Highlights from first Neural Genetics and Epigenetics GRC

Last week, a group of genetic neuroscientists gathered together at Colby-Sawyer College in rural New Hampshire for the first-ever Neural Genetics and Epigenetics Gordon Research Conference. About 120 researchers from around the world presented work over five days on multiple aspects of neuronal epigenetic regulation, including chromatin modifications, DNA methylation machinery, and chromatin organization in both health and disease. At the end of the meeting, The Transmitter talked to its organizers about the science they plan to follow.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

The Transmitter: What were some of the major themes and takeaways you noticed at the conference?

Anne West, Duke University: I thought one of the exciting things was how we are beginning to look up from a single mark or a single gene to understand epigenetic regulation at an integrated level. For too many years we have said, “Here’s a list of genes that are regulated. Now I knocked this one out, and then I saw this process.” But what is the point of having the whole list if you can knock just one gene out and change a process? How can we think about gene programs at a higher level? This is why the talks I liked were the ones that said things like, “If you get rid of heterochromatin, this is why you disturb euchromatin.” These are two major compartments within the nucleus, where we can start thinking up from a chromatin mark or a gene to a biological process in the nucleus. I think that’s where we have to be. I don’t know that we’re there yet, but at least we have some things we can measure.

Angel Barco, Instituto de Neurociencias de Alicante: I think that we had a great overview of the progress in human genetics and how much closer we are to understanding some of these rare disorders. We also saw a lot of presentations about epigenetic mechanisms participating in neuroplasticity and brain development. More broadly, the meeting showed how much the field has expanded and matured. A few years ago, research often seemed to be driven by the latest emerging technology—whether ATAC-seq, single-cell RNA sequencing, or MERFISH. Today, researchers can draw on a much broader array of approaches. Progress is no longer centered on a single dominant technique but on selecting and applying the method best suited to each biological question in a more integrated and natural way.

Maria Chahrour, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center: Two things. One, I didn’t know heterochromatin is so dynamic! And then the other thing is highlighting how much value there is in studying individual genes in depth. You learn the mechanisms one gene at a time, and then when you come to a conference like this, you put all the information together and learn the overarching themes from these studies.

The Transmitter: What were some talks that particularly stood out to you?

Anne West: I liked Ian Maze’s talk because he brings a biochemical angle to thinking about the nucleus in a broader way. We need that type of cross talk from different kinds of fields to better understand epigenetics in neuroscience.

I also liked Shelley Berger’s work on how epigenetic changes regulate ant behavior and social roles. I think this is an important antidote to the anti-science movement, because how can you look at this fascinating biology and not be filled with wonder?

Zhaolan (Joe) Zhou, University of Pennsylvania: I am a big fan of talks that tackled epigenetics from the evolutionary perspective, particularly those by Ava Carter from Michael Greenberg’s lab and Debbie Silver. I think this is an exciting direction for the field. Comparing epigenetic mechanisms across species will be essential for understanding how its regulation has evolved and how we can better translate discoveries from model systems to humans.