Hey alright James! You are making some headway! Keep publishing!

Thanking everyone a billion times helping me learn new things today. I've still yet to fully grasp this concept as a whole but it was worth the read. People like you all are part of the reason this forum stays amazing.

Sent from my Captivate Glide.

(09-16-2012 7:39 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  What you are indicating to me is that acetaldehyde induced breaks in DNA could be very important to linking unicellular and multicellular energies involved in movement.

The unicellular organisms are yeasts, specifically brewer's/baker's yeast
at the advent of sexual reproduction. From the yeast alpha mating pheromone you can get to vertebrate LH via conservation of ligand (e.g., GnRH) - receptor (e.g., GnRHR) binding and species diversification.

I was just reminded to quote this (see below) from our 1996 paper, because it might lead to further consideration of the 40% difference in yeasts. If the difference achieved 50% we might have a nutrient chemical-dependent sex difference that evolved with the species ability to detect differences in their pheromones. Note, however, that the evolution of sexual reproduction is rarely addressed even in theory. It just happened, according to evolutionary psychologists, which makes the epigenetic effects of nutrient chemicals and pheromones of lesser concern to anything subsequently involved in sexual attraction and reproduction in any species. That's as ridiculous as the entirety of evolutionary psychology! It has been and will always be nutrient-dependent pheromone controlled reproduction that is responsible for the sex differences that are responsible for sexual reproduction. When you and others here see the 40% difference, we are probably inclined to think more clearly about the role of pheromones in sex differences than in how visual input influences our choices -- because yeasts don't have any eyes, and most of us recognize the there must be a biological basis for sex differences that cannot be visually perceived (like the ones in yeasts).

Parenthetically it is interesting to note even the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has a gene-based equivalent of sexual orientation (i.e., a-factor and alpha-factor physiologies). These differences arise from different epigenetic modifications of an otherwise identical MAT locus (Runge and Zakian, 1996; Wu and Haber, 1995).

Cool thanks James!

I get a great digest of articles that match my search criteria from Docphin https://www.docphin.com/, and one today relates to what we have been discussing here. More of interest to myself, it directly relates to the reading I did in college for my thesis, some may find it stimulating as well.

https://www.docphin.com/articledetail.as...2BAm05ceBk

Reprogramming of DNA Methylation in Pollen Guides Epigenetic Inheritance via Small RNA.

Joseph P Calarco, Filipe Borges, Mark T A Donoghue, Frédéric Van Ex, Pauline E Jullien, Telma Lopes, Rui Gardner, Frédéric Berger, José A Feijó, Jörg D Becker and Robert A Martienssen
Epigenetic inheritance is more widespread in plants than in mammals, in part because mammals erase epigenetic information by germline reprogramming. We sequenced the methylome of three haploid cell types from developing pollen: the sperm cell, the vegetative cell, and their precursor, the postmeiotic microspore, and found that unlike in mammals the plant germline retains CG and CHG DNA methylation. However, CHH methylation is lost from retrotransposons in microspores and sperm cells and restored by de novo DNA methyltransferase guided by 24 nt small interfering RNA, both in the vegetative nucleus and in the embryo after fertilization. In the vegetative nucleus, CG methylation is lost from targets of DEMETER (DME), REPRESSOR OF SILENCING 1 (ROS1), and their homologs, which include imprinted loci and recurrent epialleles that accumulate corresponding small RNA and are premethylated in sperm. Thus genome reprogramming in pollen contributes to epigenetic inheritance, transposon silencing, and imprinting, guided by small RNA.