Mon, 8 March 2004 004:12 Peter F. wrote:

"CNCabej"  wrote 

> I would rather say that there is one integrated control system, with the
CNS as
> its controller that is limited by genes (G), as well by numerous external
and
> internal stimuli.

>I think that what you are expounding fits in somewhere at the center of the
>most interesting and fascinating of all fields of scientific inquiry.

>(It makes me salivate without being able
>to chew and swallow - but I still love it from a distance.;)<

If this is really so (and I believe it is), is it not paradoxical that people
here in sbe are showing so little interest for "the most interesting and
fascinating of all fields of scientific inquiry"? I wonder whether you have an
explantion.

>However, even if the notion and embryonic theory
>of "the histone code" might currently not catalyze conceptual
clarity or
>inspire further insight, I still
>think it is generally so relevant to what is discussed here that you ought
>to have at least given it a mention.

>If only for sake of a good (comprehensively spread-out) measure.

"The histone code", if you mean the remodelling of the chromatin by
acetylation/deacetylation of histones, is an essential part of the 
integrated control system, but it was not mentioned here because 
of lack of space. In principle, the expression of all housekeeping 
genes is related to that remodelling.

The integrated (epigenetic) system of control is a hierarchic system where the
chromatine  represents a downstream element in the system. In a very simplified
scheme upstream the chromatine are signal transduction pathways<---- membrane
receptors <----  their respective extracellular signals (protein hormones,
growth factors, secreted proteins, neurotransmitters etc.)<--- hormones of the
target endocrine glands<--- pituitary stimulating hormones <---hypothalamic
releasing hormones <---- brain chemical signals <---processing of the
internal/external stimuli. Downstream the chromatine ("the histone
code") are
transcription factors and genes.

The epigenetic system of control, with the CNS as its controller, controls the
function of all housekeeping genes, genes whose differential expression
determines the type of the cell (even the so-called cell-cell interactions are
interactions at the level of downstream elements of signal cascades ultimately
originating in the CNS).

The function of the integrated system of control, with the CNS as its
controller, is to maintain the inexorably eroding metazoan structure at all the
different levels of organization. This implies that the system 

1)is in possession of information on the "normal" physiological and
morphological state.
2) does monitor the state of the system (based on the pervasive presence of the
neural tissue thoughout the animal body). 
3) processes the input and by comparing with the set points it establishes
detects deviations from the norm.
4) sends messages (in the form of signal cascades) to affected parts for
restoring the normal state.

Being in possession of information for the normal structure the integrated
system is at the same time the epigenetic system of heredity as it is
demonstrated by the fact that it regulates and controls

1. The formation of the egg and sperm cells

2. The placement of maternal cytoplasmic factors in the egg cell.

3. The early embryonic development (which is regulated not by zygotic genes,
but by maternal cytoplasmic factors) up to the phylotypic stage, when a
functioning CNS first arises.

4.The postphylotypic development, including the post-natal development (the
development of secondary sexual characters etc.).

All the above suggest that the genetic system of heredity, which is responsible
for most of the hereditary characters in unicellulars, in metazoans is
subordinate to the epigenetic system of heredity. 

If this is really so, how can one determine whether the evolution of genes is
the cause or a consequence of evolution? Mary Jane West-Eberhard in her
recently published book presents some curious arguments that genes in her
expression are "followers not leaders" in evolution. While examples of
inherited changes in morphology without changes in genes are known, does any
one know an example of how a mutation in a gene brought about an advantageous
morphological change in metazoans? If not, with H.F. Nijhout we all have to
admit that genes do no more than producing chemicals (RNA and proteins).
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 3/9/04 6:33:55 AM