Genotype and Phenotype - correct usage?

[lifechariot]

I have many thousands of hours studying and researching emotions and their development. A critical role in emotional development is the process of bonding which is outlined in Attachment Theory. The principles I talk about are empirically proven. I find myself increasingly needing to explain them in terms of genetics to people who ask me to outline the principal of the process. My understanding of genetics is not professional, and I am insecure of the terms I find myself using and feel duty bound to use correct terms to form the most accurate description I can.
I ask people who have a grounding in genetics to criticise the following paragraphs (which are my response to someone asking for clarification of my use of the term 'chemical imbalance'), and tell me if I'm using incorrect terms and suggest improvements to both language and concepts?
 

""Thank you for reading the posts, and yes I will elaborate on my meaning of 'chemical imbalance' as you have shown interest.

I used the definition chemical imbalance to refer to the metabolic constitution that is created by a baby's innate urge to attach (genotype), yet also the modulated levels when those expressions are met with an environmental behaviour - such as oxytocin and vasopressin (from the primary caregiver), and so also the establishment of a unique set of metabolic constitutions (phenotypes) which are adapted responses based upon the innate expression and response received.
All of these things together could clumsily be referred to as 'temperament', yet this term lacks considerable definition.

That is to say, it's proven that babies innately seek attachments with a primary caregiver, so there is a genetic basis urging the baby to attach (genotype) that creates an initial metabolic constitution - or levels. Oxytocin and vasopressin are hormones that have been empirically proven to directly related to the creation and maintenance of the bonding behaviours - attachment - and specifically when 'contact comfort' is received. This has been proven across mammal species in prairie voles, rats and humans. This suggests that when the initial and innate expressions of attachment are expressed by a baby that the creation of hormones, such as oxytocin (through interaction with the primary caregiver), creates a unique bond which establishes a newly modulated metabolic constitution which becomes the new basis of the baby's expressions of attachment (phenotype).

Attachment is a genetically based behaviour that is modulated by interaction that produce certain hormones and neurotransmitters. The research seems to suggest that the initial genetic urge to attach undergoes a specific modulation when it encounters oxytocin. As oxytocin is also proven to have potent anti-stress effects and be created by contact comfort, a baby's ongoing metabolic levels are most significantly related to these principal concerns. Including counteracting anxiety-based constitutions which are created from perceptions of fear (stressors). As oxytocin is directly related to the creation and maintenance of attachments, it is therefore crucial to a child's developing emotional behaviour which is nested in the primary caregiver attachment, and the anti-social personality traits that result when no attachment is created because of its absence.

I am a Perceptual Philosopher and generally use the terminology of the fields in which I research, yet the term 'temperament' is seriously inadequate to describe such complexities, and I as of yet I have found no other term which specifically refers to this, so I used 'chemical imbalance' as a catch all.""

Thank you for reading my post.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, lifechariot said:

I used the definition chemical imbalance to refer to the metabolic constitution that is created by a baby's innate urge to attach (genotype), yet also the modulated levels when those expressions are met with an environmental behaviour - such as oxytocin and vasopressin (from the primary caregiver), and so also the establishment of a unique set of metabolic constitutions (phenotypes) which are adapted responses based upon the innate expression and response received.

Maybe someone more expert will comment but this usage seems wrong to me.

Genotype refers to the contents of the genes of an organism, while the phenotypes how those genes are expressed in the organism.

https://pged.org/what-is-genotype-what-is-phenotype/

As such, I would say that an innate urge to attach is part of the phenotype (ie. it is a physical response encoded in the genes, not the content of the genes itself).

Edited October 7, 2018 by Strange
spellynge

[CharonY]

Genotype:  refers to the set of a genetic material of an organism, but can used on different levels. E.g. you could distinguish genotypes of members of a species by allele variations on a single locus.

Phenotype: refers to observable trait, often connected, but not exclusively to gene function.

[rangerx]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Genotype:  refers to the set of a genetic material of an organism, but can used on different levels. E.g. you could distinguish genotypes of members of a species by allele variations on a single locus.

Phenotype: refers to observable trait, often connected, but not exclusively to gene function.

Been wondering that myself. Nicely put. Thank you. +1

[lifechariot]

Thank you for replying everyone.

I think that I'm using the terms appropriately from what's been said here, yet I'm sure someone can increase my finesse, for clearly people are not understanding exactly what I mean when I write.

I'll put put it another way:
There are studies that show different plants and animals call on specific genomic content depending upon which environment they are born.
Say, a specific animal/plant family that is born in one region of the word will become a certain 1 of 2 possible genomic colour expressions and exhibit a 1 of 2 certain genomic behaviours. Colours and behaviours that once expressed are with it for its lifespan. The 2 possible colours and behaviours are limited by the content of the genome (genetic material), yet once expressed are referred to as its phenotypic expression. One phenotypic expression is executed in one climate and the other in another.

It follows that, in more highly evolved creatures, epigenetics is concerned with turning on or off genomic content, so changing phenotypic expressions within the lifespan for adaptability?

I'm really struggling to articulate these concepts. Even what I just wrote feels awkward and clumsy.

 

18 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe someone more expert will comment but this usage seems wrong to me.

Genotype refers to the contents of the genes of an organism, while the phenotypes how those genes are expressed in the organism.

https://pged.org/what-is-genotype-what-is-phenotype/

As such, I would say that an innate urge to attach is part of the phenotype (ie. it is a physical response encoded in the genes, not the content of the genes itself).

Yes. I think you are right.
I put that somewhat haphazardly.

Although the urge to attach in proven to be innate, so genomic content, the expression of that genomic content is correctly referred to as its phenotype.

What I meant for people to read was that the urge to attach comes from genomic content.
Does that sound right?

Edited October 8, 2018 by lifechariot

[Strange]

1 hour ago, lifechariot said:

What I meant for people to read was that the urge to attach comes from genomic content.
Does that sound right?

And is therefore (according to my understanding) part of the phenotype.

I think you are trying to describe the difference between what is in the genes (ie the genotype) and the different ways that can be expressed in the phenotype (and then the consequences of that being further modified by the environment, etc). So it sounds (to me) more like you are talking about the "nature vs nurture" issue.

So the urge to attach is (I assume) genetic and is always expressed, but then later environmental factors can change what happens because of it.

[lifechariot]

 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

And is therefore (according to my understanding) part of the phenotype.

I think you are trying to describe the difference between what is in the genes (ie the genotype) and the different ways that can be expressed in the phenotype (and then the consequences of that being further modified by the environment, etc). So it sounds (to me) more like you are talking about the "nature vs nurture" issue.

So the urge to attach is (I assume) genetic and is always expressed, but then later environmental factors can change what happens because of it.

Not quite.

My understanding is that different expressions of the genome are different phenotypes in their own right.
One genomic expression is its own phenotype and a different expression is another, different, phenotype.
That is to say, phenotypes are limited to specific observable trait expressions of a genome.
If another expression of the same genome exhibits different behavioural traits, its defined as another phenotype.

The nature vs nurture issue is an old version of this debate, and it didn't account for how genomic content is designed to elicit an interactive attachment relationship in which further phenotypes can then be deployed. Conversely, if an attachment relationship is not elicited or perceived, certain developmental phenotypes seem not to be expressed or developed.
The neuroscience consensus around the attachment system is that the genome (nature) is designed to interact with a mother/primary caregiver (nurture), so it's not nature vs nurture, but nature and nurture.
When a phenotype is designed to seek a response within a highly specific relationship and uses the interactions only from that relationship to encode the development of the brain (say the right hemisphere in the first year and a half of life), the old nature vs nurture debate is no longer relevant, for the premise is no longer "vs".

This is further complicated by the fact that parents are designed from the same genetic content, so in most situations, a baby that is interacting with its mother (nurture) is actually interacting with a genome (nature) to which its related, and this relationship is proven to alter, update or inform gene expressions (nature & nurture as a genomic design).
Therefore a baby is receiving cues from a related genome which is adapted to an environment and expressing innately recognisable, yet intricate, phenotypes while the baby's limbic system, cortex and HPA axis are in their initial growth spurts. Thus setting the neural foundation for how the child will respond to the environment.

Edited October 8, 2018 by lifechariot