Breaking down the Parkinson’s pathway

The key hallmark of Parkinson’s disease is a slowdown of movement caused by a cutoff in the supply of dopamine to the brain region responsible for coordinating movement. While scientists have understood this general process for many years, the exact details of how this happens are still murky.

“We know the neurotransmitter, we know roughly the pathways in the brain that are being affected, but when you come right down to it and ask what exactly is the sequence of events that occurs in the brain, that gets a little tougher,” says Ann Graybiel, an MIT Institute Professor and member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

A new study from Graybiel’s lab offers insight into some of the precise impairments caused by the loss of dopamine in brain cells affected by Parkinson’s disease. The findings, which appear in the March 12 online edition of the Journal of Neuroscience, could help researchers not only better understand the disease, but also develop more targeted treatments.

The neurons responsible for coordinating movement are located in a part of the brain called the striatum, which receives information from two major sources — the neocortex and a tiny region known as the substantia nigra. The cortex relays sensory information as well as plans for future action, while the substantia nigra sends dopamine that helps to coordinate all of the cortical input.

“This dopamine somehow modulates the circuit interactions in such a way that we don’t move too much, we don’t move too little, we don’t move too fast or too slow, and we don’t get overly repetitive in the movements that we make. We’re just right,” Graybiel says.

Parkinson’s disease develops when the neurons connecting the substantia nigra to the striatum die, cutting off a critical dopamine source; in a process that is not entirely understood, too little dopamine translates to difficulty initiating movement. Most Parkinson’s patients receive L-dopa, which can substitute for the lost dopamine. However, the effects usually wear off after five to 10 years, and complications appear.

Neural “Synchrony” May be Key to Understanding How the Human Brain Perceives

Despite many remarkable discoveries in the field of neuroscience during the past several decades, researchers have not been able to fully crack the brain’s “neural code.” The neural code details how the brain’s roughly 100 billion neurons turn raw sensory inputs into information we can use to see, hear and feel things in our environment.

In a perspective article published in the journal Nature Neuroscience on Feb. 25, 2013, biomedical engineering professor Garrett Stanley detailed research progress toward “reading and writing the neural code.” This encompasses the ability to observe the spiking activity of neurons in response to outside stimuli and make clear predictions about what is being seen, heard, or felt, and the ability to artificially introduce activity within the brain that enables someone to see, hear, or feel something that is not experienced naturally through sensory organs.

Stanley also described challenges that remain to read and write the neural code and asserted that the specific timing of electrical pulses is crucial to interpreting the code. He wrote the article with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Stanley has been developing approaches to better understand and control the neural code since 1997 and has published about 40 journal articles in this area.

“Neuroscientists have made great progress toward reading the neural code since the 1990s, but the recent development of improved tools for measuring and activating neuronal circuits has finally put us in a position to start writing the neural code and controlling neuronal circuits in a physiological and meaningful way,” said Stanley, a professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Tech and Emory University.

With recent reports that the Obama administration is planning a decade-long scientific effort to examine the workings of the human brain and build a comprehensive map of its activity, progress toward breaking the neural code could begin to accelerate.

The potential rewards for cracking the neural code are immense. In addition to understanding how brains generate and manage information, neuroscientists may be able to control neurons in individuals with epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease or restore lost function following a brain injury. Researchers may also be able to supply artificial brain signals that provide tactile sensation to amputees wearing a prosthetic device.

Stanley’s paper highlighted a major challenge neuroscientists face: selecting a viable code for conveying information through neural pathways. A longstanding debate exists in the neuroscience community over whether the neural code is a “rate code,” where neurons simply spike faster than their background spiking rate when they are coding for something, or a “timing code,” where the pattern of the spikes matters. Stanley expanded the debate by suggesting the neural code is a “synchrony code,” where the synchronization of spiking across neurons is important.

A synchrony code argues the need for precise millisecond timing coordination across groups of neighboring neurons to truly control the circuit. When a neuron receives an incoming stimulus, an electric pulse travels the neuron’s length and triggers the cell to dump neurotransmitters that can spark a new impulse in a neighboring neuron. In this way, the signal gets passed around the brain and then the body, enabling individuals to see, touch, and hear things in the environment. Depending on the signals it receives, a neuron can spike with hundreds of these impulses every second.

“Eavesdropping on neurons in the brain is like listening to a bunch of people talk—a lot of the noise is just filler, but you still have to determine what the important messages are,” explained Stanley. “My perspective is that information is relevant only if it is going to propagate downstream, a process that requires the synchronization of neurons.”

Neuronal synchrony is naturally modulated by the brain. In a study published in Nature Neuroscience in 2010, Stanley reported finding that a change in the degree of synchronous firing of neurons in the thalamus altered the nature of information as it traveled through the pathway and enhanced the brain’s ability to discriminate between different sensations. The thalamus serves as a relay station between the outside world and the brain’s cortex.

Synchrony induced through artificial stimulation poses a real challenge for creating a wide range of neural representations. Recent technological advances have provided researchers with new methods of activating and silencing neurons via artificial means. Electrical microstimulation had been used for decades to activate neurons, but the technique activated a large volume of neurons at a time and could not be used to silence them or separately activate excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Stanley compared the technique with driving a car that has the gas and brake pedals welded together.

New research methods, such as optogenetics, enable activation and silencing of neurons in close proximity and provide control unavailable with electrical microstimulation. Through genetic expression or viral transfection, different cell types can be targeted to express specific proteins that can be activated with light.

“Moving forward, new technologies need to be used to stimulate neural activity in more realistic and natural scenarios and their effects on the synchronization of neurons need to be thoroughly examined,” said Stanley. “Further work also needs to be completed to determine whether synchrony is crucial in different contexts and across brain regions.”

Study Explains Why Fainting Can Result From Blood Pressure Drug Used In Conjunction With Other Disorders

A new study led by a Canadian research team has identified the reason why prazosin, a drug commonly used to reduce high blood pressure, may cause lightheadedness and possible fainting upon standing in patients with normal blood pressure who take the drug for other reasons, such as the treatment of PTSD and anxiety.

According to University of British Columbia researcher and study team leader Dr. Nia Lewis, the body is in constant motion leading to changes in blood pressure with every activity. For example, when standing, the body copes with the sudden drop in blood pressure by constricting peripheral vessels to concentrate the blood in the areas that help stabilize the body.

This study found that prazosin prevents this process by blocking the α1-adrenoreceptor, a critical pathway that allows the vessels to constrict. This physiological response is dangerous for individuals with normal blood pressure who take prazosin to treat the symptoms of PTSD and anxiety, for the act of standing up can cause light-headedness and/or fainting.

The study, entitled “Initial orthostatic hypotension and cerebral blood flow regulation: effect of α1-adrenoreceptor activity,” is published in the American Journal of Physiology–Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology.

Methodology

Eight males and four females, with an average age of 25, and all of whom had normal blood pressure, were enrolled in the cross-over trial.  On day one of the study, participants were weighed, measured, and familiarized with the blood pressure monitoring equipment and procedures that would be used.

On the next visit, participants stayed overnight at the research facility in order to control for activity and diet. The following morning they were given either prazosin (1mg/20kg body weight) or a placebo, and instructed to lie down.  After 20 minutes, they were told to rise in one smooth motion from the lying-down position to standing, and their blood pressure and cerebral blood flow was continuously monitored. They were required to remain standing for three minutes or until they felt severe lightheadedness and dizziness, or felt as if they were about to faint.

On their third and final visit the participants underwent the same procedure as on the second visit. At this visit, however, they received the placebo if they had previously been given the medication, and vice versa.

Results

The investigators found that:

• All but one of the 12 participants who took the medication experienced temporary dizziness or lightheadedness upon standing.
• All participants who took the placebo were able to complete the three-minute standing test. By contrast, only 2 of the 12 were able to complete the standing test after taking prazosin.
• After taking prazosin, none of the participants were able to attain normal blood pressure levels after standing. As a result, blood flow to the brain was reduced and subjects were unable to stand for 3 minutes as they began to experience the onset of fainting.
• When the participants had taken prazosin, mean arterial blood pressure and systolic blood pressure was significantly lower—by 15 percent— when lying down compared to when they took the placebo. Mean arterial blood pressure also fell for a longer period (11 seconds versus eight for placebo) after participants stood up following consumption of the medication, resulting in a lower arterial pressure levels.
• Blood flow to the brain, as measured by cerebral blood flow velocity, was not different when lying down. However, brain blood flow in the prazosin trial was reduced by 33 percent more than in than compared with the placebo trial.

Conclusions

“We were able to determine that, because prazosin shuts down a pathway that is critical to regulate blood pressure, the capacity to safely control blood flow to the brain was also reduced to a level that could induce fainting,” said Dr. Lewis. “No study has examined the effects of prazosin on the interaction between blood pressure and blood flow to the brain. The findings derived from this study show a mechanism of how prazosin causes fainting,” she explained.

Importance of the Findings

“This study highlights the importance of a key pathway in the body’s blood pressure system, known as the α1-adrenergic sympathetic pathway, in ensuring the recovery of blood pressure following standing and how important this pathway is in ensuring blood flow to the brain is not reduced to a level where fainting may occur,” said Dr. Lewis.

Additionally, this study provides a cautionary alert to those who are prescribed prazosin, for other conditions besides hypertension. 

Mico from Neurowear analyses brainwaves, plays music that fits your mood

The always creative Neurowear company, creator of the overly successful brain-controlled Necomimi cat ears and the wearable tail accessory Shippo, has announced its newest invention, Mico, a system consisting of a pair of headphones, a brainwave sensor and an iOS app, aiming to free users from having to manually select songs ever again.

Mico -short for Music Inspiration from your Subconsciousness- is made up of two parts: the headphones with a sensor and an iPhone application. The headphones read the user’s brain signals and determines whether the person is focused, drowsy or stressed. The device sends this information to the iPhone app which searches for and plays music that matches the user’s mood. As a unique touch, LED signs on the side of the headphones light up, which also lets people know just what kind of state the user is in.

Neurowear recently revealed Zen Tunes, an application that analyses a user’s brainwaves when listening to music and then produces a recommended playlist based on their state of mind. Mico, takes this idea a step further.

According to Neurowear, “Mico frees the user from having to select songs and artists and allows users to encounter new music just by wearing the device. The device detects brainwaves through the sensor on your forehead. Our app then automatically plays music that fits your mood.”

If you like Necomimi, you will probably like Mico just as much. To learn more about the product check out the official Mico website where you can also find a recently posted photo gallery with j-pop star Julie Watai wearing the new device. If you look close enough (search for the indicator signs) you might be even able to tell in what mood Julie was during the photo session.

Release date or price not known at this point but Neurowear will demonstrate the device for the first time at the SXSW Trade Show in Austin, Texas from March 8-13.

Monday’s medical myth: alcohol kills brain cells

Do you ever wake up with a raging hangover and picture the row of brain cells that you suspect have have started to decay? Or wonder whether that final glass of wine was too much for those tiny cells, and pushed you over the line?

Well, it’s true that alcohol can indeed harm the brain in many ways. But directly killing off brain cells isn’t one of them.

The brain is made up of nerve cells (neurons) and glial cells. These cells communicate with each other, sending signals from one part of the brain to the other, telling your body what to do. Brain cells enable us to learn, imagine, experience sensation, feel emotion and control our body’s movement.

Alcohol’s effects can be seen on our brain even after a few drinks, causing us to feel tipsy. But these symptoms are temporary and reversible. The available evidence suggests alcohol doesn’t kill brain cells directly.

There is some evidence that moderate drinking is linked to improved mental function. A 2005 Australian study of 7,500 people in three age cohorts (early 20s, early 40s and early 60s) found moderate drinkers (up to 14 drinks for men and seven drinks for women per week) had better cognitive functioning than non-drinkers, occasional drinkers and heavy drinkers.

But there is also evidence that even moderate drinking may impair brain plasticity and cell production. Researchers in the United States gave rats alcohol over a two-week period, to raise their alcohol blood concentration to about 0.08. While this level did not impair the rats’ motor skills or short-term learning, it impacted the brain’s ability to produce and retain new cells, reducing new brain cell production by almost 40%. Therefore, we need to protect our brains as best we can.

Excessive alcohol undoubtedly damages brain cells and brain function. Heavy consumption over long periods can damage the connections between brain cells, even if the cells are not killed. It can also affect the way your body functions. Long-term drinking can cause brain atrophy or shrinkage, as seen in brain diseases such as stroke and Alzheimer’s disease.

There is debate about whether permanent brain damage is caused directly or indirectly.

We know, for example, that severe alcoholic liver disease has an indirect effect on the brain. When the liver is damaged, it’s no longer effective at processing toxins to make them harmless. As a result, poisonous toxins reach the brain, and may cause hepatic encephalopathy (decline in brain function). This can result in changes to cognition and personality, sleep disruption and even coma and death.

Alcoholism is also associated with nutritional and absorptive deficiencies. A lack of Vitamin B1 (thiamine) causes brain disorders called Wernicke’s ncephalopathy (which manifests in confusion, unsteadiness, paralysis of eye movements) and Korsakoff’s syndrome (where patients lose their short-term memory and coordination).

So, how much alcohol is okay?

To reduce the lifetime risk of harm from alcohol-related disease or injury, the National Health and Medical Research Council recommends healthy adults drink no more than two standard drinks on any day. Drinking less frequently (such as weekly rather than daily) and drinking less on each occasion will reduce your lifetime risk.

To avoid alcohol-related injuries, adults shouldn’t drink more than four standard drinks on a single occasion. This applies to both sexes because while women become intoxicated with less alcohol, men tend to take more risks and experience more harmful effects.

For pregnant women and young people under the age of 18, the guidelines say not drinking is the safest option.

So while alcohol may not kill brain cells, if this myth encourages us to rethink that third beer or glass of wine, I won’t mind if it hangs around.

The Brain Activity Map

Researchers explain the goals and structure of a new brain-mapping project

A proposed effort to map brain activity on a large scale, expected to be announced by the White House later this month, could help neuroscientists understand the origins of cognition, perception, and other phenomena. These brain activities haven’t been well understood to date, in part because they arise from the interaction of large sets of neurons whose coördinated efforts scientists cannot currently track.

“There are all kinds of remarkable tools to study the microscopic world of individual cells,” says John Donoghue, a neuroscientist at Brown and a participant in the project. “And on the macroscopic end, we have tools like MRI and EEG that tell us about the function of the brain and its structure, but at a low resolution. There is a gap in the middle. We need to record many, many neurons exactly as they operate with temporal precision and in large areas,” he says.

An article published Thursday in Science online expands the project’s already ambitious goals beyond just recording the activity of all individual neurons in a brain circuit simultaneously. Researchers should also find ways to manipulate the neurons within those circuits and understand circuit function through new methods of data analysis and modeling, the authors write.

Understanding how neurons communicate with one another across large regions of the brain will be critical to understanding how the brain works, according to participants in the project. Other efforts to map out the physical connections in the brain are already under way (see “TR10: Connectomics” and “Mapping the Brain on a Massive Scale”), but these projects look at static brains or can only get a rough view of how regions of the brain communicate. The new project will probably start applying its novel and yet unknown technologies on simpler brains, such as those of flies, and will probably take decades to achieve its goals.

Numerous leaders from the fields of neuroscience, nanotechnology, and synthetic biology are expected to collaborate on the effort. “We need something large scale to try to build tools for the future,” says Rafael Yuste, a neurobiologist at Columbia University and a member of the project. “We view ourselves as tool builders. I think we could provide to the scientific community the methods that could be used for the next stage in neuroscience.”

In addition to deepening fundamental understanding of the brain, the project may also lead to new treatments for psychiatric and neurological disorders. “If we truly understand how things like thoughts, cognition, and other features of the brain emerge, then we should have a better understanding of mood disorders, Parkinson’s, epilepsy and other conditions that are thought to arise from brain-wide circuitry problems,” says Donoghue.

Details about which technology ideas will be given the green light and how much money will support their development are expected to be revealed in the White House announcement that is still to come. The project is likely to be supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and private foundations, participants say. It’s not yet clear how much money will be needed or which technologies will be given priority.

Whichever particular technologies emerge, nanotechnology is likely to be involved, in part because of the need for smaller and faster sensors to record neuronal activity across the brain. Existing sensors can record the electrical activity of neurons, but these chips can typically monitor fewer than 100 neurons at a time and can’t record activity from neighboring neurons, which would be necessary to understand how neurons interact with one another. Paul Weiss, director of the California NanoSystems Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, a participant in the project, says that nanofabrication techniques could address this problem, with smaller chips bearing smaller electrical and even chemical probes. “We’ve had over a decade a fairly substantial investment in science and technology to develop the capability … to control how what we make interacts with the chemical, physical, and biological worlds,” he says.

Novel optical techniques could also aid the mapping project. Currently, many research groups use calcium-sensitive fluorescent dyes to study neuron firing, but Yuste wants to develop an optical technique that uses voltage-sensitive fluorescent dyes for a faster readout. “Neurons communicate using voltage,” he says. “We would like to develop voltage imaging so we will be able to measure neuronal activity directly.”

While many things about the project are uncertain, one thing is clear—there is going to be a lot of data to store, share, and analyze. “We have just begun to scratch the surface of how you deal with data in high-dimensional spaces,” says Terry Sejnowski, a computational neuroscientist at the Salk Institute. “If you are talking about one million neurons, no one can even imagine what that looks like–it is way beyond what we can perceive in three dimensions.”

The Science article also sketches out a rough time line. Within five years, it should be possible to monitor tens of thousands of neurons; in 15 years, one million neurons should be possible. A fly’s brain has about 100,000 neurons, a mouse’s about 75 million, and a human’s about 85 billion. “With one million neurons, scientists will be able to evaluate the function of the entire brain of the zebrafish or several areas from the cerebral cortex of the mouse,” the authors write.

Stanford psychologists uncover brain-imaging inaccuracies

Pictures of brain regions “activating” are by now a familiar accompaniment to any neurological news story. With functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, you can see specific brain regions light up, standing out against the background like night owls’ apartment windows.

It’s easy to forget that these brain images aren’t real snapshots of brain activity. Instead, each picture is the result of many layers of analysis and interpretation, far removed from raw data.

"It’s just one representation of brain activity," said Matthew Sacchet, a PhD student in the Neurosciences Program at the Stanford School of Medicine. "As you process the data, it can change."

Sacchet works in the lab of Stanford psychology Associate Professor Brian Knutson, who studies reward processing in a small area of the brain known as the nucleus accumbens. Precisely how that structure activates is at the heart of an ongoing debate about reward circuits – a subject that holds relevance for our understanding of everything from addiction to financial risk-taking.

Unfortunately, according to a paper from Knutson and Sacchet, hundreds of research papers on this circuit may be unintentionally biased. When the labs processed their fMRI findings, many used a one-size-fits-all strategy that skewed which regions of the brain appeared to be activating.

"I honestly think most people want good data," said Knutson. "I’m excited that we can make this kind of research more rigorous."

The paper appeared in the journal NeuroImage.

Too much smoothing

Functional magnetic resonance imaging measures changes in blood flow in the brain. It’s a powerful tool, but the signal fMRI actually detects – the result of the magnetic differences between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood – is noisy.

Researchers need to statistically process the data in order to make the resulting data interpretable. One of the most common approaches is known as “spatial smoothing,” which involves averaging the activity of each brain region with that of its neighbors.

But fMRI has only been in use since the mid-1990s. Many of the most common analyses in use today are holdovers from older, lower-resolution types of imaging and seem to have some undesired effects on the finer-grained signals fMRI can provide.

Knutson and Sacchet found that when researchers process fMRI data with a traditional “smoothing kernel” of 8mm, they end up averaging their images over too large an area. Activity in smaller brain structures can then be overlooked, or even shifted to areas that receive more blood flow and where the blood oxygenation level-dependent signal is stronger.

"It might seem strange that a systematic bias like that could bias the whole field," Knutson said. "But if half the people use 8mm and half use 4mm, you might end up with very different results, and it could add up."

Reward structure

These statistical pitfalls are particularly glaring when studying the small, structurally complex nucleus accumbens.

Findings from the Knutson Lab, which has been using the smaller, 4mm smoothing kernel for years, suggest that different parts of the nucleus accumbens have different functions. The forward portion seems to distinguish between positive or negative stimuli, reacting specifically to rewards. Meanwhile, the rear section responds more to the intensity of the motivation.

While some other labs have corroborated this finding, others only found activation in the rear half of the structure.

These contradictory findings now appear to have been skewed. Because the back of the nucleus accumbens is larger and surrounded by more blood-infused gray matter than the front, the smoothing step made it appear as if all the nucleus accumbens’ activity originated far to the rear.

A collaborator in Germany already has taken the paper’s advice, Sacchet said. “She had a colleague reanalyze her data and found the same thing we found.”

Knutson emphasized that the research paper doesn’t mean “the methods are bunk.” Simply improving the way scientists process signals can enhance their ability to locate specific brain functions.

"There may be a debate, but you can resolve that debate with data," he said.

Drugs targeting blood vessels may be candidates for treating Alzheimer’s

University of British Columbia researchers have successfully normalized the production of blood vessels in the brain of mice with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) by immunizing them with amyloid beta, a protein widely associated with the disease.

While AD is typically characterized by a build-up of plaques in the brain, recent research by the UBC team showed a near doubling of blood vessels in the brain of mice and humans with AD.

The new study, published online last week in Scientific Reports, a Nature journal, shows a reduction of brain capillaries in mice immunized with amyloid beta – a phenomenon subsequently corroborated by human clinical data – as well as a reduction of plaque build-up.

“The discovery provides further evidence of the role that an overabundance of brain blood vessels plays in AD, as well as the potential efficacy of amyloid beta as basis for an AD vaccine,” says lead investigator Wilfred Jefferies, a professor in UBC’s Michael Smith Laboratories.

“Now that we know blood vessel growth is a factor in AD, if follows that drugs targeting blood vessels may be good candidates as an AD treatment.”

AD accounts for two-thirds of all cases of dementia. The number of Canadians living with dementia is expected to reach 1.4 million by 2013, according to the Alzheimer’s Society of Canada.