Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:02:43.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models of gene–culture evolution are incomplete without incorporating epigenetic effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2022

Gillian Ragsdale Open the ORCID record for Gillian Ragsdale [Opens in a new window]  and
Robert Andrew Foley
Gillian Ragsdale
Affiliation:
The Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship, Montclair, NJ, [email protected]://ronininstitute.org/
Robert Andrew Foley
Affiliation:
Department of Archeology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epigenetics impacts gene–culture coevolution by amplifying phenotypic variation, including clustering, and bridging the difference in timescales between genetic and cultural evolution. The dual inheritance model described by Uchiyama et al. could be modified to provide greater explanatory power by incorporating epigenetic effects.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e174
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beach, S. R. H., Lei, M. K., Brody, G. H., & Philibert, R. A. (2018). Prevention of early substance use mediates, and variation at SLC6A4 moderates, SAAF intervention effects on OXTR methylation. Prevention Science, 19, 90–100.Google ScholarPubMed
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science (New York, N.Y.), 301(5631), 386–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, R., Monakhov, M., Pratt, , & Ebstein, R. P. (2016). Oxytocin pathway genes: Evolutionary ancient system impacting on human affiliation, sociality, and psychopathology. Biological Psychiatry, 79, 174–184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frodl, T., Szyf, M., Carballedo, A., Ly, V., Dymov, S., Varisheva, F., … Booij, L. (2015). DNA Methylation of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) is associated with brain function involved in processing emotional stimuli. Journal of Psychiatry Neuroscience, 40(5), 296–305. doi: 10.1503/jpn.140180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iurescia, S., Seriipa, D., & Rinaldi, M. (2016). Looking beyond the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism: Genetic and epigenetic layers of regulation affecting the serotonin transporter gene expression. Molecular Neurobiology, 54, 8336–8403.Google ScholarPubMed
Keverne, E. B. (2014). Significance of epigenetics for understanding brain development, brain evolution and behaviour. Neuroscience, 264, 207–217.Google ScholarPubMed
Kumsta, R., Hummel, E., Chen, F. S., & Heinrichs, M. (2013). Epigenetic regulation of the oxytocin receptor gene: Implications for behavioural neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroendocrine Science, 7: 83. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2013.00083Google Scholar
Luo, S., & Han, S. (2014). The association between an oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism and cultural orientations. Culture and Brain, 2, 89. doi: DOI.org/10.1007/s40167-014-0017-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkov, M., Blagoev, V., & Bond, M. H. (2015). Improving research in the emerging field of cross-cultural sociogenetics: The case of serotonin, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(3), 336–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, R., & Javor, A. (2012). The biology of trust: Integrating evidence from genetics, endocrinology, and functional brain imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics, 5(2), 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Way, B. M., & Lieberman, M. D. (2010). Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences? Collectivism, individualism and genetic markers of social sensitivity. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar