenetics
Insight into Cellular "Consciousness"
The Human Genome Project: A Cosmic Joke that has the Scientists Rolling in the Aisle
Nature, Nurture and Human Development
Evolution by BITs and Pieces: An Introduction to Fractal Evolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genes are activated by stress and conflict shocks
The number two breakthrough discovery in science in the year 2003 goes to genetic research. Genes have been identified that raise the risk for psychosis, depression, schizophrenic and manic-depressive behaviour.
It also was discovered, why the search for the responsible gene was so difficult: the gene, which is connected to a higher risk for depression, becomes only active in combination with stress. Researchers discovered that participants carrying the gene, only became depressive, if they were confronted and had to deal with traumatic life situations like a death, loss of a job or a lost love.
Summary from the US-Magazine «Science» (Bd. 302, S. 2038), annual issue 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ghost in Your Genes - the scientists who believe your genes are shaped in part by your ancestors' life experiences.
Biology stands on the brink of a shift in the understanding of inheritance. The discovery of epigenetics – hidden influences upon the genes – could affect every aspect of our lives.
At the heart of this new field is a simple but contentious idea – that genes have a 'memory'. That the lives of your grandparents – the air they breathed, the food they ate, even the things they saw – can directly affect you, decades later, despite your never experiencing these things yourself. And that what you do in your lifetime could in turn affect your grandchildren.
The conventional view is that DNA carries all our heritable information and that nothing an individual does in their lifetime will be biologically passed to their children. To many scientists, epigenetics amounts to a heresy, calling into question the accepted view of the DNA sequence – a cornerstone on which modern biology sits.
Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off – and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.
In a remote town in northern Sweden there is evidence for this radical idea. Lying in Överkalix's parish registries of births and deaths and its detailed harvest records is a secret that confounds traditional scientific thinking. Marcus Pembrey, a Professor of Clinical Genetics at the Institute of Child Health in London, in collaboration with Swedish researcher Lars Olov Bygren, has found evidence in these records of an environmental effect being passed down the generations. They have shown that a famine at critical times in the lives of the grandparents can affect the life expectancy of the grandchildren. This is the first evidence that an environmental effect can be inherited in humans.
In other independent groups around the world, the first hints that there is more to inheritance than just the genes are coming to light. The mechanism by which this extraordinary discovery can be explained is starting to be revealed.
Professor Wolf Reik, at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, has spent years studying this hidden ghost world. He has found that merely manipulating mice embryos is enough to set off 'switches' that turn genes on or off.
For mothers like Stephanie Mullins, who had her first child by in vitro fertilisation, this has profound implications. It means it is possible that the IVF procedure caused her son Ciaran to be born with Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome – a rare disorder linked to abnormal gene expression. It has been shown that babies conceived by IVF have a three- to four-fold increased chance of developing this condition.
And Reik's work has gone further, showing that these switches themselves can be inherited. This means that a 'memory' of an event could be passed through generations. A simple environmental effect could switch genes on or off – and this change could be inherited.
His research has demonstrated that genes and the environment are not mutually exclusive but are inextricably intertwined, one affecting the other.
The idea that inheritance is not just about which genes you inherit but whether these are switched on or off is a whole new frontier in biology. It raises questions with huge implications, and means the search will be on to find what sort of environmental effects can affect these switches.
After the tragic events of September 11th 2001, Rachel Yehuda, a psychologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, studied the effects of stress on a group of women who were inside or near the World Trade Center and were pregnant at the time. Produced in conjunction with Jonathan Seckl, an Edinburgh doctor, her results suggest that stress effects can pass down generations. Meanwhile research at Washington State University points to toxic effects – like exposure to fungicides or pesticides – causing biological changes in rats that persist for at least four generations.
This work is at the forefront of a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. It will change the way the causes of disease are viewed, as well as the importance of lifestyles and family relationships. What people do no longer just affects themselves, but can determine the health of their children and grandchildren in decades to come. "We are," as Marcus Pembrey says, "all guardians of our genome."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtm l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology of Believe
© 2005 Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.
Earlier in my career as a research scientist and medical school professor, I actively supported the perspective that the human body was a "biochemical machine ‘programmed’ by its genes. We scientists believed that our strengths, such as artistic or intellectual abilities, and our weaknesses, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or depression, represented traits that were preprogrammed into our genes. Hence I perceived life’s attributes and deficits, as well as our health and our frailties as merely a reflection of our heredity expression.
Until recently, it was thought that genes were self-actualizing…that genes could ‘turn themselves on and off.’ Such behavior is required in order for genes to control biology. Though the power of genes is still emphasized in current biology courses and textbooks, a radically new understanding has emerged at the leading edge of cell science. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception (interpretation)of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. Environment controls gene activity through a process known as epigenetic control.
This new perspective of human biology does not view the body as just a mechanical device, but rather incorporates the role of a mind and spirit. This breakthrough in biology is fundamental in all healing for it recognizes that when we change our perception or beliefs we send totally different messages to our cells and reprogram their expression. The new-biology reveals why people can have spontaneous remissions or recover from injuries deemed to be permanent disabilities.
The functional units of life are the individual cells that comprise our bodies. Though every cell is innately intelligent and can survive on its own when removed from the body, in the body, each cell foregoes its individuality and becomes a member of a multicellular community. The body really represents the cooperative effort of a community of perhaps fifty trillion single cells. By definition, a community is an organization of individuals committed to supporting a shared vision. Consequently, while every cell is a free-living entity, the body’s community accommodates the wishes and intents of its ‘central voice,’ a character we perceive as the mind and spirit.
When the mind perceives that the environment is safe and supportive, the cells are preoccupied with the growth and maintenance of the body. In stressful situations, cells forego their normal growth functions and adopt a defensive ‘protection’ posture. The body’s energy resources normally used to sustain growth are diverted to systems that provide protection during periods of stress. Simply, growth processes are restricted or suspended in a stressed system. While our systems can accommodate periods of acute (brief) stress, prolonged or chronic stress is debilitating for its energy demands interfere with the required maintenance of the body, and as a consequence, leads to dysfunction and disease.
The principle source of stress is the system’s ‘central voice,’ the mind. The mind is like the driver of a vehicle. With good driving skills, a vehicle can be maintained and provide good performance throughout its life. Bad driving skills generate most of the wrecks that litter the roadside or are stacked in junkyards. If we employ good “driving skills” in managing our behaviors and dealing with our emotions, then we should anticipate a long, happy and productive life. In contrast, inappropriate behaviors and dysfunctional emotional management, like a bad driver, stress the cellular ‘vehicle,’ interfering with its performance and provoking a breakdown.
Are you a good driver or a bad driver? Before you answer that question, realize that there are two separate minds that create the body’s controlling ‘central voice.’ The (self)conscious mind is the thinking ‘you,’ it is the creative mind that expresses free-will. Its supporting partner is the subconscious mind, a super computer loaded with a database of programmed behaviors. Some programs are derived from genetics, these are our instincts and they represent nature. However, the vast majority of the subconscious programs are acquired through our developmental learning experiences, they represent nurture.
The subconscious mind is not a seat of reasoning or creative consciousness, it is strictly a stimulus-response device. When an environmental signal is perceived, the subconscious mind reflexively activates a previously stored behavioral response…no thinking required. The subconscious mind is a programmable autopilot that can navigate the vehicle without the observation or awareness of the pilot—the conscious mind. When the subconscious autopilot is controlling behavior, consciousness is free to dream into the future or review the past.
The dual-mind system’s effectiveness is defined by the quality of the programs carried in the subconscious mind. Essentially, the person who taught you to drive molds your driving skills. For example, if you were taught to drive with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake, no matter how many vehicles you owned, each will inevitably express premature brake and engine failure. Similarly, if our subconscious mind is programmed with inappropriate behavioral responses to life’s experiences, then our sub-optimum ‘driving skills’ will contribute to a life of crash and burn experiences. For example, cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death, is directly attributable to behavioral programs that mismanage the body’s response to stress.
Are you a good driver or a bad driver? The answer is difficult for in our conscious creative mind we may consider ourselves as good drivers, however self-sabotaging or limiting behavioral programs in our subconscious unobservedly undermine our efforts. We are generally consciously unaware of our fundamental perceptions or beliefs about life. The reason is that the prenatal and neonatal brain is predominately operating in delta and theta EEG frequencies through the first six years of our lives. This low level of brain activity is referred to as the hypnogogic state. While in this hypnotic trance, a child does not have to be actively coached by its parents for they obtain their behavioral programs simply by observing their parents, siblings, peers and teachers. Did your early developmental experiences provide you with good models of behavior to use in the unfoldment of your own life?
During the first six years of life a child unconsciously acquires the behavioral repertoire needed to become a functional member of society. In addition, a child’s subconscious mind also downloads beliefs relating to self. When a parent tells a young child it is stupid, undeserving or any other negative trait, this too is downloaded as a ‘fact’ into the youngster’s subconscious mind. These acquired beliefs constitute the ‘central voice’ that controls the fate of the body’s cellular community. While the conscious mind may hold one’s self in high regard, the more powerful unconscious mind may simultaneously engage in self-destructive behavior.
The insidious part of the autopilot mechanism is that subconscious behaviors are programmed to engage without the control of, or the observation by, the conscious self. Since most of our behaviors are under the control of the subconscious mind, we rarely observe them or much less know that they are even engaged. While your conscious mind perceives you are a good driver, the unconscious mind that has its hands on the wheel most of the time, may be driving you down the road to ruin.
We have been led to believe that by using will power, we can override the negative programs of our subconscious mind. Unfortunately, to do that, you really have to emphasize the word ‘power,’ for one must keep a constant vigil on one’s own behavior. The moment you lapse in consciousness, the subconscious mind will automatically engage and play its previously recorded experience-based programs.
The subconscious mind is really a tape player. There is no observing entity in the subconscious mind reviewing the behavioral tapes. Consequently, there is no discernment as to whether a subconscious behavioral program is good or bad…they are just tapes. The subconscious is strictly a playback machine, perceived stimuli engage preprogrammed behaviors. In fact, people upon seeing their own subconscious programs play out frequently say something like, “That guy just pushed my buttons!”
In contrast to the power of the conscious mind, the subconscious mind is a million times more powerful an information processor. Also, as neuroscientists emphasize, the conscious mind provides 5% or less of the cognitive activity during the day. Ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of our behavior is directly derived from the subconscious. Hence the use of the word ‘power’ in the concept of will power, it takes significant effort for the conscious mind to keep tabs on the subconscious behavior. Positive thinking is primarily effective if the subconscious supports the conscious intention.
The problem with trying to reprogram the subconscious is that we fail to realize it is playing behavioral ‘tapes.’ To understand why conscious awareness does not readily change subconscious programs, consider this instructive analogy: I provide you with a cassette tape and you put it into your player and push the play button. As the tape plays the program, you realize that you do not like it. So, you yell at the tape player to change the program, you ask it to play something different. After awhile of not getting a response, you yell louder and get angrier at the tape player because of the lack of a response to your request. Then when it seems hopeless, you beseech God to help you change the program. The point is simple, no matter how much you yell at the tape player it will not change the program. To change a tape, you have to push the record button and then rerecord the program incorporating the desired changes.
There are two ways out of the problem. Firstly, we can become more conscious, and rely less on automated subconscious programs. By being fully conscious, we become the masters of our fates rather than the ‘victims’ of our programs. This path is similar to Buddhist mindfulness. Secondly, we can use a variety of new energy psychology modalities that enable a rapid and profound reprogramming of limiting subconscious beliefs. These new energy modalities provide the ability to rewrite limiting perceptions (beliefs) and self-sabotaging behaviors using processes that are mechanistically similar to pushing the record program on the subconscious mind’s tape player. With conscious awareness, one can actively transform the character of their lives into ones filled with love, health and prosperity. The use of these new modalities provides a key to personal growth and transformation. A variety of energy psychology modalities, such as Psych-K, Holographic Repatterning and BodyTalk, are among the variety of programs that can be found on the web.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epigenetics
© 2001-2005 Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.
Recent advances in cellular science are heralding an important evolutionary turning point. For almost fifty years we have held the illusion that our health and fate were preprogrammed in our genes, a concept referred to as genetic determinacy. Though mass consciousness is currently imbued with the belief that the character of one’s life is genetically predetermined, a radically new understanding is unfolding at the leading edge of science.
Cellular biologists now recognize that the environment (external universe and internal-physiology), and more importantly, our perception of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. The lecture will broadly review the molecular mechanisms by which environmental awareness interfaces genetic regulation and guides organismal evolution.
The quantum physics behind these mechanisms provide insight into the communication channels that link the mind-body duality. An awareness of how vibrational signatures and resonance impact molecular communication constitutes a master key that unlocks a mechanism by which our thoughts, attitudes and beliefs create the conditions of our body and the external world. This knowledge can be employed to actively redefine our physical and emotional well-being.
Lecture Outline:
Knowledge of the philosophical foundation underlying conventional (allopathic) medicine is relevant for it illuminates why and how the dogma of genetic determinacy was derived.
Francis Bacon defined the mission of modern science shortly after the onset of the scientific revolution (1543). Accordingly, the purpose of science was "to dominate and control Nature." To accomplish that goal, scientists had to first acquire knowledge of what "controls" an organism’s structure and function (behavior). Concepts founded in the principles of Newtonian physics defined the experimental approach to this quest. These principles stipulate that the Universe is a "physical mechanism" comprised of parts (matter), there is no attention given to the invisible "energy." In this world view, all that matters is "matter." Consequently, modern science is preoccupied with materialism.
The way to understand how a finely tuned mechanism works is to disassemble it and analyze all of the component "parts." This approach is called reductionism. Through an analysis of the parts and how they interact, defective part(s) in a malfunctioning organism can be identified and either repaired or replaced with "manufactured" parts (drugs, engineered genes, prosthetic devices, etc.). Knowledge of the body’s mechanism would enable scientists to determine how an organism works and how to "control" the organism by altering its "parts."
Biologists were preoccupied with taking organisms apart and studying their cells for the first half of this century. Subsequently, cells were disassembled and their molecular "parts" catalogued and characterized. Cells are comprised of four types of large (macro-) molecules: proteins/polysaccharides (sugars)/nucleic acids (gene stuff)/lipids (fats)
The name protein means "primary element" (proteios, Gr.) for proteins are the primary components of all plant and animal cells. A human is made of ~100,000 different proteins. Proteins are linear "chains," whose molecular "links" are comprised of amino acid molecules. Each of the 20 different amino acids has a unique shape, so that when linked together in a chain, the resulting proteins fold into elaborate 3-dimensional "wire sculptures." The protein sculpture’s pattern is determined by the sequence of its amino acid links. The balancing of electromagnetic charges along the protein’s chain serves to control the "final" shape of the sculpture. The unique shape of a protein sculpture is referred to as its "conformation." In the manner of a lock and key, protein sculptures compliment the shape of environmental molecules (which include other proteins). When proteins interlock with the complementary environmental molecules, they assemble into complex structures (similar to the way cogged "gears" intermesh to make a watch).
When proteins chemically couple with other molecules they change the distribution of electromagnetic charges in the protein. Changes in "charge" cause the protein to change its shape. Therefore, upon coupling with chemicals, a protein’s will shift its shape from one conformation to another conformation. A protein generates "motion" as it changes shape. A protein’s movement can be harnessed to do "work." Groups of interacting proteins that work together in carrying out a specific function are referred to as "pathways." The activities of specific protein pathways provide for digestion, excretion, respiration, reproduction, and all of the other physiologic "functions" employed by living organisms.
Proteins provide for the organism’s structure and function, but random protein actions can not provide for "life." Scientists needed to identify the mechanism that "integrates" protein functions to allow for the complex behaviors. Their search was linked to the fact that proteins are labile (opposite of stabile). Like parts in a car, proteins "wear-out" when they are used. If an individual protein in a pathway wears-out and is not replaced then the action of the pathway will stop. To resume function, the protein must be replaced. Consequently, behavioral functions were thought to be controlled by "regulating" the presence or absence of proteins comprising the pathways. The source of replacement protein parts is related to "memory" factors that provide for heredity…the passing on of "character"
The search for the hereditary factors that controlled protein synthesis led to DNA. In 1953, Watson and Crick unraveled the mystery of the "genetic code," which revealed how the DNA served as a molecular "blueprint" that defined amino acid sequences comprising a protein. The DNA blueprint for each protein is referred to as a gene. Since proteins define the character of an organism and the proteins’ structures are encoded in the DNA, biologists established the dogma known as the Primacy of DNA. In this context, Primacy means "first level of control." It was concluded that DNA "controls" the structure and behavior of living organisms. Since DNA "determines" the character of an organism, then it is appropriate to acknowledge the concept of Genetic Determinism, the idea that the structure and behavior of an organism are defined by its genes.
Science’s materialist-reductionist-determinist philosophy led to the Human Genome Project, the multibillion-dollar program to map all of the genes. Once this is accomplished, it is assumed that we can use that knowledge to repair or replace "defective" genes and in the process, realize Science’s mission of "controlling" the expression of an organism.
Since 1953, biologists have assumed that DNA "controls" life. In multicellular animals, the organ that "controls" life is known as the brain. Since genes are presumed to control cellular life, and genes are contained in the cell’s nucleus, the nucleus would be expected to be the equivalent of the cell’s "brain."
Dispelling the Myth of Genes:
If the brain is removed from any organism, the immediate and necessary consequence of that action is— death of the organism. Removing the cell’s nucleus, referred to as enucleation, would be tantamount to removing the cell’s brain. Though enucleation should result in the immediate death of the cell, enucleated cells may continue to survive and exhibit a "regulated" control of their biological processes. In fact, cells can live for two or more months without a nucleus. Clearly, the assumption that genes "control" cell behavior is wrong!
As is described by Nijhout (X), genes are "not self-emergent," that is genes can not turn themselves on or off. If genes can’t control their own expression, how can they control the behavior of the cell? Nijhout further emphasizes that genes are regulated by "environmental signals." Consequently, it is the environment that controls gene expression. Rather than endorsing the Primacy of DNA, we must acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment!
Cells "read" their environment, assess the information and then select appropriate behavioral programs to maintain their survival. The fact that data is integrated, processed and used to make a calculated behavioral response emphasizes the existence of a "brain" equivalent in the cell. Where is cell’s brain? The answer is to be found in bacteria, the most primitive organisms on Earth. The many processes and functions of this unicellular life form are highly integrated, consequently, it must have a brain equivalent. Cytologically, these organisms do not contain any organelles (diminutive of "organs) such as nuclei, mitochondria, Golgi bodies, etc. The only organized structure in these primitive life forms is its "cell membrane," also known as its plasmalemma. The cell membrane, once thought to be like a permeable Saran Wrap that holds the cytoplasm together, actually provides for the bacterium’s digestive, respiratory, excretory and integumentary (skin) systems. It also serves as the cell’s "brain."
The cell membrane is primarily composed of phospholipids and proteins. Phospholipids, which resemble lollipops with two sticks, are arranged in a crystalline bilayer. The membrane resembles a bread and butter sandwich, wherein the lipid "sticks" form the central butter layer. The phospholipid bilayer forms a skin-like barrier which separates the external environment from the internal cytoplasm.
Built into the membrane are special proteins called Integral Membrane Proteins (IMPs). IMPs look like olives in the membrane’s bread and butter sandwich. There are two classes of IMPs: receptors and effectors. Receptors are the cell’s "sense" organs, the equivalents of eyes, ears, nose, etc. When a receptor recognizes and binds to a signal, it responds by changing its conformation. Conventional biology stipulates that receptors only respond to "matter" (molecules), a belief consistent with the Newtonian view of the universe as a "matter machine."
Leading edge contemporary cell research has transcended conventional Newtonian physics and is now soundly based upon a universe created out of energy as defined by quantum physics. This new physics emphasizes energetics over materialism, substitutes holism for reductionism, and recognizes uncertainty in place of determinism. Consequently, we now recognize that receptors respond to energy signals as well as molecular signals.
Conventional medicine has consistently ignored research published in its own main-stream scientific journals, research that clearly reveals the regulatory influence that electromagnetic fields have on cell physiology. Pulsed electromagnetic fields have been shown to regulate virtually every cell function, including DNA synthesis, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis, cell division, cell differentiation, morphogenesis and neuroendocrine regulation. These findings are relevant for they acknowledge that biological behavior can be controlled by "invisible" energy forces, which include thought.
When activated by its complementary signal, the protein receptor changes its conformation so that it is able to complex with a specific effector protein. Effector proteins carry out cell behaviors. Effector proteins may be enzymes, cytoskeletal elements (cellular equivalents of muscle and bone) or transporters (proteins that carry electrons, protons, ions, and other specific molecules across the "bread and butter" barrier). Generally effector proteins are inactive in their resting conformation. However, when the receptor binds to the effector protein, it causes the effector to changes its own conformation from an inactive to an active form. This is how an environmental signal activates a cell’s behavior. The activity of effector IMPs generally regulate the behaviors of cytoplasmic protein pathways, like those associated with digestion, excretion, and cell movement. If specific functional proteins are not already present in the cell, activated effector IMPs send a signal to the nucleus and elicit required gene programs.
Receptor IMPs "see" or are "aware" of their environment and effector IMPs create physical responses that translate environmental signals into an appropriate biological behavior. The IMP complex controls behavior, and through its affect upon regulatory proteins, these IMPs also control gene expression... The IMP complexes provide the cell with "awareness of the environment through physical sensation," which by dictionary definition represents perception. Each receptor-effector protein complex collectively constitutes a "unit of perception."
A biochemical definition of the cell membrane reads as follows: the membrane is a liquid crystal (phospholipid organization), semiconductor (the only things that can cross the membrane barrier are those brought across by transport IMPs) with gates (receptor IMPs) and channels (effector IMPs). This definition is exactly the same as that used to define a computer chip. Recent studies have verified that the cell membrane is in fact an organic homologue of a silicon chip.
Taken in this context, the cell is a self-powered microprocessor. Simply stated, the cell is an organic computer. The operation of the cell can be easily understood by noting its homology to the computer: the "CPU" (information processing mechanism) is the cell membrane, the keyboard (data entry) are the membrane receptors, the disk (memory) is the nucleus, the screen (data output) is the physical state of the cell. Receptor/effector IMP complexes, the units of "perception," are equivalent to computational bits.
When new, heretofore unrecognized, "signals" enter the environment, the cell creates new perception units to respond to them. New perception units require "new" genes for the IMP proteins. The cell’s ability to make new IMP receptors and respond to the new signal with an appropriate survival-oriented response (behavior) is the foundation of evolution. Cells "learn" by making new receptors and integrating them with specific effector proteins. Cellular memory is represented by the "new" genes that code for these proteins. This process enables organisms to survive in ever changing environments.
This learning/evolution mechanism is employed by the immune system. To the immune cell (T-lymphocyte), invasive antigens (e.g., viruses, bacteria, toxins, etc.) represent "new" environmental signals. T-lymphocytes create protein antibodies that complement and bind to the antigens. Antibodies are "receptors" for they specifically recognize their antigen "signal." Protein antibody structure is encoded in genes (DNA). In making new antibodies, cells "create" new genes.
A cell’s awareness of the environment is reflected in its receptor population. In single-celled organisms (bacteria, protozoa and algae), the cell’s receptors respond to all survival-related environmental signals. These signals include elements of the physical environment (light, gravity, temperature, salts, minerals, etc.), food (nutrients, other organisms), and life-threatening agents (toxins, parasites, predators, etc.).
In multicellular organisms, the cells evolved additional receptors required for "community" identity and integration. Integration receptors respond to information signals (hormones, growth factors) used to coordinate functions in cell communities. A special group of receptors confer "identity" so that members of the cellular community can collectively respond to a "central" command. Identity receptors are referred to as "self receptors," or "histocompatibility receptors." Self-receptors are used by the immune system to distinguish "self" from invasive organisms. Organs or tissues can not be exchanged unless they bear the same self-receptors as the recipient.
When a perception unit recognizes an environmental signal, it will activate a cell function. Though there are hundreds of behavioral functions expressed by a cell, all behaviors can be classified as either growth or protection responses. Cells move toward growth signals and away from life-threatening stimuli (protection response). Since a cell can not move forward and backward at the same time, a cell can not be in growth and protection at the same time. At the cellular level, growth and protection are mutually exclusive behaviors. This is true for human cells as well. If our tissues and organs perceive a need for protection, they will compromise their growth behavior. Chronic protection leads to a disruption of the tissue and its function.
What happens if a cell experiences a stressful environment but does not have a gene program (behavior) to deal with the stress? It is now recognized that cells can "rewrite" existing gene programs in an effort to overcome the stressful condition. These DNA changes are mutations. Until recently, all mutations were thought to be "random," meaning that the outcome of the mutation could not be directed. It is now recognized that environmental stimuli can induce "adaptive" mutations that enable a cell to specifically alter its genes. Furthermore, such mutations may be mediated by an organism’s perception of its environment. For example, if an organism "perceives a stress that is actually not there, the misperception can actually change the genes to accommodate the "belief."
In conclusion: The structure of our bodies are defined by our proteins. Proteins represent physical complements of the environment. Consequently, our bodies are physical compliments of our environment. IMP perception units in the cell’s membrane convert the environment into awareness. Reception of environmental signals change protein conformations. The "movement" generated by protein shape changes is harnessed by the cell to do "work." Life (animation) results from protein movements which are translated as "behavior." Cells respond to perception by activating either growth or protection behavior programs. If the necessary behavior-providing proteins are not present in the cytoplasm, the IMP perception units can activate expression of appropriate genes in the cell’s nucleus.
"Perceptions" lie between the environment and cell expression. If our perceptions are accurate, the resulting behavior will be life enhancing. If we operate from "misperceptions," our behavior will be inappropriate and will jeopardize our vitality by compromising our health.
BRUCE H. LIPTON, PhD Literature Cited....and Additional Good References: These references are organized into subject categories and serve as references to related information. Relevance of each article enclosed in parentheses. Most references are from the journal Science, this source is present in almost all local libraries and schools of higher learning. Articles with an * are written for general reading audiences.
Physics and Biology:
The Quantum Centennial A. Zellinger Nature 2000, 408:639-641 (Brief review of quantum physics origins and its impact on civilization)
Exploiting Thermal Motion K. Schulten Science 2000, 290:61-62 (Reveals that quantum waves are at heart of protein reaction mechanism)
A New Twist on Molecular Shape Frank Weinhold, Nature 2001, 411:539-541 (Reveals why Newtonian-based chemistry textbooks hinder advance into quantum mechanical understanding of molecular interactions)
Biologists Cut Reductionist Approach Down to Size Nigel Williams, Science 1997, 277:476-477 (Current science is materialistic since "information" considered to be only found in physical molecules)
Complex Systems: Beyond Reductionism Science 1999, 284:79-109 Collection of 10 articles that question continued use of "Reductionism" and endorse "Holism" as necessary for acquiring new knowledge.
Detecting Individual Atoms and Molecules with Laser: Every atom or molecule emits and absorbs light of characteristic wavelengths style='font-size: 10.0pt'>, V. S. Letokhov Scientific American September 1988 pgs 54-59 (Atoms and molecules communicate via frequency resonance)
Laser Chemistry: The Light Choice R. A. Kerr Science 1994, 266:215-217 (Research on how vibrational energy affects specific molecular bonds)
Physicists Advance into Biology * J. Glanz Science 1996, 272:646-648 (Bringing new physics to cell biology)
Resonance In Bioenergetics C. W. F. McClare Annals NY Acad. Science 1974, 227:74-83 (States that vibrational energy interfaces biological tuned resonance information system)
Cold Numbers Unmake the Quantum Mind C. Seife Science 2000, 287:791 (Microtubules not source of "quantum" consciousness)
New Concepts Regarding Gene Expression and Mutation:
Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development H. F. Nijhout BioEssays 1990, 12 (9):441-446 (Describes that genes are not self-emergent, they need environmental signal for activation)
The Origin of Mutants John. Cairns, J. Overbaugh and S. Miller Nature 1988, 335:142-145 (This was first major paper on "adaptive" mutations [i.e., mutations that are not random!])
The Evolution of Genetic Intelligence David S. Thaler Science 1994, 264:224-225 (Discusses new papers which verify adaptive (Cairnsian) mutations, new gene control scheme compared to Darwinian scheme)
Evolution Evolving* Tim Beardsley Scientific American September 1997, pages 15-16 (Provides the first notice of Cairns’ study to the "general public," almost ten years after it was first published!)
Transposons Help Sculpt a Dynamic Genome Anne S. Moffat Science 2000, 289:1455-1457 (Moveable genes create rapid changes in DNA code)
Dirty Transcripts from Clean DNA B. A. Bridges Science 1999, 284:62-63, (Genetic mechanisms for "adaptive" mutations)
Test Tube Evolution Catches Time in a Bottle T. Appenzeller Science 1999 284:2108-2110 (The "regularity" and "reproducibility" (not chance) of mutational response in genetic "adaptations.")
Gaia and Natural Selection T. M. Lenton Nature 1998, 394:439-447 (Nature selects organisms that benefit Earth, not survival of the "fittest")
Principles for the Buffering of Genetic Variation J. Hartman, et al., Science 2001, 291:1001-1004 (Discusses that traits are due multi-genes, many genes acting together, allows "buffering" of effect of individual mutated genes)
New Clues to How Genes Are Controlled J. Marx Science 2000, 290:1066-1067 (Same "transcription factors" used for 3 different genes in same nucleus, how does single factor select among three genes?)
Tangled Strands In The Double Helix M. Ridley Nature 2000, 406:347-348 (Reviews 2 books by evolutionary geneticist R. Lewontin, who questions current genetics dogma as "bad science," brings up environment-gene issues)
Genomes as smart systems* J. A. Shapiro Genetica 1991, 84:3-4 (Compares the new understanding of gene function and behavior with the established "DNA dogma")
Brain Wiring Depends upon Multifaceted Gene J. Travis Science News 2000 157:406 (A single gene can create 38,000 different versions of a protein, knowing gene does not predict the outcome possibilities)
How the Genome Readies Itself for Evolution* E. Pennisi Science 1998, 281:1131-1134 Doubled Genes May Explain Fish Diversity* G. Vogel Science 1998, 281:1119-1121, and, DNA Microsatellites: Agents of Evolution?* E. R. Moxon and C. Wills Scientific American January 1999, pages 94-99 Twinned Genes Live Life In The Fast Lane E. Pennisi Science 2000, 290:1065-1066 (Reviews article on how gene duplication serves as source for "new" genes and other new DNA mutation mechanisms to support rapid evolution)
Mining Treasures from ‘Junk DNA’ * R. Nowak Science 1994, 263:608-610 (Junk DNA’s important role in evolution)
Quick-Change Pathogens Gain an Evolutionary Edge * D. Grady Science 1996, 274:1081 Versatile Gene Uptake System Found in Cholera Bacterium E. Pennisi Science 1998, 280:521-522 (Bacteria pick-up environmental genes)
Close Encounters: Good, Bad, and Ugly E. Pennisi Science 2000, 290:1491-1493 (Microrganisms exchange DNA in cooperation, resulting in continuous evolution thru interaction)
Protein Dynamics: Implications for Nuclear Architecture and Gene Expression T. Misteli Science 2001, 291:843-847 (Describes role of nuclear proteins in gene expression)
Transcription: from information to gene action
How Chromatin Changes Its Shape Michael Hagmann Science 199, 285:1201-1203 (How environmental signals [growth/protection] select gene programs)
Catalysis by a Multiprotein IB Kinase Complex T. Maniatis Science 1997, 278:818-819 (An example to illustrate pathway from signal at membrane receptor to nuclear gene activation)
Inner Workings of a Transcription Factor Partnership B. J. Graves Science 1998, 279:1000-1002 (How proteins turn on genes)
New Antibiotic Dulls Bacterial Senses * J. Travis Science News 1998, 153:276 (Receptor relay system controls gene expression)
Signaling Through Scaffold, Anchoring, and Adaptor Proteins T. Pawson and J. D. Scott Science 1997, 278:2075-2080 and, Integrin Signaling F. G. Giancotti and E. Ruoslahti Science 1999, 285:1028-1032, (How environmental signals traverse membrane, are carried by cytoskeleton to nucleus and influence gene expression)
style='font-size:10.0pt;text-transform: uppercase'>Epigenetics: (Environmental "programming" of genes)
Epigenetics: Regulation Through Repression A. P. Wolffe and M. A. Matzke Science 1999, 286:481-486 ("Acquired" characteristics passed from parent to child without changes in DNA coding)
Was Lamarck Just a Little Bit Right? M. Balter Science 2000, 288:39 (Environment controls genes through "epigenetic" mechanisms)
Epigenetic Reprogramming in Mammalian Development W. Reik, W. Dean and J. Walter Science 2001, 293:1089-1093 (Describes how environmental programs, ie, epigenetic control templates, are erased and reset in embryonic development)
Reprogramming of genomic function through epigenetic inheritance M. A. Surani Nature 2001, 414:122-128 (Describes "genomic imprinting," mechanism by which parents program gene expression in offspring)
Proteins:
A Glimpse of the Holy Grail? * H. J. C. Berendsen Science 1998, 282:642-643 (How proteins fold into shapes)
Folding Proteins Caught in the Act * R. F. Service Science 1996, 273:29-30 (Seeing dynamics of protein folding)
Proteins in Motion* M. Gerstein and C. Chothia Science 1999, 285:1682-1684 (How membrane protein conformation changes send signals into cytoplasm)
The Rotary Enzyme of the Cell: The Rotation of F1-ATPase style='font-size: 10.0pt'> H. Noji Science 1998, 282:1844-1845 (Insight into how protein conformation changes produce work)
New Clues to How Proteins Link Up to Run the Cell* M. Barinaga Science 1999, 283:1247-1249 (How connections between proteins regulate cell pathways)
Membrane Structure/Function:
The Molecules of the Cell Membrane Mark S. Bretscher Scientific American 1985, 253:100-108 (A great review of membrane structure and properties)
The Structure of Proteins in Biological Membranes style='font-size: 10.0pt'> N. Unwin and R. Henderson Sci.Am. Oct. 1985, pgs 56--66
Building Doors into Cells H. Bayley Scientific American September 1997 pgs62-67 (Using membrane technology to engineer membrane transport and reception)
Crossing the Hydrophobic Barrier: Insertion of Membrane Proteins D. M. Engelman Science 1996, 274:1850-1851 (Reviews mechanisms by which proteins incorporate into lipid membrane)
Signaling Across Membranes: A One and a Two and a ... style='font-size: 10.0pt'>J. Stock Science 1996, 274:370-371 (Describes universality and "multiplicity" of receptor proteins)
Receptors as Kissing Cousins G. Milligan Science 2000, 288:65-67 (Different receptors can pair-up, mix-n-match, creating "families" of receptors each with distinct properties)
Stretching Is Good for a Cell * E. Ruoslahti Science 1997, 276:1345-46 (Physical tension influences cell behavior)
Structure of the MscL Homolog from Mycobacterium tuberculosis: A Gated Mechanosensitive Ion Channel G. Chang et al., Science 1998, 282:220-226 Mechanosensation and the DEG/ENaC Ion Channels D. P. Corey and J. Garcia-Anoveros Science 1996, 273:323-324 (Membrane mechanism to transduce physical stresses into electrical activity/cell control)
The Architecture of Life * D. Ingber Scientific American January 1998 pgs48-57 (role of tensegrity in shaping cellular life)
How Cells Handle Cholesterol K. Simons and E. Ikonen Science 2000, 290:1721-1726 (Describes cholesterol’s role in membrane dynamics, discusses lipid "rafts" that transport IMPs)
Information in Biology:
The Babel of Bioinformatics T. K. Attwood Science 2000, 290:471 (Now that the genome is sequenced, so what. Major obstacle was not in identifying the genes but in understanding the code)
A Biosensor That uses Ion-Channel Switches B. A. Cornell, et al. Nature 1997, 387:580-584 (Describes the technology of making a digital chip out of a cell membrane)
Biological Information Processing: Bits of Progress * N. C. Spitzer and T. J. Sejnowski Science 1997, 277:1060-1061 (How information" can be processed from biochemical reactions)
"Smart" Genes Use Many Cues to Set Cell Fate * W. Roush Science 1996, 272:652-653 (How genes respond to environment)
Dialing Up an Embryo: Are Olfactory receptors digits in a developmental code? * J. Travis Science News 1998, 154:106-107 (Surface Receptors-how cells know who they are and where they should go)
What Maintains Memories? J. E. Lisman and J. R. Fallon Science 11999 283:339-340 (Addresses issues of holism versus reductionism in cell information pathways)
CREATING NEW PERCEPTION PROTEINS: THE ANTIBODY AS A MODEL SYSTEM
Evolutionary Chemistry: Getting There from Here * G. F. Joyce Science 1997, 276:1658-1659 (The molecular nature of "learning and memory" as seen in antibody maturation)
Structural Insights into the Evolution of an Antibody Combining Site G. J. Wedemayer, P. A. Patten, L. H. Wang, P. G. Schultz, and R. C. Stevens Science 1997, 276:1665-1669 (The precise nature of gene mutations in antibody formation)
B Cell Receptor Rehabilitation-Pausing to Reflect style='font-size: 10.0pt'> L. King and J. Monroe Science 2001, 291:1503-1505 (Cells can "remodel" antibodies (receptors) after they are formed)
STEM CELLS: Multipotential (embryo-like) cells used in "regenerate" tissues and organs in adults
Stem Cells: New Excitement, Persistent Questions G. Vogel Science 2000, 290:1672-1674 (Stem cells in bone marrow can replace neurons)
Electromagnetics and Cell Behavior:
Pulsing Electromagnetic Fields Induce Cellular Transcription R. Goodman, et al., Science 1983, 220:1283-1285 (Electromagnetic fields regulate RNA synthesis)
Exposure of Salivary Gland Cells to Low-frequency Electromagnetic Fields Alters Polypeptide Synthesis R. Goodman and A. S. Henderson Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1988, 85:3928-3932 (Electromagnetic fields regulate protein synthesis)
Time Varying Magnetic Fields: Effect on DNA Synthesis A. R. Liboff, et al., Science 1984, 223:818-820
Calcium Signaling: Up, Down, Up Down....What’s the Point? * J. W. Putney Jr. Science 1998, 279:191-192 (calcium signals read in AM and FM)
Deciphering the Language of Cells T. Y. Tsong Trends in Biochemical Sciences 1989, 14:89-92 (Describes how vibrational energies physically alter protein structure/function)
Electromagnetic Fields May Trigger Enzymes * M. Jensen Science News 1998, 153:119 (title self explanatory)
EMF’s Biological Influences:Electromagnetic fields exert effects on and through hormones * J. Raloff Science News 1998, 153:29-31 (Title self-explanatory)
When Do EMFs Disturb the Heart? J. Raloff Science News 2000, 158:77 (EMFs primarily effect stressed people )
The Responses of Cells to Electrical Fields: A Review K. R. Robinson Journal of Cell Biology 1985, 101:2023-2027 (Describes effects of magnetic fields on cell behavior)
Shedding Light on Visual Imagination * M. Barinaga Science 1999, 284:22 (Electromagnetic fields impact cognition and imagination)
Environment and Behavior (also see Conscious Parenting section below):
Pushing the Mood Swings B. Bower Science News 2000, 157:232 (Bipolar disorder can be controlled by adhering to daily routine schedule)
Behavioral Genetics in Transition * Charles C. Mann Science 1994, 264:1686-1689 (Returning role of environment to behavior)
A Cellular Striptease Act * Z. Werb and Y. Yan Science 1998, 282:1279-1280, The Plasticity of Ion Channels: Parallels between the Nervous and Immune Systems R. S. Lewis and M. D. Cahalan Trends in Neuroscience 1988, 11:214-218 Social Status Sculpts Activity of Crayfish Neurons M. Barinaga Science 1996, 271:290-291 (Papers that show how environmental experiences change cell behavior by changing population/action of membrane surface receptors)
A Model of Host-Microbial Interactions in an Open Mammalian Ecosystem L. Bry, et al. Science 1996, 273:1380-1383 (Human genes selected by environmental bacteria)
How the Malarial Parasite Manipulates Its Hosts * V. Morell Science 1997, 278:223 (Parasite genes change to accommodate environment)
Eugenics Revisited * J. Horgan Scientific American June 1993 pgs122-131 (Corrects some misinterpretations regarding extravagant claims of genes controlling behavior)
Habitat Seen Playing Larger Role In Shaping Behavior * D. Normile Science 1998, 279:1454-1455 (Reveals major role of environment over genes)
Growth/Protection Mechanism:
A Cellular Rescue Team J. L. Pomerantz and D Baltimore Nature 2000, 406:26-29 (describes how cytokine signal selects between cell growth and death [apoptosis])
Akt Signaling: Linking Membrane Events to Life and Death Decisions B. A. Hemmings Science 1997, 275:628-630 (Life-death switch mechanism)
Sphinx of Fats * J. Raloff Science News 1997, 151:342-343 (How ceremide signal gauges level of stress)
Superoxide Relay Ras Protein’s Oncogenic Message * E. Pennisi Science 1997, 275:1567-1568 (Growth-protection switch mechanism)
Cancer:
A Strong Candidate for the Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Gene BRCA1 Y. Miki, et al., Science 1994, 266:66-71; Breast Cancer Gene Offers Surprises* author? (news) Science 1994, 265:1796-1799 (genetic factors account for ~5% of breast cancer)
Silencing the BRCA1 Gene Spells Trouble N. Seppa Science News 2000, 157:247 Silencing a Gene Slows Breast-Tumor Fighter N. Seppa Science News 2000, 157:407 ("Silencing" a process by which environment/behavior regulate gene expression, environmental switches activate cancer)
Epidemiology Faces Its Limits * Gary Taubes Science 1995, 269:164-169 ("External" factors cause 70-90% cancer/regarding epidemiology: don’t believe all you hear! Real science vs "newspaper science")
Oncogenes Reach a Milestone * Jean Marx Science 1994, 266:1942-1944 (Most "cancer" genes are normal cellular genes with a control problem)
Transient Expression of a Mutator Phenotype in Cancer Cells L. L. Loeb Science 1997, 277:1449-1450 ("Adaptive mutation" mechanism activated in cancer, but not in "normal" cells)
Outside Influences: A cancer cell’s physical environment controls its growth * J. Travis Science News 1997, 152:138-139
Putative Cancer Gene Shows Up in Development Instead style='font-size: 10.0pt'>* W. Roush Science 1997, 276:534-535 (Digital switches +/- in cell control)
Obesity, Cancer and Heart Attacks: How Your Odds are Set in the Womb S. Begley, J. Davenport and E. Check Newsweek Sept. 27, 1999, pages 50-56 (Evidence showing life-long health is determined by life in the womb)
Death and Methylation P. A. Jones Nature 2001, 409:141-144 ( Significance of epigenetic [environmental] control in melanoma and other cancer)
AGING
Growing Old Together E. Strauss Science 2001, 292:41-43 (Reveals "common" aging mechanism among all organisms, aging related to metabolism, insulin pathways)
Why Do We Age? T. Kirkwood and S. Austad Nature 2000, 408:233-238 (Reviews role of caloric intake, metabolism and stress upon aging response)
Brain Influences:
Conditions That Appear to Favor Extrasensory Interactions Between Homo Sapiens and Microbes C. M. Pleass & N. Dean Dey J. Scien Exploration 1990, 4:213-231 (Human thought can control experiment’s results!)
Listening in on the Brain * Science 1998, 280:376-378 (Perception linked to synchronous firing of neurons)
Recording and Interpretation of Cerebral Magnetic Fields R. Hari and O. V. Lounasmaa Science 1989, 244:432-436 (How brain activity surrounds body)
The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in the Brain:The Transferred Potential J. Grinberg-Zylberbaum, et al. Physics Essays 1994, 7(4);422-XX (Describes research on brains interacting over distances)
The Evoked Magnetic Field of the Human Brain L. Kaufman and S. J. Williamson Annals New York Academy of Sciences 1980, 340:45 (How brain magnetic fields surround body)
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation and The Human Brain M. Hallett, Nature 2000, 406:147-150 (TMS mechanism explained, plus insights to therapeutic use)
Boosting Brain Activity From The Outside In L. Helmuth Science 2001, 292:1284-1286 (Directing magnetic fields into brain [TMS] can change behavior and relieve depression)
The Placebo Effect * W. A. Brown Scientific American January 1998 pgs 90-95 Placebos Prove So Powerful Even Experts Are Surprised* S. Blakeslee NY Times (On the Web) 10/13/1998 Can the Placebo Be the Cure? [Prozac is 80% placebo!] M. Enserink Science 1999, 284:238-240 (The mind over matter story)
style='font-size:10.0pt;color:black'>Medical applications of neurofeedback style='font-size:10.0pt; color:black'> R. Laibow in Quantitative EEG and Neurofeedback (1999), James R. Evans and Andrew Abarbanel, eds., Academic Press (Describes sequential origin of EEG states during development)
Neural Plasticity:
Brain Changes in Response to Experience M. Rosenzweig, E. L. Bennett and M. C. Diamond, Scientific American 1972, 226(2):22-29 (Classic paper- shows brain cell populations dynamically adjust up or down with use)
Adult Human Brains Add New Cells * J. Travis Science News 1998, 154:276 and, Brain, Heal Thyself D.H. Lowenstein and J. M. Parent, Science 1999, 283:1126-1127 (Dispelling myth about "no new neurons", how brains regenerate)
Dementia May Travel Lonely Road B. Bower Science News 2000, 157:263 (Lack of social connections linked to dementia/Alzheimer’s disease, use it or lose it)
Grown-Up Monkey Brains Get Growing * B. Bower Science News 1998, 153:180 (Brain remodeling occurs in adults, influence by stress and trauma)
Teaching the Spinal Cord to Walk I. Wickelgren Science 1998, 279:319-321 (Spinal cords severed from brain create neural connections, i.e., "learn," how to walk through muscle feedback mechanism)
Mapping the Sensory Mosaic * S. L. Juliano Science 1998, 279:1653-1654 (Brain "maps" dynamically altered to reflect usage)
Solving the Brain’s Energy Crisis* Ann Gibbons Science 1998, 280:1345-1347 (Discusses "genomic imprinting," how regulatory proteins select maternal/paternal genes in response to environment)
Gray Matters J. Netting Science News 2001, 159:222-223 (Reviews important contributions of glial cells in brain functions)
Control of Synapse Number by Glia E. Ullian, et a3,. Science 2001, 291:657-662 (Glial cells control synapse formation between neurons)
A Glial-Neuron Signaling Pathway Revealed by Mutations in a Neurexin-Related Protein L. Yuan and B. Ganetzky Science 1999, 283:1343-1345 (Glial cells modify response of Neurons)
Conscious Parenting:
Nongenomic Transmission Across Generations of Maternal Behavior and Stress Responses in the Rat D. Francis, J. Diorio, D. Liu and M. Meaney Science 1999, 286:1155-1158 (Maternal care [i.e., environment] influences child’s behavior and can change genetics in next generation)
Where Health Begins - Obesity, Cancer and Heart Attacks: How Your Odds are Set in the Womb style='font-size: 10.0pt'> S. Begley, J. Davenport and E. Check Newsweek Sept. 27, 1999, pages 50-56 (Evidence showing lifelong health is determined by life in the womb)
Psychological Influences of Stress and HPA Regulation on the Human Fetus and Infant Birth Outcomes style='font-size: 10.0pt'> C. A. Sandman, et al. Annals of the NY Acad. of Sciences 1994, 739:198-210 (Stress in third trimester can permanently influence brain mechanisms and behavior)
Weight Matters, Even in the Womb D. Christensen Science News 2000, 158:382-383
Severe Emotional Stress in First Trimester Linked with Congenital Malformations D. Hansen et al. Lancet 2000, 356:875-880 (High stress hormones in first trimester linked to 50% increase in cranial malformations)
The Mental Butler Did It B. Bower Science News 1999, 156:280-282 (Most behavior operates subconsciously from repeating "tapes" created from "programmed" life experiences)
Effects of Neonatal Handling on Age-Related Impairments Associated with the Hippocampus M. J. Meaney, et al. Science 1988, 239:766-768 (Perinatal parenting impacts brain function throughout life)
Solving the Brains Energy Crisis * A. Gibbons Science 1998, 280:1345-1347 (Important: see sidebar regarding genomic imprinting and role of mother’s perception in fetal brain development)
The Heritability of IQ B. Devlin, et al. Nature 1997, 388:468-471 The Democracy of Genes* M. McGue Nature 1997, 388:417-418 (Emphasizes prenatal environment influences upto 50% of IQ)
Nurture Helps Mold Able Minds I. Wickelgren Science 1999, 283:1832-1834, and, Kids Adopted Late Reap IQ Increases B. Bower Science News 1999, 1546:X (Early environment influences shape and "reshape" IQ development)
The Importance of a Well-Groomed Child * R. M. Sapolsky Science 1997, 277:1620-1621 (Role of parenting produces life long [genetic/biochemical] influences on offspring)
Child Abuse and Neglect: Usefulness of Animal Data D. Maestripieri and K. A. Carroll Psychological Bulletin 1998, 123:211-216 (Child neglect and abuse derived from "learning" experience)
Genetics of Mouse Behavior: Interactions with Laboratory Environment J. C. Crabbe, et al. Science 1999, 284:1670-1672 (Genetically identical strains, different environments produce different behaviors)
Multiple Pathways to Conscience for Children with Different Temperments G. Kochanska Developmental Psychology 1997, 33:228-234 (Conscience development linked to mother’s child-rearing style)
Tourette Syndrome: Prediction of Phenotypic Variation in Monozygotic Twins by Caudate Nucleus D2 Receptor Binding S.S. Wolf, et al. Science 1996, 273:1225-1227 (Prenatal environmental influences offspring’s gene expression)
Your Child’s Brain S. Begley Newsweek 2/19/96, pgs 55-62 (Reviews role of parents in child’s brain development)
A New Look at Maternal Guidance Elizabeth Pennisi Science 1996, 273:1334-1336 (Describes new work on maternal experiences selecting gene programs in offspring)
The Moral Development of Children* W. Damon Scientific American August 1999, pages 72-78 (Parent behaviors shape child’s moral behavior)
Duke Study Faults Overuse of Stimulants for Children style='font-size: 10.0pt'> E. Marshall Science 2000, 289:721 and Study of Stimulant Therapy Raises Concern B. Bower Science News 2000, 158:69 (Half of Ritalin using ADHD kids DO NOT have ADHD!)
Altered Nociceptive Neuronal Circuits After Neonatal Peripheral Inflammation M. A. Ruda, et al Science 2000, 289:628-630 (Early painful stimuli rewire neonatal brains, cause increased sensitivity to pain in later life)
Stress and Biology:
Don’t Stress * K. Leutwyler Scientific American Jan. 1998 pgs 29-30 (Stress causes developmental problems and neurodegeneration)
Functions of Ceramide in Coordinating Cellular Responses to Stress Y. A. Hannun Science 1996, 274:1855-1859 (Reveals how cell behavior is divided into Growth and Protection functions)
Healthy Functioning Takes Social Cues * B. Bower Science News 1998, 153:391 (Stressful jobs/lonely life increase physical illness)
Immigrants Go from Health to Worse * B. Bower Science News 1998, 154:180 (US culture increases stress and leads to mental disorders)
Physical Ills Follow Trauma Response * B. Bower Science News 1997, 152:372 (Title self-explanatory)
Probing the Biology of Emotion * C. Mlot Science 1998, 280:1005-1007 (Emotions trigger behavioral and brain changes)
Gigantism in Mice Lacking Suppressor of Cytokine Signalling-2 D. Metcalf Nature 2000, 405:1069-1073 (Suppression of immune system leads to greater growth of organism)
Stress Hormone May Speed Up Brain Aging * B. Bower Science News 1998, 153:263 (Title self-explanatory)
The Biology of Being Frazzled * A. F. T. Arnsten Science 1998, 280:1711 (stress reduces intelligence)
The Cortisol Connection:Does Stress hormone play a role in AIDS? * K. Fackelmann Science News 1997,152:350-351 (Title self-explanatory)
Tracing Molecules That Make The Brain-Body Connection style='font-size: 10.0pt'>* E. Pennisi Science 1997 275: 930-931 (Regulation of immune system by stress)
Gene Expression Profile of Aging and its Retardation by Caloric Restriction C-K. Lee, R. G. Klopp, R. Weindruch and T. Prolla Science 1999, 285:1390-1393 (How stress signals select genes that promote aging)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insight into Cellular "Consciousness"
Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. © 2001
Reprinted from Bridges, 2001 Vol 12(1):5, ISSEEM>(303) 425-4625
Though a human is comprised of over fifty trillion cells, there are no physiologic functions in our bodies that were not already pre-existing in the biology of the single, nucleated (eukaryotic) cell. Single-celled organisms, such as the amoeba or paramecium, possess the cytological equivalents of a digestive system, an excretory system, a respiratory system, a musculoskeletal system, an immune system, a reproductive system and a cardiovascular system, among others.>In the humans, these physiologic functions are associated with the activity of specific organs.>These same physiologic processes are carried out in cells by diminutive organ systems called organelles.>
Cellular life is sustained by tightly regulating the functions of the cell’s physiologic systems. The expression of predictable behavioral repertoires implies the existence of a cellular "nervous system." This system reacts to environmental stimuli by eliciting appropriate behavioral responses. The organelle that coordinates the adjustments and reactions of a cell to its internal and external environments would represent the cytoplasmic equivalent of the "brain."
Since the breaking of the genetic code in the early 1950's, cell biologists have favored the concept of genetic determinism, the notion that genes "control" biology. Virtually all of the cell’s genes are contained within the cell’s largest organelle, the nucleus. Conventional opinion considers the nucleus to be the "command center" of the cell.>As such, the nucleus would represent the cellular equivalent of the "brain."
Genetic determinism infers that the expression and fate of an organism are primarily "predetermined" in its genetic code. The genetic basis of organismal expression is ingrained in the biological sciences as a consensual truth, a belief by which we frame our reference for health and disease. Hence the notion that susceptibility to certain illnesses or the expression of aberrant behavior is generally linked to genetic lineage and, on occasions, spontaneous mutations. By extension, it is also perceived by a majority of scientists that the human mind and consciousness are "encoded" in the molecules of the nervous system. This in turn promotes the concept that the emergence of consciousness reflects the "ghost in the machine."
The primacy of DNA in influencing and regulating biological behavior and evolution is based upon an unfounded assumption. A seminal article by H. F. Nijhout (BioEssays >1990, 12 (9):441-446) describes how concepts concerning genetic "controls" and "programs" were originally conceived as metaphors to help define and direct avenues of research. Widespread repetition of this compelling hypothesis over fifty years has resulted in the "metaphor of the model" becoming the "truth of the mechanism," in spite of the absence of substantiative supporting evidence. Since the assumption emphasizes the genetic program as the "top rung" on the biological control ladder, genes have acquired the status of causal agents in eliciting biological expression and behavior (e.g., genes causing cancer, alcoholism, even criminality).
The notion that the nucleus and its genes are the "brain" of the cell is an untenable and illogical hypothesis. If the brain is removed from an animal, disruption of physiologic integration would immediately lead to the organism's death. If the nucleus truly represented the brain of the cell, then removal of the nucleus would result in the cessation of cell functions and immediate cell death. However, experimentally enucleated cells may survive for two or more months with out genes, and yet are capable of effecting complex responses to environmental and cytoplasmic stimuli (Lipton, et al., Differentiation 1991, 46:117-133). Logic reveals that the nucleus can not be the brain of the cell!
Studies on cloned human cells led me to the awareness that the cell’s plasmalemma, commonly referred to as the cell membrane, represents the cell’s "brain.">Cell membranes, the first biological organelle to appear in evolution, are the only organelle common to every living organism. Cell membranes compartmentalize the cytoplasm, separating it from the vagaries of the external environment.>In its barrier capacity, the membrane enables the cell to maintain tight "control" over the cytoplasmic environment, a necessity in carrying out biological reactions. Cell membranes are so thin that they can only be observed using the electron microscope.>Consequently, the existence>and universal expression of the membrane structure>was only clearly established around 1950.>
In electron micrographs, the cell membrane appears as a vanishingly thin (<10nm), tri-layered (black-white-black) "skin" enveloping the cell. The fundamental structural simplicity of the cell membrane, which is identical for all biological organisms, beguiled cell biologists.>For most of the last fifty years, the membrane was perceived as a "passive," semi-permeable barrier, resembling a breathable "plastic wrap," whose function was to simply contain the cytoplasm.
The membrane’s layered appearance reflects the organization of its phospholipid building blocks.>These lollipop-shaped molecules are amphipathic, they possess both a globular polar phosphate head (Figure A) and two stick-like non-polar legs (Figure B). When shaken in solution, the phospholipids self-assemble into a stabilizing crystalline bilayer (Figure C).
The lipid legs comprising the core of the membrane >provide a hydrophobic barrier (Figure D) that partitions the cytoplasm from the ever-changing external environment.>While cytoplasmic integrity is maintained by the lipid’s passive barrier function, life processes necessitate the active exchange of metabolites and information between the cytoplasm and surrounding environment. The physiologic activities of the plasmalemma are mediated by the membrane’s proteins .
Each of the approximately 100,000 different proteins providing for the human body is comprised of a linear chain of linked amino acids. The "chains" are assembled from a population of twenty different amino acids.>Each protein’s unique structure and function is defined by the specific sequence of amino acids comprising its chain. Synthesized as a linear string, the amino acid chains subsequently fold into unique three dimensional globules.>The final conformation (shape) of the protein reflects a balance of electrical charges among its constituent amino acids.
The three dimensional morphology of folded proteins endows their surfaces with specifically shaped clefts and pockets.>Molecules and ions possessing complementary physical shapes and electrical charges will bind to a protein’s surface clefts and pockets with the specificity of a lock-and-key. Binding of another molecule alters the protein’s electrical charge distribution. In response, the protein’s amino acid chain will spontaneously refold to rebalance the charge distribution.>Refolding changes the protein’s conformation.>In shifting from one conformation to the next, the protein expresses movement. Protein conformational movements are harnessed by the cell to carry out physiologic functions. The work generated by protein movement is responsible for "life."
A number of the twenty amino acids comprising the protein’s chain are non-polar (hydrophobic, oil-loving). The hydrophobic portions of proteins seek stability by inserting themselves into the membrane’s lipid core. The polar (water-loving) portions of these proteins extend from either or both of the membrane’s water-covered surfaces. Proteins incorporated within the membrane are called integral membrane proteins (IMPs).
Membrane IMPs can be functionally subdivided into two classes: receptors and effectors. Receptors are input devices that respond to environmental signals. Effectors are output devices that activate cellular processes. A family of processor proteins, located in the cytoplasm beneath the membrane, serve to link signal-receiving receptors with action-producing effectors.
Receptors are molecular "antennas" that recognize environmental signals. Some receptor antennas extend inward from the membrane’s cytoplasmic face.>These receptors "read" the internal milieu and provide awareness of cytoplasmic conditions. Other receptors extending from the cell’s outer surface provide awareness of external environmental signals.
Conventional biomedical sciences hold that environmental "information" can only be carried by the substance of molecules (Science 1999, 284:79-109). According to this notion, receptors only recognize "signals" that physically complement their surface features. This materialistic belief is maintained even though it has been amply demonstrated that protein receptors respond to vibrational frequencies. Through a process known as electroconformational coupling (Tsong, Trends in Biochem. Sci. 1989, 14:89-92), resonant vibrational energy fields can alter the balance of charges in a protein.>In a harmonic energy field, receptors will change their conformation. Consequently, membrane receptors respond to both physical and energetic environmental information.
A receptor’s "activated" conformation informs the cell of a signal’s existence. Changes in receptor conformation provide for cellular "awareness." In its "activated" conformation, a signal-receiving receptor may bind to either a specific function-producing effector protein or to intermediary processor protein. Receptor proteins return to their original "inactive" conformation and detach from other proteins when the signal ceases.
The family of effector proteins represent "output" devices.>There are three different types of effectors, transport proteins, enzymes and cytoskeletal proteins.>Transporters, which include the extensive family of channels, serve to transport molecules and information from one side of the membrane barrier to the other.>Enzymes are responsible for metabolic synthesis and degradation.>Cytoskeletal proteins regulate the shape and motility of cells.>
Effector proteins generally possess two conformations: an active configuration in which the protein expresses its function; and a "resting" conformation in which the protein is inactive.>For example, a channel protein in its active conformation>possesses an open pore through which specific ions or molecules traverse the membrane barrier.>In returning to an inactive conformation, protein refolding constricts the conducting channel and the flow of ions or molecules ceases.
Putting all the pieces together we are provide with insight as to how the cell’s "brain" processes information and elicits behavior. The innumerable molecular and radiant energy signals in a cell's environment creates a virtual cacophony of information. In a manner resembling a biological Fourier transform, individual surface receptors (Fig. H) sense the apparently chaotic environment and filter out specific frequencies as behavioral signals. Receipt of a resonant signal (Fig. I, arrow) induces a conformational change in the cytoplasmic portion of the receptor (Fig. I, arrowhead).>This conformational change enables the receptor to complex with a specific effector IMP (Fig. J, in this case a channel IMP). Binding of the receptor protein (Fig. K) in turn elicits a conformational change in the effector protein (Fig. L, channel opens). Activated receptors can turn on enzyme pathways, induce structural reorganization and motility or activate transport of uniquely pulsed electrical signals and ions across the membrane.
Processor proteins serve as "multiplex" devices in that they can increase the versatility of the signal system. Such proteins interface receptors with effector proteins (P in figure M).>By "programming" processor protein coupling, a variety of inputs can be linked with a variety of outputs. Processor proteins provide for a large behavioral repertoire using a limited number of IMPs.
Effector IMPs convert receptor-mediated environmental signals into biological behavior. The output function of some effector proteins might represent the full extent of an elicited behavior.>However, in most cases, the output of effector IMPs actually serve as a secondary "signal" which penetrates the cell and activates behavior of other cytoplasmic protein pathways.>Activated effector proteins also serve as transcription factors, signals that elicit gene expression.
The behavior of the cell is controlled by the combined actions of coupled receptors and effector IMPs. Receptors provide "awareness of the environment" and effector proteins convert that awareness into "physical sensation." By strict definition, a receptor-effector complex represents a fundamental unit of perception. Protein perception units provide the foundation of biological consciousness. Perceptions "control" cell behavior, though in truth, a cell is actually "controlled" by beliefs, since perceptions may not necessarily be accurate.
The cell membrane is an organic information processor.>It senses the environment and converts that awareness into "information" that can influence the activity of protein pathways and control the expression of the genes.>A description of the membrane’s structure and function reads as follows: (A) based upon the organization of its phospholipid molecules, the membrane is a liquid crystal; B) the regulated transport of information across the hydrophobic barrier by IMP effector proteins renders the membrane a semiconductor; and (C) the membrane is endowed with IMPs that function as gates (receptors) and channels. As a liquid crystal semiconductor with gates and channels, the membrane is an information processing transistor, an organic computer chip.>
Each receptor-effector complex represents a biological BIT, a single unit of perception.>Though this hypothesis was first formally presented in 1986 (Lipton 1986, Planetary Assoc. for Clean Energy Newsletter 5:4), the concept has since been technologically verified.>Cornell and others (Nature 1997, 387:580-584), linked a membrane to a gold foil substrate. By controlling the electrolytes between the membrane and the foil, they were able to digitize the opening and closing of receptor-activated channels. The cell and a chip are homologous structures.
The cell is a carbon-based "computer chip" that reads the environment.>Its "keyboard" is comprised of receptors.>Environmental information is entered via its protein "keys.">The data is transduced into biological behavior by effector proteins. The IMP BITs serve as switches that regulate cell functions and gene expression.>The nucleus represents a "hard disk" with DNA-coded software. Recent advances in molecular biology emphasize the read/write nature of this hard drive.
Interestingly, the thickness of the membrane (about 7.5 nm) is fixed by the dimensions of the phospholipid bilayer.>Since membrane IMPs are approximately 6-8 nm in diameter, they can only form a monolayer in the membrane. >IMP units can not stack upon one another, the addition of more perception units is directly linked to an increase in membrane surface area. By this understanding, evolution, the expansion of awareness (i.e., the addition of more IMPs) would most effectively be modeled using fractal geometry.>The fractal nature of biology can be observed in the structural and functional reiterations observed among the hierarchy of the cell, multicellular organisms (man) and the communities of multicellular organisms (human society).
This new perception on cell control mechanisms frees us from the limitations of genetic determinism.>Rather than behaving as programmed genetic automatons, biological behavior is dynamically linked to the environment. Though this reductionist approach has highlighted the mechanism of the individual perception proteins, an understanding of the processing mechanism emphasizes the holistic nature of biological organisms.>The expression of the cell reflects the recognition of all perceived environmental stimuli, both physical and energetic. Consequently, the "Heart of Energy Medicine" may truly be found in the magic of the membrane.>
References and Notes
1. H. F. Nijhout, BioEssays, 12(9) (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY,1990) pp.441-446
2. B. H. Lipton, et al., Differentiation, 46(Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, FRG, 1991) pp.117-133
3. N. Williams, Science, 277 (AAAS, Washington, DC 1997) pp476-477
4. T. Y. Tsong, Trends in Biochemical Sciences 14 (Elsevier, West Sussex, UK 1989) pp. 89-92
5. B. H. Lipton, Planetary Association for Clean Energy Newsletter, 5 (Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Hull, Quebec, 1986) pg. 4
6. B. A. Cornell, et al.>Nature 387 (Nature Publishing Group, London, UK,1997) pp. 580-584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Human Genome Project: A Cosmic Joke that has the Scientists Rolling in the Aisle
Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. © 2001
There is a "thing" I refer to as Universe Humor, others may refer to it as a Cosmic Joke. There have been times in all of our lives when we thought we knew exactly how some event or incident was going to turn out. We could be so convinced that we "knew" what was going to happen, that we would have bet the family farm and the kitchen sink on the outcome of the event. It is at moments like this, when the Universe surprises us by taking a left turn instead of a right.
While in most cases such a turn of events may evoke anger, disappointment or disillusion, I usually respond by shaking my head in profound awe of the perverse nature of Universe Humor. Here I thought I knew exactly how things would turn out and then find myself surprised, the wind knocked out of me. In wonder, I must rethink and reconsider the beliefs I held that led me to my faulty conclusion.
When Universe Humor hits an individual, recognition of their astonishing lack of awareness may provoke a profound change in their life. On an individual level, each must reconsider their own beliefs in order to accommodate the surprising observations.
In contrast, the course of human history is radically altered when Universe Humor undermines a "core belief" that is part of the fabric of the entire society. Consider how the course of human history changed when the belief that the world was flat was challenged by the circumnavigation of the globe?
In 1893, the chairman of physics at Harvard University warned students that there was no more need for additional PhD's in the field of physics. He boasted that science had established the fact that the universe was a matter machine, comprised of physical, indivisible atoms that fully obeyed the laws of Newtonian Mechanics. Since all the descriptive laws of physics were "known," the future of physics would be relegated to making finer and finer measurements.
Two years later, the Newtonian concept of a matter-only universe was toppled by the discovery of subatomic particles, X-rays and radioactivity. Within ten years, physicists had to discard their fundamental belief in a material universe for it was recognized that the universe was actually made of energy whose mechanics obeyed the laws of Quantum Physics. That little piece of Universe Humor profoundly altered the course of civilization, taking us from steam engines to rocket ships, from telegraphs to computers.
Well…the cosmic prankster has struck again!
As it has done a few times in the past, this expression of Universe Humor upends a foundational basic belief held by conventional science. The joke is embodied in the results of The Human Genome Project. In all the hoopla over the sequencing of the human genetic code and being got caught up in the brilliant technological feat, we have not focused on the actual "meaning" of the results.
One of the most important and fundamental core beliefs in conventional biology is that the traits and character of organisms are "controlled" by their genes. This belief is couched in the concept of genetic determinacy, the conventional dogma provided in virtually every textbook and biology course. How do genes manage to "control" life? It is based upon the concept that genes are self-emergent, meaning that they are able to "turn themselves on and off." Self-actualizing genes would provide for computer-like programs that would control organismal structure and function. Accordingly, our belief in genetic determinacy implies that "complexity" (evolutionary stature) of an organism would be proportional to the number of genes it possessed.
Before the Human genome Project was underway, scientists had estimated that human complexity would necessitate a genome in excess of 100,000 genes. Genes are primarily blueprints encoding the chemical structure of proteins, the molecular "parts" that comprise the cell. It was thought that there was one gene to code for each of the 70,000 to 90,000 proteins that make up our bodies.
In addition to protein-coding genes, the cell contains genes that determine the character of an organism by "controlling" the activity of other genes. Genes that "program" the expression of other genes are called regulatory genes. Regulatory genes encode information about complex physical patterns that provide for specific anatomies, which represent the structures that characterize each cell type (muscle versus bone) or organism (a chimp from a human). In addition, a subset of regulatory genes is associated with the "control" of specific behavioral patterns. Regulatory genes orchestrate the activity of a large numbers genes whose actions collectively contribute to the expression of such traits as awareness, emotion, and intelligence. It was estimated that there were more than 30,000 regulatory genes in the human genome.
In considering the minimal number of genes needed to make a human: we would start with a base number of over 70,000 genes, one for each of the over 70,000 proteins found in a human. Then we include the number of regulatory genes needed to provide for the complexity of patterns expressed in our anatomy, physiology and behavior. Lets round-off the number of human genes to a total of an even 100,000, by including a minimalist number of 30,000 regulatory genes.
Ready for the Cosmic Joke? The results of the Genome project reveal that there are only about 34,000 genes in the human genome. Two thirds of the anticipated genes do not exist! How can we account for the complexity of a genetically-controlled human when there are not even enough genes to code just for the proteins?
More humiliating to the dogma of our belief in genetic determinacy is the fact that there is not much difference in the total number of genes found in humans and those found in primitive organisms populating the planet. Recently, biologists completed mapping the genomes of two of the most studied animal models in genetic research, the fruit fly and a microscopic roundworm (Caenorhabditis elegans).
The primitive Caenorhabditis worm serves as a perfect model to study the role of genes in development and behavior. This rapidly growing and reproducing primitive organism has a precisely patterned body comprised of exactly 969 cells, a simple brain of about 302 ordered cells, it expresses a unique repertoire of behaviors, and most importantly, it is amenable to genetic experimentation. The Caenorhabditis genome is comprised of over 18,000 genes. The 50+ trillion-celled human body has a genome with only 15,000 more genes than the lowly, spineless, microscopic roundworm.
Obviously, the complexity of organisms is not reflected in the complexity of its genes. For example the fruit fly genome was recently defined to consist of 13,000 genes. The eye of the fruit fly is comprised of more cells than are found in the entire Caenorhabditis worm. Profoundly more complex in structure and behavior than the microscopic roundworm, the fruit fly has 5000 fewer genes!!
The Human Genome Project was a global effort dedicated to deciphering the human genetic code. It was thought the completed human blueprint would provide science with all the necessary information to "cure" all of mankind's ills. It was further assumed that an awareness of the human genetic code mechanism would enable scientists to create a Mozart or another Einstein.
The "failure" of the genome results to conform to our expectations reveals that our expectations of how biology "works" are clearly based upon incorrect assumptions or information. Our "belief" in the concept of genetic determinism is fundamentally…flawed! We can not truly attribute the character of our lives to be the consequence of genetic "programming." The genome results force us to reconsider the question: "From whence do we acquire our biological complexity?"
In a commentary on the surprising results of the Human Genome study, David Baltimore, one of the world's most prominent geneticists and Nobel prize winner, addressed this issue of complexity:
"But unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using more genes. Understanding what does give us our complexity-our enormous behavioral repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination, precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory…need I go on?-remains a challenge for the future." (Nature 409:816, 2001)
Scientists have continuously touted that our biological fates are written in our genes. In the face of that belief, the Universe humors us with a cosmic joke: The "control" of life is not in the genes. Of course the most interesting consequence of the project's results is that we must now face that "challenge for the future" Baltimore alluded to. What does "control" our biology, if not the genes?
Over the last number of years, science and the press' emphasis on the "power" of genes has overshadowed the brilliant work of many biologists that reveal a radically different understanding concerning organismal expression. Emerging at the cutting edge of cell science is the recognition that the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity.
The molecular mechanisms by which animals, from single cells to humans, respond to environmental stimuli and activate appropriate physiological and behavioral responses have recently been identified. Cells utilize these mechanisms in order to dynamically "adapt" their structure and function to accommodate ever-changing environmental demands. The process of adaptation is mediated by the cell membrane (the skin of the cell), which serves as the equivalent of the cell's "brain." Cell membranes recognize environmental "signals" through the activity of receptor proteins. Receptors recognize both physical (e.g., chemicals, ions) and energetic (e.g., electromagnetic, scalar forces) signals.
Environmental signals "activate" receptor proteins causing them to bind with complementary effector proteins. Effector proteins are "switches" that control the cell's behavior. Receptor-effector proteins provide the cell with awareness through physical sensation. By strict definition, these membrane protein complexes represent molecular units of perception. These membrane perception molecules also control gene transcription (the turning on and off of gene programs) and have recently been linked to adaptive mutations (genetic alterations that rewrite the DNA code in response to stress).
The cell membrane is a structural and functional homologue (equivalent) of a computer chip, while the nucleus represents a read-write hard disk loaded with genetic programs. Organismal evolution, resulting from increasing the number of membrane perception units, would be modeled using fractal geometry. Reiterated fractal patterns enable a cross-referencing of structure and function among three levels of biological organization: the cell, the multicellular organism and societal evolution. Through fractal mathematics we are provided with valuable insight into the past and future of evolution.
The environment, through the act of perception, controls behavior, gene activity and even the rewriting of the genetic code. Cells "learn" (evolve) by creating new perception proteins in response to novel environmental experiences. "Learned" perceptions, especially those derived from indirect experiences (e.g., parental, peer and academic education), may be based upon incorrect information or faulty interpretations. Since they may or may not be "true," perceptions are in reality-beliefs!
Our new scientific knowledge is returning to an ancient awareness of the power of belief. Beliefs are indeed powerful…whether they are true or false. While we have always heard of the "power of positive thinking," the problem is negative thinking is just as powerful, though in the "opposite" direction. Problems encountered in health and in the unfolding of our lives are generally connected to the "misperceptions" acquired in our learning experiences. The wonderful part of the story is that perceptions can be relearned! We can reshape our lives in retraining our consciousness. This is a reflection of the ageless wisdom that has been passed down to us and is now being recognized in cellular biology.
An understanding of the newly described cell-control mechanisms will cause as profound a shift in biological belief as the quantum revolution caused in physics. The strength of the emerging new biological model is that it unifies the basic philosophies of conventional medicine, complementary medicine and spiritual healing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature, Nurture and Human Development
Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D. © 2001
Abstract: The role of nature-nurture must be reconsidered in light of the Human Genome Project's surprising results. Conventional biology emphasizes that human expression is controlled by genes, and is under the influence of nature. Since 95% of the population possess "fit" genes, dysfunctions in this population are attributable to environmental influences (nurture). Nurture experiences, initiated in utero, provide for "learned perceptions." Along with genetic instincts, these perceptions constitute the life-shaping subconscious mind. The conscious mind, which functions around age six, operates independently of the subconscious. Conscious mind can observe and criticize behavioral tapes, yet can not "force" a change in subconscious.
One of the perennial controversies that tends to evoke rancor among biomedical scientists concerns the role of nature versus nurture in the unfoldment of life [Lipton, 1998a]. Those polarized on the side of nature invoke the concept of genetic determinism as the mechanism responsible for "controlling" the expression of an organism's physical and behavioral traits. Genetic determinism refers to an internal control mechanism resembling a genetically-coded "computer" program. At conception, it is believed that the differential activation of selected maternal and paternal genes collectively "download" an individual's physiologic and behavioral character, in other words, their biological destiny.
In contrast, those endorsing "control" by nurture argue that the environment is instrumental in "controlling" biological expression. Rather than attributing biological fate to gene control, nurturists contend that environmental experiences provide an essential role in shaping the character of an individual's life. The polarity between these philosophies simply reflects the fact that those endorsing nature believe in an internal control mechanism (genes) while those supporting nurture mechanisms ascribe to an external control (environment).
The resolution of the nature and nurture controversy is profoundly important in regard to defining the role of parenting in human development. If those endorsing nature as the source of "control" are correct, the fundamental character and attributes of a child are genetically predetermined at conception. Genes, presumed to be self-actualizing, would control organismal structure and function. Since development would be programmed and executed by the internalized genes, the basic role of the parent would be to provide nutrition and protection for their growing fetus or child.
In such a model, developmental characters that deviate from the norm imply that the individual expresses defective genes. The belief that nature "controls" biology fosters the notion of victimization and irresponsibility in the unfoldment of one's life. "Don't blame me for this condition, I got it in my genes. Since I can't control my genes, I am not responsible for the consequences." Modern medical science perceives of a dysfunctional individual as one possessing a defective "mechanism." Dysfunctional "mechanisms" are currently treated with drugs, though pharmaceutical companies are already touting a future in which genetic engineering will permanently eliminate all deviant or undesirable characters and behaviors. Consequently, we relinquish personal control over our lives to the "magic bullets" proffered by pharmaceutical companies.
The alternative perspective, supported by a large number of lay people and a growing contingency of scientists, expands upon the role of parents in human development. Those endorsing nurture as life's "control" mechanism contend that parents have a fundamental impact on the developmental expression of their offspring. In a nurture-controlled system, gene activity would be dynamically-linked to an ever changing environment. Some environments enhance the potential of the child, while other environments may induce dysfunction and disease. In contrast to the fixed-fate mechanism envisioned by naturists, nurture mechanisms offer an opportunity to shape an individual's biological expression by regulating or "controlling" their environment.
In reviewing the nature-nurture controversy over the years, it is apparent that at times, support for nature mechanisms predominates over the concept of nurture, while at other times the reverse is true. Since the revelation of the DNA genetic code by Watson and Crick in 1953, the concept of self-regulated genes controlling our physiology and behavior has prevailed over the perceived influence of environmental signals Removing personal responsibility in the unfolding of one's life leaves us with the belief that almost all negative or defective human traits represent a mechanical failure of the human molecular mechanism.
By the early 1980's, biologists were fully convinced that genes "control" biology. It was further assumed that a map of the completed human genome would provide science with all the necessary information to not only "cure" all of mankind's ills, but also create a Mozart or another Einstein. The resulting Human Genome Project was designed as a global effort dedicated to deciphering the human genetic code.
The primary function of genes is to serve as biochemical blueprints that encode the complex chemical structure of proteins, the molecular "parts" from which cells are constructed. Conventional thought held that there was one gene to code for each of the 70,000 to 90,000 different proteins that make up our bodies. In addition to protein-coding genes, the cell also contains regulatory genes that "control" the expression of other genes. Regulatory genes presumably orchestrate the activity of a large number of structural genes whose actions collectively contribute the complex physical patterns providing each species with its specific anatomy. It is further presumed that other regulatory genes control the expression of such traits as awareness, emotion, and intelligence.
Before the project got off the ground, scientists had already estimated that human complexity would necessitate a genome (the total collection of genes) in excess of 100,000 genes. This was based upon a conservative estimate that there were in excess of 30,000 regulatory genes and over 70,000 protein-coding genes stored in the human genome.
When the results of the human genome project were reported this year, the conclusion presented itself as a "cosmic joke." Just when science thought it had life all figured out, the universe threw a biological curve ball. In all the hoopla over the sequencing of the human genetic code and being got caught up in the brilliant technological feat, we have not focused on the actual "meaning" of the results. These results overturn a foundational core belief embraced by conventional science.
The Genome project's cosmic joke concerns the fact that the whole human genome consists of only 34,000 genes [see Science 2001, 291(5507) and Nature 2001, 409(6822)]. Two thirds of the anticipated and presumed necessary genes do not exist! How can we account for the complexity of a genetically-controlled human when there are not even enough genes to code just for the proteins?
The "failure" of the genome to confirm our expectations reveals that our perception of how biology "works" is based upon incorrect assumptions or information. Our "belief" in the concept of genetic determinism is apparently fundamentally flawed. We can not attribute the character of our lives solely to the consequence of inherent genetic "programming." The genome results force us to reconsider the question: "From whence do we acquire our biological complexity?"
In a commentary on the surprising results of the Human Genome study, David Baltimore (2001), one of the world's most prominent geneticists and Nobel prize winner, addressed this issue of complexity:
"But unless the human genome contains a lot of genes that are opaque to our computers, it is clear that we do not gain our undoubted complexity over worms and plants by using more genes.
Understanding what does give us our complexity-our enormous behavioral repertoire, ability to produce conscious action, remarkable physical coordination, precisely tuned alterations in response to external variations of the environment, learning, memory…need I go on?-remains a challenge for the future." [Baltimore, 2001, underlined emphasis mine].
Of course the most interesting consequence of the project's results is that we must now face that "challenge for the future" alluded to by Baltimore. What does "control" our biology, if not the genes? In the heat of the genome frenzy, emphasis on the project overshadowed the brilliant work of many biologists who were revealing a radically different understanding of organismal "control" mechanisms. Emerging at the cutting edge of cell science is the recognition that the environment, and more specifically, our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and gene activity (Thaler, 1994).
Conventional biology has built its knowledge upon what is referred to as the "Central Dogma." This inviolable belief claims that the flow of information in biological organisms is from DNA to RNA and then to Protein. Since DNA (genes) is the top rung of this information flow, science adopted the notion of the Primacy of DNA, with "primacy" in this case meaning first cause. The argument for genetic determinacy is based upon the premise that DNA is in "control." But is it?
Almost all of the cell's genes are stored in it's largest organelle, the nucleus. Conventional science maintains that the nucleus represents the "command center of the cell," a notion based upon the assumption that genes "control" (determine) the expression of the cell (Vinson, et al, 2000). As the cell's "command center," it is implied that the nucleus represents the equivalent of the cell's "brain."
If the brain is removed from any living organism, the necessary consequence of that action is immediate death of the organism. However, if the nucleus is removed from a cell, the cell does not necessarily die. Some enucleated cells can survive for two or months with out possessing any genes. Enucleated cells are routinely used as "feeder layers" that support the growth of other specialized cell types. In the absence of a nucleus, cells maintain their metabolism, digest food, excrete waste, breathe, move through their environment recognizing and appropriately responding to other cells, predators or toxins. Ultimately these cells die, for without their genome, enucleated cells are unable to replace worn-out or defective proteins required for life functions.
The fact that cells maintain a successful and integrated life in the absence of genes, reveals that genes are not the "brain" of the cell. The primary reason why genes can not "control" biology is that they are not self emergent (Nijhout, 1990). This means that genes can not self-actualize, they are chemically unable to turn themselves on or off. Gene expression is under the regulatory control of environmental signals that act through epigenetic mechanisms (Nijhout, 1990, Symer and Bender, 2001).
However, genes are fundamental to the normal expression of life. Rather than serving in the capacity of "control," genes represent molecular blueprints necessary in manufacturing the complex proteins that provide for the cell's structure and functions. Defects in the gene programs, mutations, may profoundly impair the quality of life in those possessing them. It is important to note that the lives of less than 5% of the population are impacted by defective genes. These individuals express genetically-propagated birth defects, whether they are manifest at birth or appear later in life.
The significance of this data is that more than 95% of the population came into this world with an intact genome, one that would code for a healthy and fit existence. While science has focused its efforts at assessing the role of genes by studying the %5 of the population with defective genes, it has not made much progress as to why the majority of the population, which possess a fit genome, acquire dysfunction and disease. We simply can not "blame" their reality on the genes (nature).
Scientific attention as to what "controls" biology is shifting from the DNA to the cell's membrane (Lipton, et al., 1991, 1992, 1998b, 1999). In the economy of the cell, the membrane is the equivalent of our "skin." The membrane provides an interface between the ever-changing environment (not-self) and the enclosed controlled environment of the cytoplasm (self). The embryonic "skin" (ectoderm) provides for two organ systems in the human body: the integument and the nervous system. In cells, these two functions are integrated within the simple layer that envelopes the cytoplasm.
Protein molecules in the cell membrane interface the demands of the internal physiologic mechanisms with existing environmental exigencies (Lipton, 1999). These membrane "control" molecules are comprised of couplets consisting of receptor proteins and effector proteins. Protein receptors recognize environmental signals (information) in the same way our receptors (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, taste, etc) read our environment. Specific receptor proteins are chemically "activated" upon receiving a recognizable environmental signal (stimulus). In its activated state, the receptor protein couples with, and in turn, activates specific effector proteins. The "activated" effector proteins selectively "control" the cell's biology in coordinating a response to the initiating environmental signal.
Receptor-effector protein complexes serve as "switches" that integrate the function of the organism within its environment. The receptor component of the switch provides "awareness of the environment" and the effector component generates a "physical sensation" in response to that awareness. By structural and functional definition, the receptor-effector switches represent molecular units of perception, which is defined as "awarene | 
