Reply to A Lucas

Cornell University Division of Nutritional Sciences 127 Savage Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 E-mail: cg30{at}cornell.edu

Dear Sir:

We are pleased that Lucas found the list of potential mechanisms of metabolic imprinting in our recent review (1) to represent a useful advance to researchers. However, we do not agree with the suggestion that the term imprinting should be rejected. Our principal objective in proposing a working definition of metabolic imprinting was to narrow the focus of our review to a specific family of putative irreversible biological phenomena. This focus was intended to assist in the development of a reasonably complete yet concise list of potential underlying mechanisms. This narrow focus, however, is the primary reason Lucas provides to argue against the terminology we elected to use. As explained in our article, one reason imprinting was chosen rather than programming is the inherently reversible nature explicit in the modern, common scientific use of the latter term, ie, programs are readily modifiable. Hence, his suggestion that the term metabolic imprinting should be rejected may be evaluated best by considering the phenomena of interest and the underlying mechanisms that explain them. For now, we may simply have to agree to disagree. This likely represents a persistent linguistic gap for which we have other examples of well-known trans-Atlantic differences, eg, flashlight and torch.

REFERENCE

1. Waterland RA, Garza C. Potential mechanisms of metabolic imprinting that lead to chronic disease. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:179–97.