Search this Blog information

Monday, September 30, 2013

Scientists make it possible to Watch Live Brain Cell Circuits Spark and Fire

A new method enables researchers to watch the synaptic activity of groups of neurons in REAL TIME, in a live brain. There's a video link at the bottom of the article - check it out!

Scientists used fruit flies to show for the first time that a new class of genetically engineered proteins can be used to watch electrical activity in individual brain cells in live brains. The results, published in Cell, suggest these proteins may be a promising new tool for mapping brain cell activity in multiple animals and for studying how neurological disorders disrupt normal nerve cell signaling. Understanding brain cell activity is a high priority of the President's Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative.

Brain cells use electricity to control thoughts, movements and senses. Ever since the late nineteenth century, when Dr. Luigi Galvani induced frog legs to move with electric shocks, scientists have been trying to watch nerve cell electricity to understand how it is involved in these actions. Usually they directly mo nitor electricity with cumbersome electrodes or toxic voltage-sensitive dyes, or indirectly with calcium detectors. This study, led by Michael Nitabach, Ph.D., J.D., and Vincent Pieribone, Ph.D., at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, shows that a class of proteins, called genetically encoded fluorescent voltage indicators (GEVIs), may allow researchers to watch nerve cell electricity in a live animal.
Dr. Pieribone and his colleagues helped develop ArcLight, the protein used in this study. ArcLight fluoresces, or glows, as a nerve cell's voltage changes and enables researchers to watch, in real time, the cell's electrical activity. In this study, Dr. Nitabach and his colleagues engineered fruit flies to express ArcLight in brain cells that control the fly's sleeping cycle or sense of smell. Initial experiments in which the researchers simultaneously watched brain cell electricity with a microscope and recorded voltage with electrodes showed that ArcLight can accurately monitor electricity in a living brain. Further experiments showed that ArcLight illuminated electricity in parts of the brain that were previously inaccessible using other techniques. Finally, ArcLight allowed the researchers to watch brain cells spark and fire while the flies were awakening and smelling. These results suggest that in the future neuroscientists may be able to use ArcLight and similar GEVIs in a variety of ways to map brain cell circuit activity during normal and disease states.
This study was supported by grants from NINDS (NS055035, NS056443, NS083875, NS057631, NS083875) and NIGMS (GM098931).
GEVIs and other sensors are being developed by a group of NINDS-funded researchers who are part of the Fluorogenetic Voltage Sensors Consortium. The consortium was partly funded with grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
For more information go to: http://www.fluorogenetic-voltage-sensors.org/

Journal link: Cell
Weblink: Sciencedaily

Sunday, September 8, 2013

SExy Neuroscience

Sexy Neuroscience IV

Young_woman's_neck Every culture and subculture has its own rituals of greeting and affection – handshakes, backslaps, fist-bumps, hugs and so on – but when it comes to erotic contact, cultural differences seem to melt away into something more primal: Touch that just feels good for its own sake.
In fact, a new study has confirmed that erogenous zones are remarkably similar and consistent among people from widely different cultures. This first ”systematic survey of the magnitude of erotic sensations from various body parts” found that both men and women in Britain and in sub-Saharan Africa love be caressed on their lips, necks, ears and inner thighs; while pretty much no one is into kneecap-play (rule 34, though, folks). In short, erogenous zones seem to have a whole lot more to do with touch-sensitive nerves than they do with cultural conditioning.
And so, in the spirit of Part I, Part II and Part III of the Sexy Neuroscience series – which, incidentally, got this site banned from buying advertising on Google (yes, really) – The Connectome presents Sexy Neuroscience IV: Global Erogenous Zone Challenge!
As the journal Cortex reports, a team led by Bangor University’s Oliver Turnbull surveyed 800 people, mostly from Britain and sub-Saharan Africa. The investigators asked the participants which body parts (aside from genitalia) produced the most intense erotic sensations when others touched them. While the researchers did discover a few differences between male and female erogenous zones – for instance, men found it more arousing to be touched on the backs of their legs, and on their hands, than women did – most of the participants ranked a list of 41 body parts in similar erogenous order.
“Surprising!” say the researchers. “Why?” reply the rest of us.
I mean, most of us learn what our own bodies enjoy long before we clearly understand what sex and eroticism are. And plenty of us have defied cultural conventions when they didn’t line up with our own experiences of physical pleasure. I’d say it makes more sense that the whole concept of erogenous zones, and the culture surrounding them, both stem from common physical experiences; not the other way around.
But this study actually does reshuffle the erogenous-zone deck in one surprising way: It revises the sensory homunculus yet again. As I explained back in Part II, the sensory homunculus is a concept developed in the 1950s – by a bunch of men, which turns out to be a very significant part of the story.
The core concept is pretty simple: As you can see in this picture, touch sensations in various parts of our bodies are mapped onto a series of adjacent but differently sized brain areas; the larger the area, the more touch-sensitive a body part is. So far, so good. Except that until a few years ago, hardly anyone bothered to mention that this entire model was based solely on male brains. The cervical walls, the labia and the clitoris weren’t on it at all. And it took until 2011 for someone to come along and fix this.
So it makes sense that this latest erogenous-zone study has cleared up yet another longstanding myth about the sensory homunculus: That the bottoms of the feet are erogenous zones. Previous researchers had claimed this was true because a) lots of people think feet are sexy, and b) the sensory brain areas devoted to the bottoms of our feet lie right alongside the areas devoted to genitalia.
And although there’s no doubt that feet can be sexy – both visually and to the touch – and that they’re highly touch-sensitive and often ticklish, three fourths of the people surveyed in Britain and sub-Saharan Africa gave feet an erogenous touch rating of zero, right alongside kneecaps.
Turnbull and his team suspect that those previous researchers may have confused fetishistic touch with erogenous touch – two related but distinct phenomena. Those two feelings can – and often do – feed off one another; but there’s nothing to suggest that a caress on the foot feels inherently erotic in the same way that, say, a nip on the earlobe or a breath on the neck does. If anything, feet seem to serve as a clear example of culturally (and/or experientially) conditioned eroticism.
So where does this leave us as far as sensory homunculi and erogenous zones go? I think results like this reinforce the importance of communicating with your partner(s) instead of just following sexual ideas you’ve picked up from others. Erogenous zones may be strikingly similar across genders and cultures, but no two of us are exactly alike: Some find erotic what others find ticklish or painful – and some find tickling and pain erotic. The only way to find out is to ask. Who knows – you might even find someone who enjoys kneecap foreplay.

Weblink: seXY neuroscience 

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Researchers find essential brain circuit in visual development

Amblyopia occurs when the brain favors one eye over another, and is the most common visual impairment in children. If not corrected early in life, the impairment can become permanent. Now, researchers at UCLA have identified a new neural circuit in mice that may help treat amblyopia. In a new study published in Nature, the researchers showed that the binocular zone of the brain (the yellow/green region in the image - the red and blue zones are limited to input from each eye alone) has a circuit that inhibits firing of neurons in the region when an eye is covered. But after 24 hours of remaining covered, the inhibition fades, and the cells resumed their normal rate of firing even as the eye remained covered. This allowed the optical circuits to start rewiring, even in adult mice. Stimulating this circuit with drugs or implants could help treat amblyopia in adult sufferers, the researchers said.

Read more: National eye institute news
Journal article: A disinhibitory microcircuit initiates critical period plasticity in visual cortex. Nature, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/nature12485
Image credit: Image courtesy of Dr. Joshua Trachtenberg, UCLA.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

How the Brain Remembers Pleasure: Implications for Addiction

Aug. 25, 2013 — Key details of the way nerve cells in the brain remember pleasure are revealed in a study by University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) researchers published today in the journal Nature Neuroscience. The molecular events that form such "reward memories" appear to differ from those created by drug addiction, despite the popular theory that addiction hijacks normal reward pathways.

Brain circuits have evolved to encourage behaviors proven to help our species survive by attaching pleasure to them. Eating rich food tastes good because it delivers energy and sex is desirable because it creates offspring. The same systems also connect in our mind's environmental cues with actual pleasures to form reward memories.
This study in rats supports the idea that the mammalian brain features several memory types, each using different circuits, with memories accessed and integrated as needed. Ancient memory types include those that remind us what to fear, what to seek out (reward), how to move (motor memory) and navigate (place memory). More recent developments enable us to remember the year Columbus sailed and our wedding day.
"We believe reward memory may serve as a good model for understanding the molecular mechanisms behind many types of learning and memory," said David Sweatt, Ph.D., chair of the UAB Department of Neurobiology, director of the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute at UAB and corresponding author for the study. "Our results provide a leap in the field's understanding of reward-learning mechanisms and promise to guide future attempts to solve related problems such as addiction and criminal behavior."
The study is the first to illustrate that reward memories are created by chemical changes that influence known memory-related genes in nerve cells within a brain region called the ventral tegmental area, or VTA. Experiments that blocked those chemical changes -- a mix of DNA methylation and demethylation -- in the VTA prevented rats from forming new reward memories.
Methylation is the attachment of a methyl group (one carbon and three hydrogens) to a DNA chain at certain spots (cytosine bases). When methylation occurs near a gene or inside a gene sequence, it generally is thought to turn the gene off and its removal is thought to turn the gene on. This back-and-forth change affects gene expression without changing the code we inherit from our parents. Operating outside the genetic machinery proper, epigenetic changes enable each cell type to do its unique job and to react to its environment.
Furthermore, a stem cell in the womb that becomes bone or liver cells must "remember" its specialized nature and pass that identity to its descendants as they divide and multiply to form organs. This process requires genetic memory, which largely is driven by methylation. Note, most nerve cells do not divide and multiply as do other cells. They can't, according to one theory, because they put their epigenetic mechanisms to work making actual memories.
Natural pleasure versus addiction
The brain's pleasure center is known to proceed through nerve cells that signal using the neurochemical dopamine and generally is located in the VTA. Dopaminergic neurons exhibit a "remarkable capacity" to pass on pleasure signals. Unfortunately, the evolutionary processes that attached pleasure to advantageous behaviors also accidentally reinforced bad ones.
Addiction to all four major classes of abused drugs -- psychostimulants, opiates, ethanol and nicotine -- has been linked to increased dopamine transmission in the same parts of the brain associated with normal reward processing. Cues that predict both normal reward and effects of cocaine or alcohol also make dopamine nerve cells fire as do the experiences they recall. That had led to idea that drug addiction must take over normal reward-memory nerve pathways.
Along those lines, past research has argued that dopamine-producing neurons in the VTA -- and in a region that receives downstream dopamine signals from the VTA called the nucleus accumbens (NAC) -- both were involved in natural reward and drug-addiction-based memory formation. While that may true to some extent, this study revealed that blocking methylation in the VTA with a drug stopped the ability of rats to attach rewarding experiences to remembered cues but doing so in the NAC did not.
"We observed an important distinction, not in circuitry, but instead in the epigenetic regulation of that circuitry between natural reward responses and those that occur downstream with drugs of abuse or psychiatric illness," said Jeremy Day, Ph.D., a post-doctoral scholar in Sweatt's lab and first author for this study. "Although drug experiences may co-opt normal reward mechanisms to some extent, our results suggest they also may engage entirely separate epigenetic mechanisms that contribute only to addiction and that may explain its strength."
To investigate the molecular and epigenetic changes in the VTA, researchers took their cue from 19th century Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov, who was the first to study the phenomenon of conditioning. By ringing a bell each day before giving his dogs food, Pavlov soon found that the dogs would salivate at the sound of the bell.
In this study, rats were trained to associate a sound tone with the availability of sugar pellets in their feed ports. This same animal model has been used to make most discoveries about how human dopamine neurons work since the 1990s, and most approved drugs that affect the dopamine system (e.g. L-Dopa for Parkinson's) were tested in it before being cleared for human trials.
To separate the effects of memory-related brain changes from those arising from the pleasure of the eating itself, the rats were separated into three groups. Rats in the "CS+" rats got sugar pellets each time they heard a sound cue. The "CS-" group heard the sound the same number of times and received as many sugar pellets -- but never together. A third tone-only group heard the sounds but never received sugar rewards.
Rats that always received sugar with the sound cue were found to poke their feed ports with their noses at least twice as often during this cue as control rats after three, 25-sound-cue sessions. Nose pokes are an established measure of the degree to which a rat has come to associate a cue with the memory of a tasty treat.
The team found that those CS+ rats (sugar paired with sound) that were better at forming reward memories had significantly higher expression of the genes Egr1 and Fos than control rats These genes are known to regulate memory in other brain regions by fine-tuning the signaling capacity of the connections between nerve cells. In a series of experiments, the team next revealed the methylation and demethylation pattern that drove the changes in gene expression seen as memories formed.
The study demonstrated that reward-related experiences caused both types of DNA methylation known to regulate gene expression.
One type involves attaching methyl groups to pieces of DNA called promoters, which reside immediately upstream of individual gene sequences (between genes), that tell the machinery that follows genetic instructions to "start reading here." The attachment of a methyl group to a promoter generally interferes with this and silences a nearby gene. However, ancient organisms such as plants and insects have less methylation between their genes, and more of it within the coding regions of the genes themselves (within gene bodies). Such gene-body methylation has been shown to encourage rather than silence gene expression.
Specifically, the team reported that two sites in the promoter for Egr1 gene were demethylated during reward experiences and, to a greater degree, in rats that associated the sugar with the sound cue. Conversely, spots within the gene body of both Egr1 and Fos underwent methylation as reward memories formed.
"When designing therapeutic treatments for psychiatric illness, addictions or memory disorders, you must profoundly understand the function of the biological systems you're working with," Day said. "Our field has learned from experience that attempts to treat addiction with something that globally impairs normal reward perception or reward memories do not succeed. Our study suggests the possibility that future treatments could dial down drug addiction or mental illness without affecting normal rewards."
Along with Sweatt and Day, authors for the study were Daniel Childs, Mikael Guzman-Karlsson, Mercy Kibe, Jerome Moulden, Esther Song and Absar Tahir within the Department of Neurobiology and the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Institute at University of Alabama at Birmingham. This work is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA029419), the National Institute on Mental Health (MH091122 and MH057014), and the Evelyn F. McKnight Brain Research Foundation.

Story Source:
The above story is based on materials provided by University of Alabama at Birmingham, via Newswise.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:
  1. Jeremy J Day, Daniel Childs, Mikael C Guzman-Karlsson, Mercy Kibe, Jerome Moulden, Esther Song, Absar Tahir, J David Sweatt. DNA methylation regulates associative reward learning. Nature Neuroscience, 2013; DOI:10.1038/nn.3504
Weblink: Science daily 

Solving for X, among the neurons

I have a fence that needs scraping and painting, and I’m pretty sure I can do the whole job in six hours. My friend Jack, who is an experienced painter, wants me to hire him. He promises he can have a new coat of paint on the fence in four hours. I’m tempted, but I’m wondering, what if Jack and I work together? If he does the trim and other detail work, and I do the easy brushing, we should be able to wrap this job up by lunchtime, easy.
painting.fence

But how long will it take, exactly? This is what, in algebra, we call a “word problem.” I always loved word problems when I was in school, because unlike a lot of math, they seemed connected to natural situations that actually occur in real life. Fences do need painting, and fence owners may indeed want to make everyday calculations like this one.
Such problems are also appealing because they are expressed in natural language, with familiar linguistic syntax, rather than abstract symbols. In fact, one influential psychological theory holds that everyday language and algebra share a common cognitive foundation—and may actually be processed in the same part of the brain.
But is this true? Is algebra really like the language we read and speak and hear all the time, or is it—despite its familiarity and accessibility—more like calculus and trig? Psychological scientist Martin Monti of UCLA decided to explore this question in a study using brain scanners. He wanted to see what parts of the brain are active during both linguistic and algebraic problem solving—and if it is the same part, as the dominant theory argues.
Monti asked a group of adult volunteers to analyze a large number of simple arguments, some describing simple scenarios–”X gave Y to Z”–and others describing  algebraic expressions–”X plus Y equals Z.” In a word problem, for example, volunteers might see these two sentences: “Y gave X to Z” and “It was X that Y gave to Z.” They had to reason whether or not the two statements were equivalent in meaning (as they are here), with only the structure altered. They performed similar comparisons with algebraic expressions, all of this while undergoing fMRI scans of their brains.
The results were unambiguous. As reported on-line in the journal Psychological Science, the “syntax-like” operations of algebra are completely disconnected, neurologically, from the processing of words and sentences. Other than the basic grammar needed simply to read the word problems, algebraic processing did not make use of any of the brain’s linguistic resources. Indeed, algebra appears from the scans to be processed in a different brain region entirely, one known as the seat of arithmetical reasoning.
The reigning theory of human thinking argues not only that algebra and language share a neurological foundation, but that mathematical reasoning co-opted the evolved machinery of language for non-linguistic tasks. These findings may begin to topple that influential view, though they won’t make it any simpler to solve for X—or to get that fence scraped and painted.
Wray Herbert’s book, On Second Thought, is about irrational thinking and decision making. Excerpts from his two blogs—“Full Frontal Psychology” and “We’re Only Human”—appear regularly in Scientific American Mindand in The Huffington Post.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Autism Symptoms Not Explained by Impaired Attention

Autism is marked by several core features — impairments in social functioning, difficulty communicating, and a restriction of interests. Though researchers have attempted to pinpoint factors that might account for all three of these characteristics, the underlying causes are still unclear.
Now, a new study suggests that two key attentional abilities — moving attention fluidly and orienting to social information — can be checked off the list, as neither seems to account for the diversity of symptoms we find in people with autism.
“This is not to say that every aspect of attention is fine in all children with autism — children with autism very often have attentional disorders as well,” explain psychological scientists and lead researchers Jason Fischer and Kami Koldewyn of MIT. “However, our study suggests that attention impairments are not a key component of autism itself.”
The study is published in Clinical Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
Attention has long been targeted as a possible causal mechanism in autism research:
“Problems with attention early in life could have far-reaching consequences,” say Fischer and Koldewyn. “For example, if young children with autism don’t pay close attention to the behaviors of the people around them, they might never learn to read body language and other social cues.”
But much of the previous research on attention, social learning, and autism had been mixed.
“Some of the most fundamental questions remain debated,” Fischer and Koldewyn explain. “Our goal was to conduct careful, systematic, relatively large-scale studies of some of the mental processes most often implicated in autism to discover which of them are actually disrupted in autism and which are not.”
To investigate this, Fischer, Koldewyn, and their team had children with high-functioning autism and children without autism complete an attention task while tracking their eye movements. Critically, the participants were matched on age and IQ before participating in the study to rule out the possible influence of global developmental delays that aren’t specific to autism.
The task was intended to answer two questions: Are children with autism less able to reorient to a new stimulus (a plausible precursor of restricted interests)? And are children with autism slower to respond to social stimuli, such as faces?
Overall, children with and without autism showed clear signatures of shifting attention and orienting to social stimuli, but there was no difference in either ability between the two groups, challenging the hypothesis that impaired attention might be at the root of autism symptoms.
Fischer and Koldewyn underscore that these aren’t simply null results — they do contribute in a meaningful way to our understanding of autism.
“Understanding which mental capacities are intact in autism is not only encouraging, but also helps families and educators design effective interventions to work on those cognitive skills that are true areas of weakness in autism.”
While finding those true cognitive impairments, and their antecedents, has proved difficult, it’s not for lack of effort.
“We believe that the crux of autism lies in a difficulty interpreting the nuanced and complex information present in real life social situations,” Fischer and Koldewyn conclude. “We plan to test children with autism in more natural scenarios than the typical laboratory environment in order to understand how social context interacts with attentional abilities in autism.”
Co-authors on this research include Nancy Kanwisher of MIT and Yuhong Jiang of the University of Minnesota.
This research was supported by the Ellison Medical Foundation, a grant from the Simons Foundation, and an award from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
###
For more information about this study, please contact: Jason Fischer at jason_f@mit.edu.
Clinical Psychological Science is APS's newest journal. For a copy of the article "Unimpaired Attentional Disengagement and Social Orienting in Children With Autism" and access to other Clinical Psychological Science research findings, please contact Lucy Hyde at 202-293-9300 or lhyde@psychologicalscience.org.

Two different brain processes help us remember to remember!!!

Whether it's tying a string around our finger or posting sticky notes in a prominent place, most of us have developed ways to remember to remember. This type of memory, known as prospective memory, requires two very distinctive brain processes, according to new research published in the journal Psychological Science. Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis asked participants to lie in an fMRI scanner and place words into one of two categories. For some words, however, the participants were asked to remember to press a third button. Depending on whether the word they were asked to remember was related to the word categorization task, the participants used two different brain processes. With a nonsensical word, the participants relied on their prefrontal cortices. With a related word, the participants used totally different brain regions. Depending on what you need to remember to remember, then, your brain can use one or more different strategies.

Read more:
 Remembering to Remember Supported by Two Distinct Brain Processes
Journal article: Dissociable Neural Routes to Successful Prospective Memory. Psychological Science, 2013. doi: 10.1177/0956797613481233
Image credit: nats/Flickr


Photo: Whether it's tying a string around our finger or posting sticky notes in a prominent place, most of us have developed ways to remember to remember. This type of memory, known as prospective memory, requires two very distinctive brain processes, according to new research published in the journal Psychological Science. Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis asked participants to lie in an fMRI scanner and place words into one of two categories. For some words, however, the participants were asked to remember to press a third button. Depending on whether the word they were asked to remember was related to the word categorization task, the participants used two different brain processes. With a nonsensical word, the participants relied on their prefrontal cortices. With a related word, the participants used totally different brain regions. Depending on what you need to remember to remember, then, your brain can use one or more different strategies.

Read more: http://bit.ly/14E57on
Journal article: Dissociable Neural Routes to Successful Prospective Memory. Psychological Science, 2013. doi: 10.1177/0956797613481233
Image credit: nats/Flickr