Can Exposure to Toxins Change Your DNA?

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/4422952742/sizes/z/in/photostream/" target="_blank">dullhunk</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Let’s face it, we’re devoting enormous amounts of time and energy to minimize our exposures to toxins (think BPA, pesticides, and all the rest of the seemingly ubiquitous chemicals). But now an emerging body of research points to the disturbing possibility that such self-protective strategies might sometimes come decades, or even a century, too late.

If your great-grandmother experienced a brief toxic exposure, these studies suggest, you and your children could be at risk for reproductive illnesses and possibly other conditions. The presumed mechanism of this unfortunate inheritance is not a mutation in the DNA itself but rather changes in the biochemical on-off switches that determine whether or not specific genes get activated—a field of study known as epigenetics.

Most recently, researchers from Washington State University, led by biology professor Michael Skinner, reported last month that short-term exposure of pregnant rats to several kinds of chemicals caused ovarian disease not just in their daughters but also in two subsequent generations of females. Symptoms that paralleled those found in human polycystic ovarian disease and primary ovarian insufficiency, both of which can reduce fertility, were identified in the descendents of rats exposed to a fungicide, pesticides, dioxin, jet fuel, and a mixture of plastics, but not among descendents of controls.

When reproductive tract cells from the rats were examined, the disorders were linked to clusters of a carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms—called a methyl group—squatting above certain genes. Depending upon location and other factors, these methyl groups act to inhibit or ramp up gene expression. This altered “DNA methylation” pattern, triggered by exposure to the chemicals, is one of the known mechanisms through which the epigenome can control which genes are turned on and off, and therefore which proteins are produced within the cell. In this case, the new epigenetic structures were inherited intact from one generation to the next, even though only the original pregnant rats were exposed to the toxins.

This startling finding is just the latest to challenge traditional notions about genetics as a form of destiny—the idea that a 1-to-1 correspondence between genes and outcomes could be easily discerned and mapped. In 2005, Dr. Skinner and colleagues—acknowledged pioneers in this new field of transgenerational epigenetics—reported in Science that four generations of offspring of a pregnant, fungicide-exposed rat exhibited reduced sperm counts and impaired sperm motility. Since then, Dr. Skinner’s team has published a series of papers in leading journals documenting a range of conditions that can be induced in rats through an ancestral toxic exposure that does not change the genetic code; these include prostate disease, kidney disease, immune system abnormalities, and high cholesterol.

One eye-opening 2007 study even reported that females rejected the males descended from the fungicide-administered pregnant rat, even three generations later—a finding that suggests that epigenetics, as well as genetics, can play a key role in evolutionary processes. Discover magazine cited the finding as one of the year’s top stories.

Female rats rejected the males descended from a fungicide-administered pregnant rat, even three generations later.

Rachel Morello-Frosch, an epidemiologist and environmental health professor at the University of California-Berkeley, said these new findings of transgenerational effects push the boundaries of current understanding of the long-term consequences of environmental contamination. “We’re still just scratching the surface about the developmental effects of in utero exposures,” Morello-Frosch said. “But this emerging science raises the stakes, with these recent studies suggesting that looking at the immediate offspring may be only looking at the tip of the iceberg.”

It’s no surprise, of course, that environmental factors, whether encountered in utero or early in life, can influence gene expression. Parental nutritional status, smoking, behavior and other factors as well as toxic exposures have all been shown to exert an impact on which genes get activated among offspring. In a 2003 experiment, a diet rich in B vitamins, which can promote DNA methylation, caused pregnant rats to give birth to normal pups; when rats did not receive the B vitamins, their pups had yellow skin and were more likely to suffer from obesity and diabetes. Other experiments have shown that rats whose mothers lick them in the first week after birth exhibit calmer reactions to stressful situations; the licking, apparently, causes epigenetic changes that lead to an increase in cellular receptors for critical steroid hormones known as glucocorticoids.

Of course, similar experiments are impossible to conduct on humans. However, the inadvertent human trial with the drug diethylstilbestrol, or DES, given to women from the 1940s through the 1960s in the belief that it would prevent some complications of pregnancy, provides a sobering example of multigenerational effects. DES caused a range of disorders in those exposed in utero—specifically, unusual vaginal cancers among women, and testicular abnormalities among men. Studies of the grandchildren of DES mothers are just starting to emerge; the National Cancer Institute notes that early research suggests that members of this generation might also suffer disproportionately from infertility, reproductive birth defects, and some cancers.

WE'LL BE BLUNT.

We have a considerable $390,000 gap in our online fundraising budget that we have to close by June 30. There is no wiggle room, we've already cut everything we can, and we urgently need more readers to pitch in—especially from this specific blurb you're reading right now.

We'll also be quite transparent and level-headed with you about this.

In "News Never Pays," our fearless CEO, Monika Bauerlein, connects the dots on several concerning media trends that, taken together, expose the fallacy behind the tragic state of journalism right now: That the marketplace will take care of providing the free and independent press citizens in a democracy need, and the Next New Thing to invest millions in will fix the problem. Bottom line: Journalism that serves the people needs the support of the people. That's the Next New Thing.

And it's what MoJo and our community of readers have been doing for 47 years now.

But staying afloat is harder than ever.

In "This Is Not a Crisis. It's The New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, why this moment is particularly urgent, and how we can best communicate that without screaming OMG PLEASE HELP over and over. We also touch on our history and how our nonprofit model makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there: Letting us go deep, focus on underreported beats, and bring unique perspectives to the day's news.

You're here for reporting like that, not fundraising, but one cannot exist without the other, and it's vitally important that we hit our intimidating $390,000 number in online donations by June 30.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. It's going to be a nail-biter, and we really need to see donations from this specific ask coming in strong if we're going to get there.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT.

We have a considerable $390,000 gap in our online fundraising budget that we have to close by June 30. There is no wiggle room, we've already cut everything we can, and we urgently need more readers to pitch in—especially from this specific blurb you're reading right now.

We'll also be quite transparent and level-headed with you about this.

In "News Never Pays," our fearless CEO, Monika Bauerlein, connects the dots on several concerning media trends that, taken together, expose the fallacy behind the tragic state of journalism right now: That the marketplace will take care of providing the free and independent press citizens in a democracy need, and the Next New Thing to invest millions in will fix the problem. Bottom line: Journalism that serves the people needs the support of the people. That's the Next New Thing.

And it's what MoJo and our community of readers have been doing for 47 years now.

But staying afloat is harder than ever.

In "This Is Not a Crisis. It's The New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, why this moment is particularly urgent, and how we can best communicate that without screaming OMG PLEASE HELP over and over. We also touch on our history and how our nonprofit model makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there: Letting us go deep, focus on underreported beats, and bring unique perspectives to the day's news.

You're here for reporting like that, not fundraising, but one cannot exist without the other, and it's vitally important that we hit our intimidating $390,000 number in online donations by June 30.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. It's going to be a nail-biter, and we really need to see donations from this specific ask coming in strong if we're going to get there.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate