Richard D. Wolff is an American economist and professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is known for his critiques of economic inequality and his advocacy for worker cooperatives as a way to empower individuals and address systemic issues within the economy. Through his books, lectures, and public appearances, Wolff explores topics such as economic democracy and alternative economic models. Share this video with a friend if you find it useful! Consider subscribing to the channel for videos about investing, business, stock market, managing money, building wealth, passive income, and other finance-related content!
The new study might shed light on a way to prevent the development of Alzheimer’s after repeated head trauma, such as that experienced by athletes in certain sports
DALL-E
View 1 Images
Individuals who suffer head trauma from sports, accidents, or other causes often go on to develop neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. A new study sheds light on why that might be and offers a way to prevent it.
Suffering a head trauma like one delivered from a particularly fierce tackle in football, or a punch in boxing, can cause all kinds of pain and problems immediately after impact – including concussion or compressed spinal vertebrae.But such blows have also been linked to the development of longer-term issues, including dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases.
After conducting a study, researchers at Tuft’s University and Oxford University now believe this is because blows to the head might awaken the normally dormant herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) in the brain.
While most often associated with the blisters or ulcers it causes after being spread through oral contact and becoming an active infection, the fact is that over 80% of all people already have this bug inside of them. For many people the virus simply stays sleeping inside our neurons and brain cells, not causing any harm.
Because both head trauma and HSV-1 activation are linked to Alzheimer’s, the Tuft’s and Oxford researchers set out to see if there was a connection.
“We thought, what would happen if we subjected the brain tissue model to a physical disruption, something akin to a concussion?,” said lead author Dana Cairns from Tuft’s. “Would HSV-1 wake up and start the process of neurodegeneration?”
Brain sponge
To start, they built a sort of model brain in the lab consisting of a spongy material made from collagen and silk protein.After infusing this donut-shaped sponge with neural stem cells, the team allowed them to develop into an entire neural network, complete with neurons, axons, dendrites, and glial cells, which are brain cells that help support the neurons.All of these cells began communicating with each other as they would inside an actual brain and, just like an actual brain, some of the cells held dormant HSV-1 viral DNA within them .
The brain sponge was then placed inside a cylinder that was subjected to a blow by a piston to simulate a concussion.
Sure enough, after the impacts from the piston, the HSV-1 cells became active and began causing their usual havoc – sparking inflammation, fostering the growth of tangle-causing amyloid plaques, killing off neurons, and leading to a runaway development of glial cells in a process called gliosis.
After seeing this effect, the researchers posit that it is indeed likely that blows to our actual brains awaken the HSV-1 virus and lead to the development of Alzheimer’s. As a result, they believe it might be possible to stem the advancement of the condition following head trauma through the administration of antiviral or anti-inflammatory drugs.
“The brain tissue model takes us to another level in investigating these connections between injury, infection, and Alzheimer’s disease,” said study co-author David Kaplan from Tuft’s.
“We can recreate normal tissue environments that look like the inside of a brain, track viruses, plaques, proteins, genetic activity, inflammation and even measure the level of signaling between neurons,” he added. “There is a lot of epidemiological evidence about environmental and other links to the risk of Alzheimer’s. The tissue model will help us put that information on a mechanistic footing and provide a starting point for testing new drugs.”
Remember the Yangwang U9? Yeah, the same 1,287-horsepower electric hypercar from China that made headlines a few months back for doing bunny hops and spinning in a circle at a standstill. In a recently released video, the BYD hypercar is seen driving autonomously and jumping over a variety of obstacles, including road spikes like in a game of Moon Patrol.
The US$236,000 EV is sold in China under BYD’s premium Yangwang brand. Previously, it was spotted driving on three wheels and hopping around in a sort of dance thanks to its Disus X active suspension setup.
Now, in the latest clip posted to YouTube by the Chinese publication CarNewsChina, the hop-happy car has been spotted demonstrating another party trick: jumping legit obstacles while flying down the road entirely autonomously – like it has a Game Shark built in. https://www.youtube.com/embed/hW6lFowulFw?enablejsapi=1
BYD’s Yangwang U9 jumps over spike strip while self-driving in a crazy test
The U9 is seen tearing through a straight course with three obstacles. Visuals from the car’s interior show that both of the front seats are empty, implying that the car is maneuvering on its own.
The first obstacle is a massive 8-ft (2.5-m) pothole filled with water. The BYD is traveling at 74.5 mph (120 km/h) and just as it looks like it’s about to suffer some serious rim damage, it drops lower to the ground as its Disus X suspension system compresses, then springs up to launch its five-and-a-half thousand pound (2,500 kg) weight into the air.
It travels more than 20 ft (6 m) while airborne, clearing the ditch like it was purpose-built to cheat gravity.
The next obstacle, however, is every bad guy’s dream and not great news for law enforcement: a 13-ft (4-m) stretch of metal spikes – the kind of thing police use to thwart high speed chases. These spikes, which are 1.4-in (3.6-cm) tall, are followed by a similarly sized patch of brightly colored chalk stripes on the ground.
As the video shows, the U9 clears both of these remaining obstacles without breaking a sweat – and without anyone actually driving the car.
All of this is made possible courtesy of Yangwang’s Intelligent Damping Body Control in conjunction with Intelligent Hydraulic Body Control, which it says gives the U9 exceptional handling and stability.
There are many reasons why you might want a car to be able to quickly jack its wheels up and down like this thing can. Performance-wise, there’s anti-squat under acceleration, anti-dive under brakes, and anti-roll in hard, fast cornering. In daily driving, it can get low for more efficient highway aerodynamics, or pop up higher for scrape-free driveways and speed bumps. And if you’ve ever had to wedge yourself into the cockpit of a ground-hugging supercar, you’ll know that every inch of lift represents a small shred of dignity on ingress and egress.
Looking beyond the suspension, the car is powered by four electric motors that produce a ridiculous 1,287 hp and 1239 lb-ft (1,680 Nm) of peak torque. As mentioned earlier, it can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph (97 km/h) in 2.36 seconds and does the quarter-mile (400 m) in 9.78 seconds at about 140 mph (225 km/h). Top speed? Yeah, it has one: 243.54 mph (391.94 km/h) at Nordschleife.
Speaking of which, the Yangwang U9 recorded a blistering 7:17.9 Nürburgring Nordschleife lap in November 2024. That makes it faster than the Nissan GTR or Porsche’s GT2 and GT3, although not nearly as fast as the Rimac Nevera. However, because the U9 isn’t available in the European market, the time hasn’t been officially recorded on the leaderboard. Dot a few i’s and cross a few t’s, and BYD can certify the car as a production vehicle worthy of some of the fastest-ever recorded times at Nordschleife.
It’s also the second vehicle Yangwang has made that has the unique ability to float on water, just in case it doesn’t jump far enough across that river you’ve had your eye on. The first was the off-road capable U8 SUV.
The obstacle-hopping capability is impressive, to say the least. But it’s not clear whether the U9’s jumping abilities are just for marketing purposes, or whether drivers will get access to a jump button in the real world. They’d better; who needs a $236,000 hopping hypercar that only takes flight when you’re not around?
Despite all the attention on technologies that reduce the hands-on role of humans at work—such as self-driving vehicles, robot workers, artificial intelligence and so on—researchers in the field of neuroergonomics are using technology to improve how humans perform in their roles at work.
Neuroergonomics is the study of human behavior while carrying out real-world activities, including in the workplace. It involves recording a person’s brain activity in different situations or while completing certain tasks to optimize cognitive performance. For example, neuroergonomics could monitor employees as they learn new material to determine when they have mastered it. It could also help monitor fatigue in employees in roles that require optimum vigilance and determine when they need to be relieved.
Until now, research in neuroergonomics could only be conducted in highly controlled clinical laboratory environments using invasive procedures.But engineering advances now make this work possible in real-world settings with noninvasive, wearable devices. The market for this neurotechnology—defined as any technology that interfaces with the nervous system—is predicted to grow to US$21 billion by 2026 and is poised to shape the daily life of workers for many industries in the years ahead.
But this advance doesn’t come without risk.
Subscribe to the Compass newsletter.Fast Company’s trending stories delivered to you daily
In my work as a biomedical engineer and occupational medicine physician, I study how to improve the health, well-being and productivity of workers.Neurotechnology often focuses on how workers could use wearable brain monitoring technologies to improve brain function and performance during tasks. But neuroergonomics could also be used to better understand the human experience at work and adapt tasks and procedures to the person, not the other way around.
Capturing brain activity
The two most commonly used neuroergonomic wearable devices capture brain activity in different ways. Electroencephalography, or EEG, measures changes in electrical activity using electrodes attached to the scalp. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy, or fNIRS, measures changes in metabolic activity. It does this by passing infrared light through the skull to monitor blood flow.
Both methods can monitor brain activity in real time as it responds to different situations, such as a high-pressure work assignment or difficult task. For example, a study using fNIRS to monitor the brain activity of people engaged in a 30-minute sustained attention task saw significant differences in reaction time between the beginning and the end of the task. This can be critical in security- and safety-related roles that require sustained attention, such as air traffic controllers and police officers.
Neuroergonomics also studies how brain stimulation could be used to improve brain activity. These include neuromodulation technologies like transcranial electrical stimulation, or tES; transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS; or focused ultrasound stimulation, or FUS. For example, studies have shown that applying tES while learning a cognitive training task can lead to immediate improvements in performance that persist even on the following day. Another study found that tES may also help improve performance on tasks that involve motor skills, with potential applications in surgical skills training, military tasks and athletic performance.
High-stakes ethical questions
The use of neurotechnology in the workplace has global implications and high stakes. Advocates say neurotechnology can encourage economic growth and the betterment of society. Those against neurotechnology caution that it could fuel inequity and undermine democracy, among other possible unknown consequences.
Ushering in a new era of individualized brain monitoring and enhancement poses many ethical questions.Answering those questions requires all stakeholders—workers, occupational health professionals, lawyers, government officials, scientists, ethicists and others—to address them.
For example, how should an individual’s brain activity data be protected? There is reason to suspect that brain activity data wouldn’t be covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, because it isn’t considered medical or health data. Additional privacy regulations may be needed.
Additionally, do employers have the right to require workers to comply with the use of neuroergonomic devices?The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prevents discrimination against workers based on their genetic data. Similar legislation could help protect workers who refuse to allow the collection of their brain information from being fired or denied insurance.
Protecting workers
The data neurotechnology collects could be used in ways that help or hurt the worker, and the potential for abuse is significant.
Employers may be able to use neurotechnology to diagnose brain-related diseases that could lead to medical treatment but also discrimination. They may also monitor how individual workers respond to different situations, gathering insights on their behavior that could adversely affect their employment or insurance status.
Just as computers and the internet have transformed life, neurotechnologies in the workplace could bring even more profound changes in the coming decades. These technologies may enable more seamless integration between workers’ brains and their work environments, both enhancing productivity while also raising many neuroethical issues.
Bringing all stakeholders into the conversation can help ensure everyone is protected and create safer work environments aimed at solving tomorrow’s challenges.
The Forgotten History of the Discovery of Human Brainwaves
The centennial of the discovery of brain waves in humans exposes a chilling tale involving Nazis, war between Russia and Ukraine, suicide and the vicissitudes of history
German psychiatrist Hans Berger recorded the first electroencephalogram of human brain waves in 1924. Ullstein bild via Getty Images
History of Science Opinion
This year is the centennial of the discovery of human brain waves. Few people know the story of that startling finding, because the true story was suppressed and lost to history. Almost two decades ago I visited the pioneering scientists’ labs in Germany and Italy seeking answers. What I learned overturned accepted history and exposed a chilling tale involving Nazis, brainwaves, war between Russia and Ukraine, and suicide. This history resonates with current events—Russia and Ukraine recently passed a grim 1,000-day milestone of a conflict waged on a pretext of battling Nazis—revealing how history, science and society are intricately entwined.
Human brainwaves, oscillating waves of electricity that constantly sweep through brain tissue, change with our thoughts and perceptions. Their value in medicine is incalculable. They reveal all manner of neurological and psychological disorders to doctors and guide neurosurgeons’ hands when extracting diseased brain tissue that triggers seizures.Only newly appreciated, their role in the healthy brain is transforming our fundamental understanding of how the brain processes information.Like waves of all types, the electrical waves sweeping through the brain generate synchrony (think of water waves bobbing boats); in the case of brainwaves, what’s synchronized is activity among populations of neurons.
Who discovered brainwaves? What did they think they’d found? Why was there no Nobel Prize?
In the most common accounts, a reclusive physician, Hans Berger, recorded the first human brainwaves from his patients in a mental hospital in the German city of Jena in 1924 (later part of East Germany). He told no one what he was doing, and he kept his momentous findings secret for five years.As the Nazis rose to power in the 1930s, mental hospitals became the epicenter of forced sterilization and “euthanasia” to promote “racial hygiene.”Some of the methods developed in these facilities served as a prelude to the industrialized killing in concentration camps.As head of the mental hospital in Jena, Berger would have been in the thick of it. Biographies at the time of my visit stated that Berger committed suicide in 1941 from Nazi persecution.
‘‘Berger was no adherent of Hitler and so he had to relinquish the service of his University; not having expected this, he was gravely hurt…. [This] bestowed upon him a depression which finally killed him,’’ wrote psychiatrist Rudolf Lemke, in a 1956 memorial. Lemke had worked under Berger.
In Jena I learned that Lemke was in fact a member of the NSDP (Nazi party). He worked at the Erbgesundheitsgericht(Hereditary Health Court) to carry out forced sterilization of the mentally and physically unfit, broadly defined as the physically disabled, psychiatric patients, alcoholics, among others.Like many others in power, Lemke stayed on in Jena after the war, and his antisemitic and antihomosexual views were covered up by authorities. He became director of the Psychiatric Clinic in Jena from 1945 until 1948.
After World War II Jena came under control of the Soviet Union, and documents revealing the widespread cover-up were lost or destroyed. When I visited Berger’s hospital I met with neuroscientist Christoph Redies and medical historian Susanne Zimmermann, who had recently obtained Soviet records after the fall of the Berlin wall. They revealed that Berger was, in fact, a Nazi sympathizer. He committed suicide in the hospital, not in protest but because he suffered from depression, she says. In taking his own life, Berger’s death mirrored the suicides of many others at the time who were involved in Nazi atrocities.
Leafing through his dusty laboratory notebooks containing the earliest recordings of human brainwaves, Zimmermann pointed out marginal antisemitic comments he had written alongside them.She then pulled out a stack of records of proceedings in the forced sterilization court where Berger served in an era when “eugenics” sought to cull the “unfit” from parenthood. Hearing them read aloud brought to life the horrors that had taken place there, as people pleaded with the court not to sterilize them or their loved ones. Berger denied every appeal, condemning them all to forced sterilization.
The hospital in Jena, Germany, where Berger discovered brainwaves.R. Douglas Fields
Berger’s EEG research was not well received. A believer in mental telepathy, Berger thought brainwaves could be the basis for mental telepathy, but he ultimately rejected that idea. Instead, he believed that brainwaves were a type of psychic energy. Like other forms of energy, waves of psychic energy could not be created or destroyed, but they could interact with physical phenomena. Based on this, he surmised that the work of mental cognition would cause temperature changes in the brain. He explored this idea by stabbing rectal thermometers into his mental patients’ brains while they did cognitive tasks during surgery.
Berger’s research remained little known outside Germany until 1934 when Nobel Prize–winning neuroscientist Edgar Adrian published his experiments in the prestigious journal Brain. Adrian confirmed that the so-called “Berger waves” do exist, but he implicitly mocked them by showing that they changed in a water beetle when it opened and closed its eyes, in the same way they did in the Nobel Prize–winner’s brain when he did the same. Adrian never did further research on brainwaves.
Berger is credited with the discovery of brainwaves in humans, but studies in animals predated his work. Nor did Berger invent the methods he used to monitor brain activity. He applied techniques used previously in animal experiments by Adolf Beck in Lwów, Poland, in 1895, and Angelo Mosel in Turin, Italy.
In contrast to Berger, Adolf Beck’s animal studies were intended to understand how the brain functions when neurons communicate by electrical impulses.At the peak of his research a Russian invasion halted his scientific work. In 1914 Lwów was taken by invading Russians and renamed Lviv. Beck was captured and imprisoned in Kiev, then part of Russia (now Kyiv, Ukraine).
While in prison he wrote to the famous Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov appealing for his help, and Pavlov eventually won Beck’s release.
Beck returned to his research in Lviv, and the next logical step was to search for brainwaves in humans, but in World War II Germans invaded. They established a concentration camp in Lviv where the Jewish population was exterminated. As an intellectual and a Jew, Beck was a target. When they came to take Beck to the concentration camp in 1942, he swallowed cyanide, ending his own life rather than having it taken by the Nazis.
Sign Up for Our Daily Newsletter
Email AddressBy giving us your email, you are agreeing to receive the Today In Science newsletter and to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.Sign Up
Remarkably, both pioneering brainwave scientists committed suicide from Nazism—one as Nazi perpetrator, the other as Nazi victim.
Berger’s grave in Jena.R. Douglas Fields
Unknown to both Berger and Beck, they were notthe first to record brainwaves. That discovery was made by a London physician 50 years earlier than Berger! That stunning finding was lost to science because the ideas were so far ahead of their time, dating back to when the brain was an enigma and the world was lit by gas lamps and powered by steam. Imagine how much further ahead brain science and medicine would be now if this scientific discovery made in 1875 had not been lost to history for half a century.
The first person to discover brainwaves was the London physician Richard Caton. Caton announced his discovery of brainwaves recorded in rabbits and monkey at the annual meeting of the British Medical Association in Edinburgh in 1875. He achieved this using a primitive device, a string galvanometer, in which a small mirror is suspended on a thread between magnets. When an electric current (picked up from the brain in this case) passes through the device, the string twists slightly like a compass needle near a magnet. The oscillating electrical currents detected in the brains were not measured in volts, but rather in millimeters of deflection of the light beam bounced off the mirror. The published abstract of his presentation “The Electric Currents of the Brain” shows that with this primitive instrument the physician correctly deduced the most important aspects of brainwaves. “In every brain hitherto examined, the galvanometer has indicated the existence of electric currents…. The electric currents of the grey matter appear to have a relation to its function….”
Ironically, I traveled the world to research the discovery of brainwaves, only to find that the first person to do so, Richard Caton, presented his findings in the U.S. in 1887 at Georgetown University while on a visit to his family in Catonsville, Md. The town, which was settled by his relatives 1787, is 30 miles from my home, next to the Baltimore-Washington Airport, from which I often embarked on my global search. But that fact, like his unappreciated brainwave research, was lost to history. “Read my paper on the electrical currents of the brain,” he wrote in his diary. “It was well received but not understood by most of the audience.”
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
R. Douglas Fields an adjunct professor in the University of Maryland, College Park’s Neuroscience and Cognitive Science Program. He is the author of the award-winning books Electric Brainand The Other Brain.
A common respiratory virus called human metapneumovirus, or HMPV, has been spreading in some countries in Asia, including China, India, Malaysia and Kazakhstan. Here’s what we know
Scientific American is part of Springer Nature, which owns or has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many of them can be found at http://www.springernature.com/us). Scientific American maintains a strict policy of editorial independence in reporting developments in science to our readers.
Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) posted at 3:39 pm on Wed, Jan 08, 2025:
This brings America into direct confrontation with Russia, fighting over control of the Arctic sea routes due to melting ice, and the Northwest Passage, that connects the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
A Treaty designed to provide for unobstructed passage by all parties would be
Do you have this map in mind? That the super-US encircles Russin in the North and places herself well for resource competition in the Arctic circle and also makes a more potent threat for WWIII? It explains the real reason why Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
Summary: Childhood stress may leave lasting marks on sperm, altering epigenetic profiles and potentially influencing brain development in offspring. Researchers found that men with high levels of childhood maltreatment had changes in DNA methylation and non-coding RNA levels in their sperm.
These epigenetic changes could mediate how early life stress impacts the next generation, highlighting the potential for intergenerational effects. While the study demonstrates significant associations, further research is needed to confirm the role of epigenetic inheritance in humans.
Key Facts
Sperm Epigenetic Changes: Childhood maltreatment altered DNA methylation and non-coding RNA in sperm.
Brain Development Links: These changes are associated with brain development in offspring.
Intergenerational Impact: Findings suggest early life stress may influence future generations via epigenetics.
Source: University of Turku
Childhood stress can impact the epigenetic profile of sperm. These results may also have practical implications for future generations through epigenetic inheritance, as many of the observed epigenetic associations are related to brain development.
This ground-breaking discovery has been made in the FinnBrain study at the University of Turku, Finland, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Epigenetic inheritance refers to the transmission of information on acquired conditions to the next generation without it being encoded in the DNA sequence. Changes caused by the environment may therefore be passed on from generation to generation through gametes.
Epigenetic changes in gametes have a special role, as they can also affect subsequent generations via epigenetic inheritance. Credit: Neuroscience News
Researchers from the FinnBrain study at the University of Turku have previously found an association between paternal early life stress exposure and the child’s brain development.
In a recent study, childhood maltreatment was found to be associated with several sperm epigenetic characteristics that may mediate the effects on offspring brain development, including expression levels of the non-coding RNA molecule hsa-miR-34c-5p and methylation of the CRTC1 and GBX2 genes.
“Next, we want to study childhood maltreatment, epigenome of sperm, and offspring characteristics together. Demonstrating epigenetic inheritance in humans would rewrite the rules of inheritance, which highlights the need for further research,” says Jetro Tuulari, who is the first author of the article.
Although all cells in the body have the same genes and DNA, they have distinct epigenetic profiles, which determines their different appearance and function. Epigenetic regulation thus enables differences in the cells of the brain, muscles, and skin by silencing and activating genes.
Epigenetic changes in gametes have a special role, as they can also affect subsequent generations via epigenetic inheritance.
“Epigenetic inheritance via sperm epigenome is a fascinating research topic and the mechanisms involved are under active investigation in my research group.
“There are currently several projects studying the phenomenon in both animal models and humans. This study was the largest and most comprehensive human study conducted so far,” says Professor Noora Kotaja, a senior researcher in the study.
The study found lower levels of sperm DNA methylation in three DNA regions and changed levels of several small non-coding RNA molecules in men with high levels of childhood maltreatment. They were compared with men who had few experiences of maltreatment, as measured by questionnaires.
Altogether 55 middle-aged men took part in the study. In the statistical modelling, many other health factors such as the respondent’s age, weight and smoking were controlled for.
“The FinnBrain cohort and other multi-generational data from the Centre for Population Research will enable other similar high-quality studies on human epigenetic inheritance. However, the inheritance of these findings has not yet been proven, so further research is needed,” says Professor Emeritus Hasse Karlsson, who initiated the FinnBrain study.
Launched in 2010, FinnBrain is a birth cohort study of the University of Turku involving over 4,000 families and aiming at exploring environmental and genetic factors influencing the development of a child. The parent study of the cohort is also a key part of the project’s research, and this sub-study focuses on paternal health in the cohort.
About this epigenetics research news
Author: Tuomas Koivula Source: University of Turku Contact: Tuomas Koivula – University of Turku Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Exposure to childhood maltreatment is associated with specific epigenetic patterns in sperm
Childhood maltreatment exposure (CME) increases the risk of adverse long-term health consequences for the exposed individual.
Animal studies suggest that CME may also influence the health and behaviour in the next generation offspring through CME-driven epigenetic changes in the germ line.
Here we investigated the associated between early life stress on the epigenome of sperm in humans with history of CME. We measured paternal CME using the Trauma and Distress Scale (TADS) questionnaire and mapped sperm-borne sncRNAs expression by small RNA sequencing (small RNA-seq) and DNA methylation (DNAme) in spermatozoa by reduced-representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS-seq) in males from the FinnBrain Birth Cohort Study.
The study design was a (nested) case-control study, high-TADS (TADS ≥ 39, n = 25 for DNAme and n = 14 for small RNA-seq) and low-TADS (TADS ≤ 10, n = 30 for DNAme and n = 16 for small RNA-seq).
We identified 3 genomic regions with differential methylation between low and high-TADS and 68 tRNA-derived small RNAs (tsRNAs) and miRNAs with different levels in males with high CME (False discovery rate, FDR corrected p < 0.05).
Of potential interest, we identified differential expression of miRNA hsa-mir-34c-5p and differential methylation levels near the CRTC1 and GBX2 genes, which are documented to control brain development.
Our results provide further evidence that early life stress influences the paternal germline epigenome and supports a possible effect in modulating the development of the central nervous system of the next generation.
