The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Got a great idea? Tell the world about it here.

Moderators: mvs_staff, forum_admin, Marilyn

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Thu Aug 01, 2013 9:50 am

Bacteria Gene Transfer and natural selection from mother to child - a new way of selection?

When a child is born, it's gut gets the flora of the mother. I suggest this is a gene transfer from mother to child - but not directly, but through bacteria gene transfer.
Could there be natural selection on this means of gene transfer? Is this outside of the genome, genes? Does what the mother eat, or her health, under one birth so different from another birth, that one child has a better gut flora?
There are a lot of questions here. Do we have a new source of mutation? evolution? etc.?
Here's some background from wikipedia "Gut Flora:

Acquisition of gut flora in human infants]
The gastrointestinal tract of a normal fetus is sterile. During birth and rapidly thereafter, bacteria from the mother and the surrounding environment colonize the infant's gut. Immediately after vaginal delivery, babies may have bacterial strains derived from the mothers' feces in the upper gastrointestinal tract.[21] Infants born by caesarean section may also be exposed to their mothers' microflora, but the initial exposure is most likely to be from the surrounding environment such as the air, other infants, and the nursing staff, which serve as vectors for transfer.[22] The primary gut flora in infants born by caesarean delivery may be disturbed for up to six months after birth, whereas vaginally born infants take up to one month for their intestinal microflora to be well established.[23] After birth, environmental, oral and cutaneous bacteria are readily transferred from the mother to the infant through suckling, kissing, and caressing. All infants are initially colonized by large numbers of E. coli and streptococci. Within a few days, bacterial numbers reach 108 to 1010 per gram of feces.[22][24] During the first week of life, these bacteria create a reducing environment favorable for the subsequent bacterial succession of strict anaerobic species mainly belonging to the genera Bifidobacterium, Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Ruminococcus.[25] Breast-fed babies become dominated by bifidobacteria, possibly due to the contents of bifidobacterial growth factors in breast milk.[26][27] In contrast, the microbiota of formula-fed infants is more diverse, with high numbers of Enterobacteriaceae, enterococci, bifidobacteria, Bacteroides, and clostridia.[28][29]

Baby microbiomes are enriched by enzymes involved in foraging of glycan represented in breast milk and the intestinal glucose.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:28 am

Gut flora gene transfer and Natural Selection from Mother to Child
This may be a type of gene transfer (of gut bacteria) down the female line, that is outside the germ cells.

In the unborn child, it was once believed that the gut was sterile. However, recent research suggests that colonization of the gut begins when the unborn child swallows amniotic fluid containing microbes from the mother’s gut. The majority of the colonization of the gut occurs during the birthing process when the infant is further exposed to a large amount of bacteria from the mother. If the mother’s flora is damaged or imbalanced, this will be passed on to the infant. ...

The process of gut colonization with flora is influenced by method of delivery, with vaginal delivery resulting in significantly faster rates of colonization... The gut flora of infants born by Cesarean section may be disturbed for up to 6 months, compared to 1 month for infants delivered vaginally. This is significant because the early composition of the gut flora is known to impact development of the immune system and balance between Th1 and Th2 immunity (see this article for more information)...

The feeding method, or diet, of an infant also influences the gut flora by providing a source of nutrition that allows for the growth and function of flora and providing a source of continued colonization of microorganisms from the environment. For babies that are breastfed, bacteria from the feeding environment will be transferred from the mother’s skin and milk ducts. For those that are bottle-fed, bacteria will be transferred from the dried powder and the equipment and water used to prepare the formula. Breastfed newborns carry a more stable and uniform population of gut flora compared to bottle-fed infants.... One of the main reasons behind why breastfeeding is so health-promoting is because of its effects on the gut flora.... The type of infant feeding is critical in influencing the composition of the gut flora, thereby affecting development of the immune system and long-term health.

Here's more from http://thepaleonurse.com/2013/02/10/acq ... he-infant/
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:51 am

Many of my ideas here are built on the premise of the evolution of catabolic and anabolic processes to other separate deconstructive and constructive processes.
Catabolic and anabolic processes evolve but they do not blend

This example is of C Elegans, a nematode, and one of the most simple of multi cell animals. Scientists were studying the genes to see how its nervous system worked.

Quote:

C. elegans has concentrated receptors for chemicals it dislikes into one set of neurons, and receptors for preferred chemicals into a different set of neurons. Once stimulated by any chemical able to interact with one of its receptors ... the neuron triggers only a single kind of response. Whereas paramecia were forced to develop an attraction or repulsion response within the context of a single cell, the multicellular C. elegans, has the luxury of placing these responses under the control of separate sensing systems. - Are We Hard Wired , Clark and Grunstein.

This suggests that in this simple nematode, there are two separate and somewhat independent groups of receptors. One that attracts, or moves towards, and one that repulses, or separates from.

I suggest that this separate systems idea evolved to all animals.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:45 am

We know of the menstruation cycle in women. But is there a weekly cycle of testosterone production in men? Here's some facts that seem to support it.
http://themodernsavage.com/wp-content/u ... _chart.gif
This shows that during abstinence, testosterone spikes on the 6th and 7th days.
Could this testosterone spike be in most males - such that it's 7 day cycle, fits into the female 28 day one?

Found this article that seems to also bolster that idea.
"Fertile Women Have a Heightened Sense of Smell - reaction to male pheromones is especially high."
"Naturally cycling women near ovulation were more sensitive to musk and the pheromones than the women on contraceptives." From Scientific American Mind Sept/Oct 2013
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:28 pm

Here's a major surprise. Our intestines may tell us when to sleep. Specifically the jejunum.
Seems it may not only be the source of SLEEP, but also fear reflex VOMITING.

Book on sleep Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine Chapter 27 (online)
These thoughts raise the issue of whether there may be changes in the GI system with food ingestion that could produce a hypnotic effect. Along these lines, an intriguing observation was made by Alverez[73] in 1920. He noted that distention of a jejunal balloon caused his human subject to drop off to sleep. The hypnotic effects of afferent intestinal stimulation have also been documented in animal studies. Perhaps the most notable work was a study which induced cortical synchronization in cats by both mechanical and electrical stimulation of the small bowel.[74]
73. Alverez WC: Physiologic studies on the motor activities of the stomach and bowel in man. Am J Physiol 1920; 88:658-660.
74. Kukorelli T, Juhasz G: Sleep induced by intestinal stimulation in cats. Physiol Behav 1976; 19:355-358.

This too (from wikipedia): If the jejunum is impacted by blunt force the emesis reflex (vomiting) will be initiated.

Finally most of the melatonin comes from, not your head but your gastrointestinal tract.
(Wiki) Melatonin is a hormone that induces sleep. Levels of melatonin rise as the body temperature falls, to encourage feelings of sleepiness. The opposite occurs to wake us up.

"The concentration of melatonin in the gastrointestinal tissues surpasses blood levels by 10–100 times and there is at least 400× more melatonin in the gastrointestinal tract than in the pineal gland."
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby raydpratt » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:55 pm

As a habit of mind when I am listening to or reading a causal explanation, I search for counter-examples that lessen or disprove a hypothesis. In the original post, the author attributes violence to males and 'befriending and tending' to females.

In general, let's agree in part and say that there are abundant examples from nature where the female is the predominant and most usual caregiver for offspring among mammals. However, to say that females are markedly less violent may be an overstatement.

Female predators hunt and kill just as often if not more often than their male counterparts. So, if we are to preserve any distinction between males and females as to violence, then we have to eliminate hunting and compare what remains. (If 'befriending and tending' is a feminine trait, it is not exercised during hunting.) What remains will be the differences in behavior of males and females within their own species.

Numerous examples exist in nature where males fight each other to establish and protect mating opportunities with the females. However, females themselves in many species both choose and reject mates among the contenders who remain. Thus, such females profit from the winnowing of contenders caused by violence among the males, and such females further profit when they choose the best mate from among the remaining contenders. So, is it fair to say that such females have 'befriended and tended'? Or, more accurately, have such females profited from the male-against-male violence? I believe the latter is more accurate, and to say that males are more violent than females is to ignore the symbiotic advantage gained by females from male violence.

Anecdotally, we have a mean, bullyish female dog at our house whom we were given after the previous owners aborted her first pregnancy. She has since been spaded. As a behavior trait, she had been quite mean to our other two dogs, biting them quite often. Later, we acquired a male puppy with some pit bull in him, judging from his head shape, and he and our mean female dog play quite aggressively. She essentially adopted him, and her behavior towards our other two dogs has changed. She is less aggressive now, now that she gets to be the mommy.

It sparks an hypothesis that female violence can and will approach male levels if mommy opportunities and duties are taken out of the picture. Supporting examples from human behavior include female serial killers with no families, successful female soldiers, and that wife of twenty years who axes the dude after the kids are gone.

'Befriending and tending' may be a female trait, but it is not a given. Be careful out there. Be nice.
raydpratt
Intellectual
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:22 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:32 am

There is certainly a violent female response when threatened, or when children are threatened. Or in selection of mates. But both of these may have a firm biological basis. But as violent as women can be under stress, I don't think it can compare with male response. There is a biological component here that may be a major distinction between what male and female is - each sex is at opposite ends of a caring - protection line. Women on the caring end, men on the protecting end.
That dichotomy better protects the species, than if both sexes were all caring, or both sexes were all protective.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby zoeyku » Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:50 am

Gene Roddenberry and his wife Majel were great writers. I wish people would let them rest.
zoeyku
Thinker
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: usa

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Mon Oct 14, 2013 9:17 pm

There seems to be two strong circadian rhythms that support the 3 brain system.
1. outside the body head brain
2. inside the body digestion brain
3. connector brain that coordinates the other two.

"Although it's known that the brain, largely in response to sunlight, sends neural impulses throughout the body that regulate circadian, or daily, rhythms, research at the University of Virginia shows that the liver also sets its own circadian rhythm timed to regular meals.

Recent research not only confirms that the liver has its own circadian rhythm synchronized with meals, but that the interaction of this hepatic system with the circadian rhythms produced by the brain is important in the synchronization of internal physiology, especially metabolism. (livestrong.com)
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Thu Oct 17, 2013 10:06 am

Clearly there is a liver circadian rhythm based on digestion. Considering that, I thought of this. Doesn't it make sense that sleep, the end of food digestion, be the best time to protect the body from dangers in our digestive tract? If sleep is about the digestive tract, then switching from day digestion to night immune processes would make sense and fit much of the facts.

During the day we eat and digest our food. At night, during sleep, we stop eating and end digestion. Wouldn't sleep, when there is no digestion going on, be the best time for the body to fight any dangers in the digestive tract? Remember the bulk of the body's immune system is around the digestive tract.

Then after waking, we have a bowel movement to excrete it out. And we are ready for a new day of digestion.
Makes sense to me that day is eat and digest, and night is protect, repair, and get ready for the next day.
Makes sense but is it true?
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:44 pm

The origin of life - a different perspective
Q. How do you define life?
A. The most stable response to the environment when life began.

Q. What is adjusting?
A. Carbon compounds in a liquid water environment

Q. What do they adjust to?
A. The day/hot - night/cool cycle, and perhaps dry - then wet cycle too. Plus they adjust to UV light from the sun.

Q. How do they adjust?
A. What lasts in that environment is the most stable. With some carbon compounds more stable than others.
In this case stable means two things: stable in what keeps it as it is, and stable in the ability to adjust in ways that improve it's stability. Both metabolism and reproduction are ways to make life more stable.

Q. LIfe seems fragile not stable.
A. When we compare it to it's environment: earth, sea, and atmosphere, we find that life has outlasted all 3 (excluding some zircon seeds). The earth has changed through plate tectonics, the atmosphere is no longer reducing, and the seas have been sterilized by undersea vents. Collective life is more stable and has outlasted all 3.

So life is what is most stable in that early environment, with the ability to adjust to become better adapted to that environment or changes in that environment over time.

Q. How does it adjust specifically?
A. Through natural selection of better anabolic ( build up) or catabolic (break down) processes.

Q. So every change in living things is toward a better anabolic or catabolic response to the environment?
A. Yes. This suggests there is a direction in natural selection - always toward better anabolic and catabolic processes.

Q. Why two directions?
A. Anabolic and catabolic adjust or evolve, but they adjust separately and do not blend. There has never been found a time and place where anabolic processes are building up at the same time that catabolic processes are breaking down.

Q. Do these two directions influence each other?
A. They may. Positive change in an anabolic process, may put selection pressure on catabolic processes to catch up (or vice versa). Negative change in an anabolic process, may be mitigated by the stability of the catabolic processes in place (or vice versa.)

Q. How does the information in DNA fit into this?
A. The information being transferred is for more stability in the way outlined above.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:55 am

From recent reading and studying I'm beginning to think that weaning is a major time of infant development.

This loss of breast milk, may be a biological step - albeit a traumatic one - to trigger the infant to start his own immune system.

Those fed with formula, don't have this step, and never went through this, They have never developed this bio stage - of learning how to react to loss of needed fat and other concentrated nurturing (loss of breast milk). Which would force them to react by developing their own immune system.

Perhaps a big part of that would be to learn how to conserve and store fats in a healthy way when it's available, to cover times when it is scarce. Below are some of the clues that suggested this from around the web:

Notes and Quotes :
==============

a. These results confirm the protective effect of breast feeding and suggest there is a vulnerable period soon after breast feeding is stopped, which may be of relevance for developing preventive strategies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8761225

b. NOTE: studies show that there is a high mortality rate among infants during weaning.

c. The high proportion of human infant fat is hypothesized to protect infant brains by mobilizing against growth disturbances caused by acute nutritional and pathogen stress during weaning.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1/abstract

d. 4-8 MONTHS INFANT DEVELOPMENT Fat rolls ("Baby Fat") appear on thighs, upper arms and neck.
8-12 MONTHS Baby Fat" continues to appear on thighs, upper arms and neck.
12-24 MONTHS Toddler will begin to lose the "Baby Fat" once he/she begins walking.

e. NOTE: this period of the development of fat rolls from 6 months and beyond is also where weaning starts. It's also where the antibiotics in the mother's breast milk begin to reduce, while the child's antibiotics begin to develop.

Children are born with all three antibodies (IGG, IGA, and IGM). Because our immune system can’t make the most important antibody, IGG, in sufficient quantity until about six months, the baby is protected by IGG antibodies passed on by its mother before birth. If the baby’s own immune system doesn’t mature at the right time, the child may start a cycle of infections. This is often called “Transient Hypogammaglobulinemia of Infancy,” transient because the child will outgrow it, usually by age two or three, and Hypogammaglobulinemia because the IGG levels are low.
http://www.atlantaallergy.com/education ... d=17&cat=4

f. Human milk also contains fats that are essential for the health of your baby. It is necessary for brain development, absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, and is a primary calorie source. Long chain fatty acids are needed for brain, retina, and nervous system development. They are deposited in the brain during the last trimester of pregnancy and are also found in breast milk.

g. NOTE: Surely the infant would need a way to process fats during weaning in order to continue getting the fats he needs for all the development cited above.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:56 am

FOUR BIOLOGICAL STEPS In Childhood Development;

We often suggest steps to help children have happy lives . But most don't take into consideration our biological needs. Here are 4 that I believe, should be included.

1. Vaginal birth.
2. Breast feeding
3. Weaning
4. Puberty

1. The mother transfers her gut bacteria to the child through vaginal birth. If the newborn is denied that type of birth, then that child does not have the full gut biome he needs. This gene transfer of gut bacteria may even be a source of natural selection.

2. I tend to think that breast feeding would solve many many problems that a majority of the world is having from being denied breast feeding. It's the closest thing we have to a magic elixir.

World Health Organization says: If every child was breastfed within an hour of birth, given only breast milk for their first six months of life, and continued breastfeeding up to the age of two years, about 800 000 child lives would be saved every year. Globally, less than 40% of infants under six months of age are exclusively breastfed.

3. I also am beginning to think that weaning is very important. This loss of breast milk, may be a biological step - albeit a traumatic one - to trigger the infant to start his own immune system and to learn how to conserve needed fats. Those fed with formula, don't have these steps.

4. There is also the trauma of puberty for every child. That's as big a trauma for humans as it is for caterpillars turning into butterflies.

So, don't forget these 4 biological steps. They may be more important than we can even imagine.

Tom Hendricks
(editor of the 21 year old zine Musea)
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:23 am

Blood Barrier connected to REM sleep?
This is very interesting:
I PUT THESE TWO IDEAS TOGETHER
1.
I suggested that
NREM is body repair
REM is mind repair.
2.
The blood barrier is in 3 places:
blood - brain barrier (excluding the circumventrical organs = mostly lower brain)
blood - ocular barrier
blood - testes barrier
AND GOT
NREM, = body repair in the parts of the body without barriers
REM = repair in the 3 parts of the blood barrier
Note: REM is dreams in the mind, rapid eye movement, and testosterone production.

This study seems to support that idea
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23713739
"REM sleep restriction increased blood-brain barrier permeability"
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

Re: The Biggest Scientific Story that is Too Obvious To See

Postby Tom Hendricks » Fri Apr 18, 2014 12:22 pm

This is very interesting. I've suggested that REM sleep is for nurturing those areas connected to the blood barrier system. (NREM or deep sleep is for nurturing the body and getting ready for the next day's digestion).

If that is so then we have two somewhat independent systems. Blood system, and blood barrier system. Could they sometimes under trauma be in conflict?

Now I find that the blood barrier system goes beyond brain, eyes, and testis. The blood barrier system is somewhat bigger than that, and includes more body areas.

Here is my blood barrier list
BRAIN - BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER
SPINAL CORD - BLOOD SPINAL CHORD BARRIER
EYES - BLOOD RETINAL BARRIER
INNER EAR - BLOOD LABYRINTH BARRIER
JOINTS - BLOOD SYNOVIAL BARRIER
TESTIS - BLOOD TESTIS BARRIER
Now just look at the chronic ailments that we humans have in these areas.
Headaches
Back aches
Eye strain - vision problems
Ear aches - most infants , hearing problems
Joint problems
Impotency

Could many of these have an autoimmune response? That means that under stress we over respond to those areas in the blood barrier list?

What then is the connection, if any between these things
Blood barrier set / REM /
Blood system /NREM

AND is there some type of trauma between the two (blood can't get in barrier spots, and worries that it is a foreign object, non self, or infection?)




SECOND LIST OF BARRIERS (from Medical Dictionary)

blood-aqueous barrier (EYE)
the physiological mechanism that prevents exchange of materials between the chambers of the eye and the blood.

blood-brain barrier (BBB)
the barrier separating the blood from the brain parenchyma. See also blood-brain barrier.

blood-CSF barrier
differs from the blood-brain barrier anatomically, in that it consists of the epithelium of the choroid plexuses, but has similar permeabilities.

barrier-retina barrier
endothelium of the retinal capillaries and cells of the retinal pigment epithelium form a nonfenestrated barrier between choroidal tissue fluid and retinal tissue fluid.

blood-synovial barrier (BETWEEN JOINTS)
suggested by the presence of plasma proteins of small molecular size and catabolic products of articular cartilage in synovial fluid.

blood-testis barrier
a barrier separating the blood from the seminiferous tubules, consisting of special junctional complexes between adjacent Sertoli cells near the base of the seminiferous epithelium. It provides an extravascular environment which is also adluminal and permits selective nourishment of spermatozoa.
Tom Hendricks
Intellectual
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Great Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest