Inheritance of acquired traits in plants: reinstatement of Lamarck.

Since Lamarck proposed the idea of inheritance of acquired traits 200 years ago, much has been said for and against it, but the theory was finally declined after the 1930s. Despite of the negative opinions of the majority of geneticists, botanists and plant breeders have long recognized that altered properties during the growth were occasionally transmitted to the offspring. This was also the case with artificially altered properties such as dwarfism, flowering timing and plant stature, which were induced by a non-mutagenic chemical, 5-azacytidine and its derivatives. As these drugs are powerful inhibitors of DNA methylation in vivo, a close correlation between methylation and phenotypic expression was suggested. Subsequent studies showed that rice plants acquired disease resistance upon demethylation of the corresponding resistant gene, and that both resistant trait and hypomethylated status were inherited by the progeny up to nine generations. Whether or not the methylation pattern changes under natural condition was then questioned, and recent studies have indicated that it indeed naturally changes in response to environmental stresses. Whether or not the altered methylation pattern during the vegetative growth is heritable was also questioned, and studies on toadflax and rice affirmed the question, showing stable maintenance of hypermethylation in the former and hypomethylation in the latter for 250 and 10 years, respectively. The observation strongly suggested that acquired traits can be heritable as far as the acquired methylation pattern is stably transmitted. This concept is consistent with the Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired traits, which therefore should be carefully reevaluated to reestablish his impaired reputation.