Posts tagged evolution
Articles and news from the latest research reports.
Researchers identify brain pathway triggering impulsive eating
New research from the University of Georgia has identified the neural pathways in an insect brain tied to eating for pleasure, a discovery that sheds light on mirror impulsive eating pathways in the human brain.
"We know when insects are hungry, they eat more, become aggressive and are willing to do more work to get the food," said Ping Shen, a UGA associate professor of cellular biology in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences. "Little is known about the other half-the reward-driven feeding behavior-when the animal is not so hungry but they still get excited about food when they smell something great.
The fact that a relatively lower animal, a fly larva, actually does this impulsive feeding based on a rewarding cue was a surprise.”
The research team led by Shen, who also is a member of the Biomedical and Health Sciences Institute, found that presenting fed fruit fly larvae with appetizing odors caused impulsive feeding of sugar-rich foods. The findings, published Feb. 28 in Cell Press, suggest eating for pleasure is an ancient behavior and that fly larvae can be used in studying neurobiology and the evolution of olfactory reward-driven impulses.
To test reward-driven behaviors in flies, Shen introduced appetizing odors to groups of well-fed larvae. In every case, the fed larvae consumed about 30 percent more food when surrounded by the attractive odors.
But when the insects were offered a substandard meal, they refused to eat it.
"They have expectations," he said. "If we reduce the concentration of sugar below a threshold, they do not respond anymore. Similar to what you see in humans, if you approach a beautiful piece of cake and you taste it and determine it is old and horrible, you are no longer interested."
Shen’s team also tried to further define this phenomenon-the connection between excitement and expectation. He found when the larvae were presented with a brief odor, the amount of time they were willing to act on the impulse was about 15 minutes.
"After 15 minutes, they revert back to normal. You get excited, but you can’t stay excited forever, so there is a mechanism to shut it down," he said.
His work also suggests the neuropeptides, or brain chemicals acting as signaling molecules triggering impulsive eating, are consistent between flies and humans. Neurons receive and convert stimuli into thoughts that are then relayed to the downstream mechanism telling the animals to act. These signaling molecules are required for this impulse, suggesting the molecular details of these functions are evolutionarily tied between flies and humans.
"There are hyper-rewarding cues that humans and flies have evolved to perceive, and they connect this perception with behavior performance," Shen said. "As long as this is activated, the animal will eat food. In this way, the brain is stupid: It does not know how it gets activated. In this case, the fly says ‘I smell something, I want to do this.’ This kind of connection has been established very early on, probably before the divergence of fly and human. That is why we both have it."
Impulsive and reward-driven behaviors are largely misunderstood, partially due to the complex systems at work in human brains. Fly larvae nervous systems, in terms of scheme and organization, are very similar to adult flies and to mammals, but with fewer neurons and less complex wirings.
"A particular function in the brain of mammals may require a large cluster of neurons," he said. "In flies, it may be only one or four. They are simpler in number but not principle."
In the fly model, four neurons are responsible for relaying signals from the olfactory center to the brain to stimulate action. Each odor and receptor translates the response slightly differently. Human triggers are obviously more diverse, but Shen thinks the mechanism to appreciate the combination is likely the same. He is now working with Tianming Liu, assistant professor of computer science at UGA and member of the Bioimaging Research Center and Institute of Bioinformatics, on a computer model to determine how these odors are interpreted as stimuli.
"Dieting is difficult, especially in the environment of these beautiful foods," Shen said. "It is very hard to control this impulsive urge. So, if we understand how this compulsive eating behavior comes about, we maybe can devise a way, at least for the behavioral aspect, to prevent it. We can modulate our behaviors better or use chemical interventions to calm down these cues."
Has evolution given humans unique brain structures?
Humans have at least two functional networks in their cerebral cortex not found in rhesus monkeys. This means that new brain networks were likely added in the course of evolution from primate ancestor to human. These findings, based on an analysis of functional brain scans, were published in a study by neurophysiologist Wim Vanduffel (KU Leuven and Harvard Medical School) in collaboration with a team of Italian and American researchers.
Our ancestors evolutionarily split from those of rhesus monkeys about 25 million years ago. Since then, brain areas have been added, have disappeared or have changed in function. This raises the question, ‘Has evolution given humans unique brain structures?’. Scientists have entertained the idea before but conclusive evidence was lacking. By combining different research methods, we now have a first piece of evidence that could prove that humans have unique cortical brain networks.
Professor Vanduffel explains: “We did functional brain scans in humans and rhesus monkeys at rest and while watching a movie to compare both the place and the function of cortical brain networks. Even at rest, the brain is very active. Different brain areas that are active simultaneously during rest form so-called ‘resting state’ networks. For the most part, these resting state networks in humans and monkeys are surprisingly similar, but we found two networks unique to humans and one unique network in the monkey.”
“When watching a movie, the cortex processes an enormous amount of visual and auditory information. The human-specific resting state networks react to this stimulation in a totally different way than any part of the monkey brain. This means that they also have a different function than any of the resting state networks found in the monkey. In other words, brain structures that are unique in humans are anatomically absent in the monkey and there no other brain structures in the monkey that have an analogous function. Our unique brain areas are primarily located high at the back and at the front of the cortex and are probably related to specific human cognitive abilities, such as human-specific intelligence.”
The study used fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scans to visualise brain activity. fMRI scans map functional activity in the brain by detecting changes in blood flow. The oxygen content and the amount of blood in a given brain area vary according to a particular task, thus allowing activity to be tracked.
How human language could have evolved from birdsong
Linguistics and biology researchers propose a new theory on the deep roots of human speech.
“The sounds uttered by birds offer in several respects the nearest analogy to language,” Charles Darwin wrote in “The Descent of Man” (1871), while contemplating how humans learned to speak. Language, he speculated, might have had its origins in singing, which “might have given rise to words expressive of various complex emotions.”
Now researchers from MIT, along with a scholar from the University of Tokyo, say that Darwin was on the right path. The balance of evidence, they believe, suggests that human language is a grafting of two communication forms found elsewhere in the animal kingdom: first, the elaborate songs of birds, and second, the more utilitarian, information-bearing types of expression seen in a diversity of other animals.
“It’s this adventitious combination that triggered human language,” says Shigeru Miyagawa, a professor of linguistics in MIT’s Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, and co-author of a new paper published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
The idea builds upon Miyagawa’s conclusion, detailed in his previous work, that there are two “layers” in all human languages: an “expression” layer, which involves the changeable organization of sentences, and a “lexical” layer, which relates to the core content of a sentence. His conclusion is based on earlier work by linguists including Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser.
Based on an analysis of animal communication, and using Miyagawa’s framework, the authors say that birdsong closely resembles the expression layer of human sentences — whereas the communicative waggles of bees, or the short, audible messages of primates, are more like the lexical layer. At some point, between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of expression into a uniquely sophisticated form of language.
“There were these two pre-existing systems,” Miyagawa says, “like apples and oranges that just happened to be put together.”
These kinds of adaptations of existing structures are common in natural history, notes Robert Berwick, a co-author of the paper, who is a professor of computational linguistics in MIT’s Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.
“When something new evolves, it is often built out of old parts,” Berwick says. “We see this over and over again in evolution. Old structures can change just a little bit, and acquire radically new functions.”
A new chapter in the songbook
The new paper, “The Emergence of Hierarchical Structure in Human Language,” was co-written by Miyagawa, Berwick and Kazuo Okanoya, a biopsychologist at the University of Tokyo who is an expert on animal communication.
To consider the difference between the expression layer and the lexical layer, take a simple sentence: “Todd saw a condor.” We can easily create variations of this, such as, “When did Todd see a condor?” This rearranging of elements takes place in the expression layer and allows us to add complexity and ask questions. But the lexical layer remains the same, since it involves the same core elements: the subject, “Todd,” the verb, “to see,” and the object, “condor.”
Birdsong lacks a lexical structure. Instead, birds sing learned melodies with what Berwick calls a “holistic” structure; the entire song has one meaning, whether about mating, territory or other things. The Bengalese finch, as the authors note, can loop back to parts of previous melodies, allowing for greater variation and communication of more things; a nightingale may be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies.
By contrast, other types of animals have bare-bones modes of expression without the same melodic capacity. Bees communicate visually, using precise waggles to indicate sources of foods to their peers; other primates can make a range of sounds, comprising warnings about predators and other messages.
Humans, according to Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya, fruitfully combined these systems. We can communicate essential information, like bees or primates — but like birds, we also have a melodic capacity and an ability to recombine parts of our uttered language. For this reason, our finite vocabularies can generate a seemingly infinite string of words. Indeed, the researchers suggest that humans first had the ability to sing, as Darwin conjectured, and then managed to integrate specific lexical elements into those songs.
“It’s not a very long step to say that what got joined together was the ability to construct these complex patterns, like a song, but with words,” Berwick says.
As they note in the paper, some of the “striking parallels” between language acquisition in birds and humans include the phase of life when each is best at picking up languages, and the part of the brain used for language. Another similarity, Berwick notes, relates to an insight of celebrated MIT professor emeritus of linguistics Morris Halle, who, as Berwick puts it, observed that “all human languages have a finite number of stress patterns, a certain number of beat patterns. Well, in birdsong, there is also this limited number of beat patterns.”
Birds and bees
Norbert Hornstein, a professor of linguistics at the University of Maryland, says the paper has been “very well received” among linguists, and “perhaps will be the standard go-to paper for language-birdsong comparison for the next five years.”
Hornstein adds that he would like to see further comparison of birdsong and sound production in human language, as well as more neuroscientific research, pertaining to both birds and humans, to see how brains are structured for making sounds.
The researchers acknowledge that further empirical studies on the subject would be desirable.
“It’s just a hypothesis,” Berwick says. “But it’s a way to make explicit what Darwin was talking about very vaguely, because we know more about language now.”
Miyagawa, for his part, asserts it is a viable idea in part because it could be subject to more scrutiny, as the communication patterns of other species are examined in further detail. “If this is right, then human language has a precursor in nature, in evolution, that we can actually test today,” he says, adding that bees, birds and other primates could all be sources of further research insight.
MIT-based research in linguistics has largely been characterized by the search for universal aspects of all human languages. With this paper, Miyagawa, Berwick and Okanoya hope to spur others to think of the universality of language in evolutionary terms. It is not just a random cultural construct, they say, but based in part on capacities humans share with other species. At the same time, Miyagawa notes, human language is unique, in that two independent systems in nature merged, in our species, to allow us to generate unbounded linguistic possibilities, albeit within a constrained system.
“Human language is not just freeform, but it is rule-based,” Miyagawa says. “If we are right, human language has a very heavy constraint on what it can and cannot do, based on its antecedents in nature.”
(Source: web.mit.edu)
Finding “Mr. Right,” How Insects Sniff Out the Perfect Mate
Unlike humans, most insects rely on their sense of smell when looking for a mate. Scientists have found that sex pheromones play an important role in finding a suitable partner of the same species; yet, little is known about the evolution and genetic basis of these alluring smells.
A team of researchers from Arizona State University and Germany found that one wasp species has evolved a specific scent, or pheromone, which keeps it from mating with other species. In addition, they discovered that the genetic basis of the new scent is simple, which allows the males to change an existing scent into a new one. Over time, the females recognize and use this new scent to distinguish their own species from others.
Scientists from ASU, the University of Regensburg, the Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig Bonn, and the Technical University Darmstadt in Germany, present their findings in an article published Feb. 13 online in the journal Nature.
Where does our head come from?
A research group at the Sars Centre in Bergen has shed new light on the evolutionary origin of the head. In a study published in the journal PLoS Biology they show that in a simple, brainless sea anemone, the same genes that control head development in higher animals regulate the development of the front end of the swimming larvae.
In many animals, the brain is located in a specific structure, the head, together with sensory organs and often together with the mouth. However, there are even more distantly related animals, which have a nervous system, but no brain, like sea anemones and corals.
In this study a research group led by Fabian Rentzsch used the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis to find out if one of the ends of the sea anemone corresponds to the head of higher animals. To do this they studied the function of genes that control head development in higher animals during the embryonic development of the starlet sea anemone.
“Despite looking completely different, it has become clear over the last decade, that all animals have a similar repertoire of genes, including those that are required to make the head of higher animals”, says first author and PhD-student Chiara Sinigaglia.
Stands on its head
When the sea anemone is in the larval stage it swims. As adults, the sea anemone stands with one end on the sea floor and uses long tentacles on its upper end to catch small animals which they stuff into the only body opening in the middle of the ring of tentacles.
“Based on the appearance of the adult animals, the lower end of these animals has traditionally been called the foot and the upper end the head”, explains Rentzsch.
What the research group found out was that in the sea anemone the “head gene” function is located at the end that corresponds to the “foot” of the adult animals. The key was to study the larvae of the sea anemones when theystill move around.
“The larvae swims with the “foot” end forward and this end carries their main sense organ, so at this stage it looks more like this might be their head”, says Rentzsch. And indeed, the “head genes” function on this side of the animals.
Sea anemones and all higher animals, including humans, share a common brainless ancestor which lived between 600 and 700 million years ago.
“By revealing the function of “head genes” in Nematostella, we now understand better how and from where the head and brain of higher animals evolved”, Sinigaglia and Rentzsch explain.
Males’ superior spatial ability likely is not an evolutionary adaptation
Males and females differ in a lot of traits (besides the obvious ones) and some evolutionary psychologists have proposed hypotheses to explain why. Some argue, for example, that males’ slight, but significant, superiority in spatial navigation over females – a phenomenon demonstrated repeatedly in many species, including humans – is probably “adaptive,” meaning that over the course of evolutionary history the trait gave males an advantage that led them to have more offspring than their peers.
A new analysis published in The Quarterly Review of Biology found no support for this hypothesis. The researchers, led by University of Illinois psychology professor Justin Rhodes, looked at 35 studies that included data about the territorial ranges and spatial abilities of 11 species of animals: cuttlefish, deer mice, horses, humans, laboratory mice, meadow voles, pine voles, prairie voles, rats, rhesus macaques and talastuco-tucos (a type of burrowing rodent). Rhodes and his colleagues found that in eight out of 11 species, males demonstrated moderately superior spatial skills to their female counterparts, regardless of the size of their territories or the extent to which males ranged farther than females of the same species.
The findings lend support to an often-overlooked hypothesis, Rhodes said. The average superiority of males over females in spatial navigation may just be a “side effect” of testosterone, he said. (Previous studies have shown that women who take testosterone tend to see an improvement in their spatial navigation skills, he said.)
The analysis adds a new dimension to an ongoing debate about the evolutionary significance of some baffling human traits. Rhodes and his colleagues object to “creation stories” that seek to explain sexual phenomena like the female orgasm, rape or menopause by hypothesizing that they evolved because they provided an evolutionary advantage. Some evolutionary psychologists describe rape, for example, as an alternate mating strategy for males who otherwise are reproductively unsuccessful. Others say menopause evolved in women to enhance the survival of their genes by increasing the time spent nurturing their grandchildren. Some of these hypotheses seem intuitive, Rhodes said. “But these stories generally are not testable.”
Researchers tend to overlook the fact that many physical and behavioral traits arise as a consequence of random events, or are simply side effects of other changes that offer real evolutionary advantages, he said.
“For example, women have nipples because it’s an adaptation; it promotes the survival of their offspring,” Rhodes said. “Men get it because it doesn’t harm them. So if we see something that’s advantageous for one sex, the other sex will get it because it’s inheriting the same genes – unless it’s bad for that sex.”
Similarly, scientists who claim that the different spatial skills in men and women are adaptive must explain why women failed to inherit the superior spatial skills of their navigationally enhanced fathers, Rhodes said.
“The only way you will get a sex difference (in an adaptive trait) is where a trait is good for one sex and bad for the other,” he said. “But how is navigation bad for women? This is a flaw in the logic.”
“When people hear arguments made or stories told, particularly about human behaviors being products of adaptation, I think they should ask the question: ‘Where is the evidence?’ ” Rhodes said.
Why ‘Good Hair’ Matters: The first animal model of recent human evolution reveals that a mutation for thick hair does much more
The first animal model of recent human evolution reveals that a single mutation produced several traits common in East Asian peoples, from thicker hair to denser sweat glands, an international team of researchers reports.
The team, led by researchers from Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fudan University and University College London, also modeled the spread of the gene mutation across Asia and North America, concluding that it most likely arose about 30,000 years ago in what is today central China. The findings are reported in the cover story of the Feb. 14 issue of Cell.
“This interdisciplinary approach yields unique insight into the generation of adaptive variation among modern humans,” said Pardis Sabeti, associate professor in the Center for Systems Biology and Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, and one of the paper’s senior authors. Sabeti is also a senior associate member at the Broad Institute.
“This paper tells a story about human evolution in three parts,” said Cliff Tabin, head of the HMS Department of Genetics and co-senior author. “The mouse model links multiple traits to a single mutation, the related association study finds these traits in humans, and computer models tell us where and when the mutation likely arose and spread.”
Birds evolved ultraviolet vision several times
Ultraviolet vision evolved at least eight times in birds from a common violet sensitive ancestor finds a study published in BioMed Central’s open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. All of these are due to single nucleotide changes in the DNA.
Modern daytime birds either have violet sensitive or ultraviolet sensitive vision. Being ultraviolet sensitive alters visual cues used to select a mate, avoiding predators, and in finding food. Researchers from Uppsala University and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences sequenced the genes responsible for producing the light sensitive pigment (SWS1 opsin) from 40 species of birds, in 29 families.
Generating a phylogenetic tree from these sequences shows that there have been at least 14 shifts between violet and ultraviolet sensitive colour vision and back. An ancestor of Passeriformes (perching birds including larks, swallows, blackbirds, finches, birds of paradise, and crows) and Psittaciformes (parrots and allies) changed from the ancestral violet sensitive colour vision to ultraviolet and, in some cases passerines have reverted back to violet vision.
Anders Ödeen and Olle Håstad, who performed this research commented, “There are two different amino acid alterations that can each change bird colour vision from violet to ultraviolet. One particular single nucleotide change has occurred at least 11 separate times. In general during evolution once a colour shift has occurred all species from this ancestor keep it meaning that the rest of the eye and physiology, must also evolved to ‘cement’ in the new colour sensitivity.”
(Image: webexhibits.org)
Leading expert in neurology Michael Trimble, British professor at the Institute of Neurology in London, says that there must have been a time in human evolution when tears represented something greater than their simple function of lubricating the eye.
In his new book, Why Humans Like To Cry, Trimble tries to explain the mystery of why humans are the only species in the animal kingdom to shed tears in response to an emotional state. In his book, Trimble examines the physiology and the evolutionary past of emotional crying.
Trimble explains that biologically, tears are important to protect the eye. They keep the eyeball moist, flush out irritants and contain certain proteins and substances that keep the eye healthy and fight infections. He explains that in every other animal on planet Earth, tears seem to only serve these biological purposes.
However, in humans, crying or sobbing, bawling or weeping seems to serve another purpose: communicating emotion. Humans cry for many reasons- out of joy, grief, anger, relief and a variety of other emotions. However, our tears are most frequently shed out of sadness. Trimble said that it was this specific communicative nature of human crying that piqued his interest.
"Humans cry for many reasons," he told Scientific American. "But crying for emotional reasons and crying in response to aesthetic experiences are unique to us."
"The former is most associated with loss and bereavement, and the art forms that are most associated with tears are music, literature and poetry," he said. "There are very few people who cry looking at paintings, sculptures or lovely buildings. But we also have tears of joy the associated feelings of which last a shorter time than crying in the other circumstances."
Bonobos predisposed to show sensitivity to others
Comforting a friend or relative in distress may be a more hard-wired behavior than previously thought, according to a new study of bonobos, which are great apes known for their empathy and close relation to humans and chimpanzees. This finding provides key evolutionary insight into how critical social skills may develop in humans. The results are published in the online journal PLOS ONE.
Researchers from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, observed juvenile bonobos at the Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary in the Democratic Republic of Congo engaging in consolation behavior more than their adult counterparts. Juvenile bonobos (ages 3 to 7) are equivalent to preschool or elementary school-aged children.
Zanna Clay, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Emory’s Department of Psychology, and Frans de Waal, PhD, director of the Living Links Center at Yerkes and C.H. Candler Professor of Psychology at Emory, led the study.
"Our findings suggest that for bonobos, sensitivity to the emotions of others emerges early and does not require advanced thought processes that develop only in adults," Clay says.
Starting at around age two, human children usually display consolation behavior, a sign of sensitivity to the emotions of others and the ability to take the perspective of another. Consolation has been observed in humans, bonobos, chimpanzees and other animals, including dogs, elephants and some types of birds, but has not been seen in monkeys.
At the Lola ya Bonobo sanctuary, most bonobos come as juvenile or infant orphans because their parents are killed for meat or captured as pets. A minority of bonobos in the sanctuary is second generation and raised by their biological mothers. The researchers found bonobos raised by their own mothers were more likely to comfort others compared to orphaned bonobos. This may indicate early life stress interferes with development of consolation behavior, while a stable parental relationship encourages it, Clay says.
Clay observed more than 350 conflicts between bonobos at the sanctuary during several months. Some conflicts involved violence, such as hitting, pushing or grabbing, while others only involved threats or chasing. Consolation occurred when a third bonobo – usually one that was close to the scene of conflict – comforted one of the parties in the conflict.
Consolation behavior includes hugs, grooming and sometimes sexual behavior. Consolation appears to lower stress in the recipient, based on a reduction in the recipient’s rates of self-scratching and self-grooming, the authors write.
"We found strong effects of friendship and kinship, with bonobos being more likely to comfort those they are emotionally close to," Clay says. "This is consistent with the idea that empathy and emotional sensitivity contribute to consolation behavior."
In future research, Clay plans to take a closer look at the emergence of consolation behavior in bonobos at early ages. A process that may facilitate development of consolation behavior is when older bonobos use younger ones as teddy bears; their passive participation may get the younger bonobos used to the idea, she says.
(Image: Getty)