BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter Loring Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 14 Jan 2018 09:14:22 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Randy writes: It is only by methylation of critical genes that full development is suppressed, thus resulting in a female developing into a worker instead.

Hi all
The above represents a widely accepted view. However, there is another view:

> Social insects are promising model systems for epigenetics due to their immense morphological and behavioral plasticity. Reports that DNA methylation differs between the queen and worker castes in social insects have implied a role for DNA methylation in regulating division of labor.

> Evaluating the statistical method used in previous studies with our data indicates that there currently is no empirical evidence for genome-wide variation in DNA methylation associated with the queen and worker castes in other social insect species. Such a lack of well-supported evidence does not necessarily imply that caste-specific methylation does not exist, but rather calls for more controlled and carefully replicated studies of DNA methylation in insect societies.

¶

This was referenced recently:

> Libbrecht et al. (2016) make the provocative claim that previous studies of DNA methylation patterns specifically associated with queen and worker castes in social insects may be statistical artefacts. These authors did _not_ find any difference in DNA methylation patterns between queens and workers.

> [They] consequently opine that "there is currently no evidence that genome-wide variation in DNA methylation is associated with the queen and worker castes in social insects."

¶

I bring this up, not as a challenge, but as further evidence that science is constantly re-writing itself, making it a difficult task to present "what we know," what we think we know, and what we don't know. 

Probably I have quoted this before, but in 1841, RW Emerson wrote:

> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. 

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2