Posts tagged neuroscience
Articles and news from the latest research reports.
To learn new motor skills, the brain must be plastic: able to rapidly change the strengths of connections between neurons, forming new patterns that accomplish a particular task. However, if the brain were too plastic, previously learned skills would be lost too easily.
A new computational model developed by MIT neuroscientists explains how the brain maintains the balance between plasticity and stability, and how it can learn very similar tasks without interference between them.
The key, the researchers say, is that neurons are constantly changing their connections with other neurons. However, not all of the changes are functionally relevant — they simply allow the brain to explore many possible ways to execute a certain skill, such as a new tennis stroke.
“Your brain is always trying to find the configurations that balance everything so you can do two tasks, or three tasks, or however many you’re learning,” says Robert Ajemian, a research scientist in MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and lead author of a paper describing the findings in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences the week of Dec. 9. “There are many ways to solve a task, and you’re exploring all the different ways.”
As the brain explores different solutions, neurons can become specialized for specific tasks, according to this theory.
Noisy circuits
As the brain learns a new motor skill, neurons form circuits that can produce the desired output — a command that will activate the body’s muscles to perform a task such as swinging a tennis racket. Perfection is usually not achieved on the first try, so feedback from each effort helps the brain to find better solutions.
This works well for learning one skill, but complications arise when the brain is trying to learn many different skills at once. Because the same distributed network controls related motor tasks, new modifications to existing patterns can interfere with previously learned skills.
“This is particularly tricky when you’re learning very similar things,” such as two different tennis strokes, says Institute Professor Emilio Bizzi, the paper’s senior author and a member of the McGovern Institute.
In a serial network such as a computer chip, this would be no problem — instructions for each task would be stored in a different location on the chip. However, the brain is not organized like a computer chip. Instead, it is massively parallel and highly connected — each neuron connects to, on average, about 10,000 other neurons.
That connectivity offers an advantage, however, because it allows the brain to test out so many possible solutions to achieve combinations of tasks. The constant changes in these connections, which the researchers call hyperplasticity, is balanced by another inherent trait of neurons — they have a very low signal to noise ratio, meaning that they receive about as much useless information as useful input from their neighbors.
Most models of neural activity don’t include noise, but the MIT team says noise is a critical element of the brain’s learning ability. “Most people don’t want to deal with noise because it’s a nuisance,” Ajemian says. “We set out to try to determine if noise can be used in a beneficial way, and we found that it allows the brain to explore many solutions, but it can only be utilized if the network is hyperplastic.”
This model helps to explain how the brain can learn new things without unlearning previously acquired skills, says Ferdinando Mussa-Ivaldi, a professor of physiology at Northwestern University.
“What the paper shows is that, counterintuitively, if you have neural networks and they have a high level of random noise, that actually helps instead of hindering the stability problem,” says Mussa-Ivaldi, who was not part of the research team.
Without noise, the brain’s hyperplasticity would overwrite existing memories too easily. Conversely, low plasticity would not allow any new skills to be learned, because the tiny changes in connectivity would be drowned out by all of the inherent noise.
The model is supported by anatomical evidence showing that neurons exhibit a great deal of plasticity even when learning is not taking place, as measured by the growth and formation of connections of dendrites — the tiny extensions that neurons use to communicate with each other.
Like riding a bike
The constantly changing connections explain why skills can be forgotten unless they are practiced often, especially if they overlap with other routinely performed tasks.
“That’s why an expert tennis player has to warm up for an hour before a match,” Ajemian says. The warm-up is not for their muscles, instead, the players need to recalibrate the neural networks that control different tennis strokes that are stored in the brain’s motor cortex.
However, skills such as riding a bicycle, which is not very similar to other common skills, are retained more easily. “Once you’ve learned something, if it doesn’t overlap or intersect with other skills, you will forget it but so slowly that it’s essentially permanent,” Ajemian says.
The researchers are now investigating whether this type of model could also explain how the brain forms memories of events, as well as motor skills.
A Personal Antidepressant for Every Genome
TAU researchers discover gene that may predict human responses to specific antidepressants
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants, but they don’t work for everyone. What’s more, patients must often try several different SSRI medications, each with a different set of side effects, before finding one that is effective. It takes three to four weeks to see if a particular antidepressant drug works. Meanwhile, patients and their families continue to suffer.
Now researchers at Tel Aviv University have discovered a gene that may reveal whether people are likely to respond well to SSRI antidepressants, both generally and in specific formulations. The new biomarker, once it is validated in clinical trials, could be used to create a genetic test, allowing doctors to provide personalized treatment for depression.
Doctoral students Keren Oved and Ayelet Morag led the research under the guidance of Dr. David Gurwitz of the Department of Molecular Genetics and Biochemistry at TAU’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine and Dr. Noam Shomron of the Department of Cell and Developmental Biology at TAU’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine and Sagol School of Neuroscience. Sackler faculty members Prof. Moshe Rehavi of the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology and Dr. Metsada Pasmnik-Chor of the Bioinformatics Unit were coauthors of the study, published in Translational Psychiatry.
"SSRIs only work for about 60 percent of people with depression," said Dr. Gurwitz. "A drug from other families of antidepressants could be effective for some of the others. We are working to move the treatment of depression from a trial-and-error approach to a best-fit, personalized regimen."
Good news for the depressed
More than 20 million Americans each year suffer from disabling depression that requires clinical intervention. SSRIs such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Celexa are the newest and the most popular medications for treatment. They are thought to work by blocking the reabsorption of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain, leaving more of it available to help brain cells send and receive chemical signals, thereby boosting mood. It is not currently known why some people respond to SSRIs better than others.
To find genes that may be behind the brain’s responsiveness to SSRIs, the TAU researchers first applied the SSRI Paroxetine — brand name Paxil — to 80 sets of cells, or “cell lines,” from the National Laboratory for the Genetics of Israeli Populations, a biobank of genetic information about Israeli citizens located at TAU’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine and directed by Dr. Gurwitz. The TAU researchers then analyzed and compared the RNA profiles of the most and least responsive cell lines. A gene called CHL1 was produced at lower levels in the most responsive cell lines and at higher levels in the least responsive cell lines. Using a simple genetic test, doctors could one day use CHL1 as a biomarker to determine whether or not to prescribe SSRIs.
"We want to end up with a blood test that will allow us to tell a patient which drug is best for him," said Oved. "We are at the early stages, working on the cellular level. Next comes testing on animals and people."
Rethinking how antidepressants work
The TAU researchers also wanted to understand why CHL1 levels might predict responsiveness to SSRIs. To this end, they applied Paroxetine to human cell lines for three weeks — the time it takes for a clinical response to SSRIs. They found that Paroxetine caused increased production of the gene ITGB3 — whose protein product is thought to interact with CHL1 to promote the development of new neurons and synapses. The result is the repair of dysfunctional signaling in brain regions controlling mood, which may explain the action of SSRI antidepressants.
This explanation differs from the conventional theory that SSRIs directly relieve depression by inhibiting the reabsorption of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain. Dr. Shomron adds that the new explanation resolves the longstanding mystery as to why it takes at least three weeks for SSRIs to ease the symptoms of depression when they begin inhibiting reabsorption after a couple days — the development of neurons and synapses takes weeks, not days.
The TAU researchers are working to confirm their findings on the molecular level and with animal models. Adva Hadar, a master’s student in Dr. Gurwitz’s lab, is using the same approach to find biomarkers for the personalized treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
(Source: aftau.org)
The Smoking Gun: Fish Brains and Nicotine
In researching neural pathways, it helps to establish an analogous relationship between a region of the human brain and the brains of more-easily studied animal species. New work from a team led by Carnegie’s Marnie Halpern hones in on one particular region of the zebrafish brain that could help us understand the circuitry underlying nicotine addiction. It is published the week of December 9 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The mammalian habenular nuclei, in a little-understood and difficult-to-access part of the brain, are involved in regulating both dopamine and serotonin, two neurotransmitters involved in motor control, mood, learning, and addiction. But unlike the mammalian habenulae, the habenular nuclei of fish are located dorsally, making them easy for scientists to access and study. However, some outstanding questions remained about the properties of the zebrafish habenulae, creating a roadblock for truly linking these structures as analogous in fish and humans. In particular, it was unresolved whether zebrafish habenular neurons produce the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which is enriched in this region of the mammalian brain and activates the same receptors to which nicotine is known to bind.
The new work by lead author Elim Hong and colleagues confirms that the pathway between the habenula and another part of the brain called the midbrain interpenduncular nucleus utilizes acetylcholine in zebrafish, as it does in humans. The work also shows that there is a left-right difference in this part of the fish brain.
The purpose of this asymmetry is unknown, but, as demonstrated by electrophysiological recordings with collaborator Jean-Marie Mangin of the University of Pierre and Marie Curie, it results in differences in neural activity between the brain hemispheres. Other research in Halpern’s lab indicates that such left-right differences could influence behavior. Hong performed these experiments through a European Molecular Biology Organization Short-Term Fellowship while hosted in the laboratory of Claire Wyart in Paris, France.
The team further showed that this acetylcholine pathway in zebrafish responds in a similar way to nicotine as does the analagous pathway in the mammalian brain. This makes the zebrafish a good model for studying the brain chemistry of nicotine addiction.
“Our work demonstrates broader uses for zebrafish in studying the function of the habenula and addresses a major weakness in the field, which was the poor characterization of neurotransmitter identity in this area,” said Hong. “Going forward, these results will help us study how brain circuitry influences nicotine addiction.”
Concussion secrets unveiled in mice and people
There is more than meets the eye following even a mild traumatic brain injury. While the brain may appear to be intact, new findings reported in Nature suggest that the brain’s protective coverings may feel the brunt of the impact.
Using a newly developed mouse trauma model, senior author Dorian McGavern, Ph.D., scientist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), part of the National Institutes of Health, watched specific cells mount an immune response to the injury and try to prevent more widespread damage. Notably, additional findings suggest a similar immune response may occur in patients with mild head injury.
In this study, researchers also discovered that certain molecules, when applied directly to the mouse skull, can bypass the brain’s protective barriers and enter the brain. The findings suggested that, in the mouse trauma model, one of those molecules may reduce effects of brain injury.
Although concussions are common, not much is known about the effects of this type of damage. As part of this study, Lawrence Latour, Ph.D., a scientist from NINDS and the Center for Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, examined individuals who had recently suffered a concussion but whose initial scans did not reveal any physical damage to brain tissue. After administering a commonly used dye during MRI scans, Latour and his colleagues saw it leaking into the meninges, the outer covers of the brain, in 49 percent of 142 patients with concussion.
To determine what happens following this mild type of injury, researchers in Dr. McGavern’s lab developed a new model of brain trauma in mice.
"In our mice, there was leakage from blood vessels right underneath the skull bone at the site of injury, similar to the type of effect we saw in almost half of our patients who had mild traumatic brain injury. We are using this mouse model to look at meningeal trauma and how that spreads more deeply into the brain over time," said Dr. McGavern.
Dr. McGavern and his colleagues also discovered that the intact skull bone was porous enough to allow small molecules to get through to the brain. They showed that smaller molecules reached the brain faster and to a greater extent than larger ones. “It was surprising to discover that all these protective barriers the brain has may not be concrete. You can get something to pass through them,” said Dr. McGavern.
The researchers found that applying glutathione (an antioxidant that is normally found in our cells) directly on the skull surface after brain injury reduced the amount of cell death by 67 percent. When the researchers applied glutathione three hours after injury, cell death was reduced by 51 percent. “This idea that we have a time window within which to work, potentially up to three hours, is exciting and may be clinically important,” said Dr. McGavern.
Glutathione works by decreasing levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) molecules that damage cells. In this study, high levels of ROS were observed at the trauma site right after the physical brain injury occurred. The massive flood of ROS set up a sequence of events that led to cell death in the brain, but glutathione was able to prevent many of those effects.
In addition, using a powerful microscopic technique, the researchers filmed what was happening just beneath the skull surface within five minutes of injury. They captured never-before-seen details of how the brain responds to traumatic injury and how it mobilizes to defend itself.
Initially, they saw cell death in the meninges and at the glial limitans (a very thin barrier at the surface of the brain that is the last line of defense against dangerous molecules). Cell death in the underlying brain tissue did not occur until 9-12 hours after injury. “You have death in the lining first and then this penetrates into the brain tissue later. The goal of therapies for brain injury is to protect the brain tissue,” said Dr. McGavern.
Almost immediately after head injury, the glial limitans can break down and develop holes, providing a way for potentially harmful molecules to get into the brain. The researchers observed microglia (immune cells that act as first responders in the brain against dangerous substances) quickly moving up to the brain surface, plugging up the holes.
Findings from Dr. McGavern’s lab indicate that microglia do this in two ways. According to Dr. McGavern, “If the astrocytes, the cells that make up the glial limitans, are still there, microglia will come up to ‘caulk’ the barrier and plug up gaps between individual astrocytes. If an astrocyte dies, that results in a larger space in the glial limitans, so the microglia will change shape, expand into a fat jellyfish-like structure and try to plug up that hole. These reactions, which have never been seen before in living brains, help secure the barrier and prevent toxic substances from getting into the brain.”
Studies have suggested that immune responses in the brain can often lead to severe damage. Remarkably, the findings in this study show that the inflammatory response in a mild traumatic brain injury model is actually beneficial during the first 9-12 hours after injury.
Mild traumatic brain injuries are a growing public health concern. According to a report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, in 2009 at least 2.4 million people suffered a traumatic brain injury and 75 percent of those injuries were mild. This study provides insight into the damage that occurs following head trauma and identifies potential therapeutic targets, such as antioxidants, for reducing the damaging effects.
Extensive variability in olfactory receptors influences human odor perception
According to Gertrude Stein, “A rose is a rose is a rose,” but new research indicates that might not be the case when it comes to the rose’s scent. Researchers from the Monell Center and collaborating institutions have found that as much as 30 percent of the large array of human olfactory receptor differs between any two individuals. This substantial variation is in turn reflected by variability in how each person perceives odors.
Humans have about 400 different types of specialized sensors, known as olfactory receptor proteins, that somehow work together to detect a large variety of odors.
"Understanding how this huge array of receptors encodes odors is a challenging task," says study lead author Joel Mainland, PhD, a molecular biologist at Monell. "The activation pattern of these 400 receptors encodes both the intensity of an odor and the quality – for example, whether it smells like vanilla or smoke – for the tens of thousands of different odors that represent everything we smell.
Right now, nobody knows how the activity patterns are translated into a signal that our brain registers as the odor.”
Adding to the complexity of the problem, the underlying amino acid sequence can vary slightly for each of the 400 receptor proteins, resulting in one or more variants for each of the receptors. Each receptor variant responds to odors in a slightly different way and the variants are distributed across individuals such that nearly everyone has a unique combination of olfactory receptors.
To gain a better understanding of the extent of olfactory receptor variation and how this impacts human odor perception, Mainland and his collaborators used a combination of high-throughput assays to measure how single receptors and individual humans respond to odors. The results, published in Nature Neuroscience, provide a critical step towards understanding how olfactory receptors encode the intensity, pleasantness and quality of odor molecules.
The researchers first cloned 511 known variants of human olfactory receptors and embedded them in host cells that are easy to grow in the laboratory. The next step was to measure whether each receptor variant responded to a panel of 73 different odor molecules. This process identified 28 receptor variants that responded to at least one of the odor molecules.
Drilling down, the researchers next examined the DNA of 16 olfactory receptor genes, discovering considerable variation within the genes for discrete receptors.
Using sophisticated mathematical modeling to extrapolate from these results, Mainland predicts that the olfactory receptors of any two individuals differ by about 30 percent. This means that for any two randomly chosen individuals, approximately 140 of their 400 olfactory receptors will differ in how they respond to odor molecules.
To understand how variation in a single olfactory receptor affects odor perception, the researchers studied responses to odors in individuals having different variants of a receptor known as OR10G4. They found that variations in the OR10G4 receptor were related to how people perceive the intensity and pleasantness of guaiacol, a molecule that often is described as having a ‘smoky’ characteristic.
Moving forward, a current study is relating the olfactory receptor repertoire of hundreds of people with how those people respond to odors. The data will enable the researchers to identify additional examples of how changes in individual receptors affect olfactory perception.
"The long-term goal is to figure out how the receptors encode odor molecules well enough that we can actually create any odor we want by manipulating the receptors directly," said Mainland. "In essence, this would allow us to ‘digitize’ olfaction."
(Source: eurekalert.org)
Perhaps the most controversial book ever written in the field of psychology, was Julian Janes’ mid-seventies classic, “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.” In it, Jaynes reaches the stunning conclusion that the seemingly all-pervasive and demanding gods of the ancients, were not just whimsical personifications of inanimate objects like the sun or moon, nor anthropomorphizations of the various beasts, real and mythical, but rather the culturally-barren inner voices of bilaterally-symmetric brains not yet fully connected, nor conscious, in the way we are today.
In his view, all people of the day would have “heard voices”, similar to the schizophrenic. They would have been experienced as a hallucinations of sorts, coming from outside themselves as the unignorable voices of gods, rather than as commands originating from the other side of the brain. After a long hiatus, the study the inner voice, and the larger mental baggage that comes along with having one, has returned to the fore. Vaughan Bell, a researcher from King’s College in London, recently published an insightful call to arms in PlOS Biology for psychologists and neurobiologists to create a new understanding of these phenomena.
A coherent inner narrative in synch with our actions, is something most of us take for granted. Yet not everyone can take such possession. The congenitally deaf, for example, may later acquire auditory and communicative function through the use of cochlear implants. However, their inner experiences of sound-powered word, which they acquire through the reattribution of percepts of a previous gestural or visual nature, is something not typically shared or appreciated at the level of the larger public. A similar lack of comprehension at the research community level exists regarding those with physically intact senses, but with some other mental process gone awry. We may note with familiarity the shuffling and muttering of a homeless schizophrenic, yet have no systematic way to comprehend their intuitions, no matter how deluded they may appear.
Bell notes that current neurocognitive theories tend to ignore how those who hear voices first acquire what he describes as “internalized social actors.” In addition to live social interactions, “offline” social interaction with an internal model of those individuals holding significant power in our lives would seem like a handy feature to have. We can readily imagine entirely non-pathological situations where such a model would be of benefit. A young child cut from a school basketball team which they worked hard to make, may be temporality devastated, but hardly traumatized. If they renew their efforts to make the team the next year and practice each day in their backyard, they might imagine the coach who cut them watching their every shot with a critical eye. While this hallucinated guidance would be entirely benign, if the person they imagine is instead an abusive parent or classmate, the internal model might eventually take on a more sinister nature.
It would seem that at least in some individuals, the internal model seems able to get the upper hand, particularly when that hand is forced. We might imagine a school child tasked with the tedium of a seemingly endless recitation—saying the rosary beads, for example, in the catholic school days of yore. The familiar “Hail Mary, full of Grace……” might, after so many repetitions, transform in the mind into something else, despite the earnestness of the professor of faith. “Hail Mary, full of …..” might instead be completed with a different choice word that intrudes from another collective in the brain despite the alarmed child’s efforts to suppress it. In the situation where this is vocalized externally, completely out of control as in full blown Tourette’s syndrome, the child now has a problem.
The idea that separate voices represent separate hemispheres may be a good starting point, but it can readily be dispatched as far as being the whole story. Auditory hallucinations can take the form of multiple social actors, clearly outnumbering our hemispheres, and all with different tones, personalities, and persistence of identity. Attempts have been made to localize brain activity to a particular narrative using EEG recording, or to elicit a hallucination using magnetic stimulation. While the occasional inciteful anecdote may be gleaned from these kinds of investigations, we should not expect much fine detail to ever be had from them. The cortical area known as the temporoparietal junction routinely emerges as a favorite among brain imagers because of its geometric location at the pinnacle of the major fold in the brain. Unfortunately, until there exists a large scale minimally damaging recording technology we are probably going to have to content ourselves with looking closer at what subjects have to say about their own auditory hallucinations, than what their brains might have to say.
As children we learn to talk by talking to ourselves. Unless marooned on an island, we tend to abandon this behavior in polite company for fear of stigmatization, among other things. If the line between normalcy and pathology for hearing voices, or even talking to them, (so long as they do not command undesirable physical actions), is drawn with a greater acceptance for normalcy, a clearer understanding of the inner voice might be sooner in hand.
Researchers may have discovered a plan to disable Meniere’s disease
Researchers at University of Colorado School of Medicine may have figured out what causes Meniere’s disease and how to attack it. According to Carol Foster, MD, from the department of otolaryngology and Robert Breeze, MD, a neurosurgeon, there is a strong association between Meniere’s disease and conditions involving temporary low blood flow in the brain such as migraine headaches.
Meniere’s affects approximately 3 to 5 million people in the United States. It is a disabling disorder resulting in repeated violent attacks of dizziness, ringing in the ear and hearing loss that can last for hours and can ultimately cause permanent deafness in the affected ear. Up until now, the cause of the attacks has been unknown, with no theory fully explaining the many symptoms and signs of the disorder.
"If our hypothesis is confirmed, treatment of vascular risk factors may allow control of symptoms and result in a decreased need for surgeries that destroy the balance function in order to control the spell" said Foster. "If attacks are controlled, the previously inevitable progression to severe hearing loss may be preventable in some cases."
Foster explains that these attacks can be caused by a combination of two factors: 1) a malformation of the inner ear, endolymphatic hydrops (the inner ear dilated with fluid) and 2) risk factors for vascular disease in the brain, such as migraine, sleep apnea, smoking and atherosclerosis.
The researchers propose that a fluid buildup in part of the inner ear, which is strongly associated with Meniere attacks, indicates the presence of a pressure-regulation problem that acts to cause mild, intermittent decreases of blood flow within the ear. When this is combined with vascular diseases that also lower blood flow to the brain and ear, sudden loss of blood flow similar to transient ischemic attacks (or mini strokes) in the brain can be generated in the inner ear sensory tissues. In young people who have hydrops without vascular disorders, no attacks occur because blood flow continues in spite of these fluctuations. However, in people with vascular diseases, these fluctuations are sufficient to rob the ear of blood flow and the nutrients the blood provides. When the tissues that sense hearing and motion are starved of blood, they stop sending signals to the brain, which sets off the vertigo, tinnitus and hearing loss in the disorder.
Restoration of blood flow does not resolve the problem. Scientists believe it triggers a damaging after-effect called the ischemia-reperfusion pathway in the excitable tissues of the ear that silences the ear for several hours, resulting in the prolonged severe vertigo and hearing loss that is characteristic of the disorder. Although most of the tissues recover, each spell results in small areas of damage that over time results in permanent loss of both hearing and balance function in the ear.
Since the first linkage of endolymphatic hydrops and Meniere’s disease in 1938, a variety of mechanisms have been proposed to explain the attacks and the progressive deafness, but no answer has explained all aspects of the disorder, and no treatment based on these theories has proven capable of controlling the progression of the disease. This new theory, if proven, would provide many new avenues of treatment for this previously poorly-controlled disorder.
(Source: eurekalert.org)
Gene expression changes with meditation
With evidence growing that meditation can have beneficial health effects, scientists have sought to understand how these practices physically affect the body.
A new study by researchers in Wisconsin, Spain, and France reports the first evidence of specific molecular changes in the body following a period of mindfulness meditation.
The study investigated the effects of a day of intensive mindfulness practice in a group of experienced meditators, compared to a group of untrained control subjects who engaged in quiet non-meditative activities. After eight hours of mindfulness practice, the meditators showed a range of genetic and molecular differences, including altered levels of gene-regulating machinery and reduced levels of pro-inflammatory genes, which in turn correlated with faster physical recovery from a stressful situation.
"To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice," says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs," says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.
The study was published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology.
Mindfulness-based trainings have shown beneficial effects on inflammatory disorders in prior clinical studies and are endorsed by the American Heart Association as a preventative intervention. The new results provide a possible biological mechanism for therapeutic effects.
The results show a down-regulation of genes that have been implicated in inflammation. The affected genes include the pro-inflammatory genes RIPK2 and COX2 as well as several histone deacetylase (HDAC) genes, which regulate the activity of other genes epigenetically by removing a type of chemical tag. What’s more, the extent to which some of those genes were downregulated was associated with faster cortisol recovery to a social stress test involving an impromptu speech and tasks requiring mental calculations performed in front of an audience and video camera.
Perhaps surprisingly, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.
However, it is important to note that the study was not designed to distinguish any effects of long-term meditation training from those of a single day of practice. Instead, the key result is that meditators experienced genetic changes following mindfulness practice that were not seen in the non-meditating group after other quiet activities — an outcome providing proof of principle that mindfulness practice can lead to epigenetic alterations of the genome.
Previous studies in rodents and in people have shown dynamic epigenetic responses to physical stimuli such as stress, diet, or exercise within just a few hours.
"Our genes are quite dynamic in their expression and these results suggest that the calmness of our mind can actually have a potential influence on their expression," Davidson says.
"The regulation of HDACs and inflammatory pathways may represent some of the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic potential of mindfulness-based interventions," Kaliman says. "Our findings set the foundation for future studies to further assess meditation strategies for the treatment of chronic inflammatory conditions."
Heads or tails? Random fluctuations in brain cell activity may determine toss-up decisions
Life presents us with choices all the time: salad or pizza for lunch? Tea or coffee afterward? How we make these everyday decisions has been a topic of great interest to economists, who have devised theories about how we assign values to our options and use those values to make decisions.
An emerging field of study known as neuroeconomics is combining the economists’ insights with scientific study of the brain to learn more about decision-making processes and how they can go awry. In the Dec. 8 issue of Neuron, one of the field’s founders reports new links between brain cell activity and choices where two options have equal appeal.
“Neuroeconomics is not only helpful for the development of better economic theory, it is also relevant from a clinical point of view,” said author Camillo Padoa-Schioppa, PhD, assistant professor of neurobiology, economics and of biomedical engineering at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “There are a number of conditions that involve impaired economic decision-making, including drug addiction, brain injury, some forms of dementia, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder.”
Scientists know that the orbitofrontal cortex, a region of the brain behind and above the eyes, plays a key role in making decisions. Patients with injuries to this part of the brain are often spectacularly bad at making decisions. They may do things like abandon longstanding relationships, gamble away money or lose it to swindlers, or become addicted to drugs.
To study the roles brain cells play in decision-making, Padoa-Schioppa developed a system for presenting primates a choice between two drinks, such as grape juice or apple juice. The type and amount of the drink varies, and researchers record the activity of individual brain neurons as the primates choose.
Based on the decisions of a single animal over multiple trials, scientists infer the subjective value the animal assigns to each drink and then look for ways this value is encoded in brain cells.
“For example, if we offer a larger amount of apple juice versus a smaller amount of grape juice, and the primate chooses each option equally often, we infer that this primate likes the grape juice better than the apple juice,” he explained. “The primate could be getting more juice by choosing the cup with apple juice, but it doesn’t always do so. That implies that the primate values grape juice more than apple juice.”
In 2006, Padoa-Schioppa and Harvard colleague John Assad, PhD, won international attention for using this system to identify brain cells whose firing rates encoded the subjective value of drink choices.
In a new analysis of data from the original experiment, Padoa-Schioppa showed that different groups of cells in the orbitofrontal cortex reflect different stages of the decision-making process.
“Some neurons encode the value of individual drinks; other neurons encode the choice outcome in a binary way ‒ these cells are either firing or silent depending on the chosen drink,” he explained. “Yet other neurons encode the value of the chosen option.”
Padoa-Schioppa then examined how different groups of cells determine decisions between options of equal value. He showed that toss-up decisions seemed to depend on changes in the initial state of the network of neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex.
“The fluctuations in the network took place before the primates were even offered a choice of juices, but they seem to somehow bias the decision,” Padoa-Schioppa said. “Neuronal signals are always noisy. In essence, close-call decisions are partly determined by random noise.”
He also found that decisions on choices of equal value were linked to the ease or difficulty with which nerve cells in parts of the orbitofrontal cortex communicate with each other. This property, known as synaptic efficacy, can be adjusted by the brain as part of the process of encoding information.
According to Padoa-Schioppa, these results provide new insights into the neuronal circuits that underlie economic decisions. He and his colleagues are using them to create a computational model of decision-making.
“The next step is to test that model,” Padoa-Schioppa said. “For example, we would like to bias decisions by artificially manipulating the activity of specific groups of cells.”
(Source: news.wustl.edu)
Study Treats Alzheimer’s by Delivering Protein Across Blood-Brain Barrier
The body is structured to ensure that any invading organisms have a tough time reaching the brain, an organ obviously critical to survival. Known as the blood-brain barrier, cells that line the brain and spinal cord are tightly packed, making it difficult for anything besides very small molecules to cross from the bloodstream into the central nervous system. While beneficial, this blockade also stands in the way of delivering drugs intended to treat neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s.
In a new study published in the journal Molecular Therapy, University of Pennsylvania researchers have found a way of traversing the blood-brain barrier, as well as a similar physiological obstacle in the eye, the retinal-blood barrier. By pairing a receptor that targets neurons with a molecule that degrades the main component of Alzheimer’s plaques, the biologists were able to substantially dissolve these plaques in mice brains and human brain tissue, offering a potential mechanism for treating the debilitating disease, as well as other conditions that involve either the brain or the eyes.
The work was led by Henry Daniell, a professor in Penn’s School of Dental Medicine’s departments of biochemistry and pathology and director of translational research. The research team included Penn Dental Medicine’s Neha Kohli, Donevan R. Westerveld, Alexandra C. Ayache and Sich L. Chan. Co-authors at the University of Florida College of Medicine, including Amrisha Verma, Pollob Shil, Tuhina Prasad, Ping Zhu and Quihong Li, analyzed retinal tissues.
The researchers began their work by considering how they might breach the blood-brain barrier. Daniell hypothesized that a molecule might be permitted to cross if it was attached to a carrier that is able to pass over, as a sort of molecular crossing guard. The protein cholera toxin B, or CTB, a non-toxic carrier currently approved for use in humans by the Food and Drug Administration, is used in this study to traverse the blood-brain barrier.
They next identified a protein that could clear the plaques that are found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. These plaques, which are believed to cause the dementia associated with the disease, are made up of tangles of amyloid beta (Aβ), a protein that is found in soluble form in healthy individuals. Noting that myelin basic protein (MBP) has been shown to degrade Aβ chains, the team decided to couple it with CTB to see if MBP would be permitted to cross.
“These tangles of beta amyloid are known to be the problem in Alzheimer’s,” says Daniell. “So our idea was to chop the protein back to their normal size so they wouldn’t form these tangles.”
To test this idea, the Penn-led team first exposed healthy mice to the CTB-MBP compound by feeding them capsules of freeze-dried leaves that had been genetically engineered to express the fused proteins, a method developed and perfected by Daniell over many years as a means of orally administering various drugs and vaccines. Adding a green-fluorescent protein to the CTB carrier, the researchers tracked the “glow” to see where the mice took up the protein. They found the glowing protein in both the brain and retina.
“When we found the glowing protein in the brain and the retina we were quite thrilled,” said Daniell. “If the protein could cross the barrier in healthy mice, we thought it was likely that it could cross in Alzheimer’s patients brains, because their barrier is somewhat impaired.”
When CTB was not part of the fused protein, they did not see this expression, suggesting that their carrier protein, the crossing guard, was an essential part of delivering their protein of interest.
To then see what MBP would do once it got to the brain, Daniell and colleagues exposed the CTB-MBP protein to the brains of mice bred to have an Alzheimer’s disease. They used a stain that binds to the brain plaques and found that exposure to the CTB-MBP compound resulted in reductions of staining up to 60 percent, indicating that the plaques were dissolving.
Gaining confidence that their compound was appropriately targeting the plaques, the researchers worked with the National Institutes of Health to obtain brain tissue from people who died of Alzheimer’s and performed the same type of staining. Their results showed a 47 percent decrease in staining in the inferior parietal cortex, a portion of the brain found to play an important role in the development of Alzheimer’s-associated dementia.
As a final step, the researchers fed the CTB-MBP-containing capsules to 15-month-old mice, the equivalent of 80 or more human years, bred to develop Alzheimer’s disease. After three months of feeding, the mice had reductions in Aβ plaques of up to 70 percent in the hippocampus and up to 40 percent in the cortex, whereas mice fed capsules that contained lettuce leaves without CTB-MBP added and mice that were not fed any capsules did not have any reduction in evidence of brain plaques.
Because Alzheimer’s patients have also been found to have plaques in their eyes, the researchers examined the eyes of the mice fed the protein. They found that, indeed, the Alzheimer’s-mice did have retinal plaques, but those fed the CBP-MBP compound had undetectable Aβ plaques in their retinae.
“Really no one knows whether the memory problems that people who have Alzheimer’s disease are due to the dementia or problems with their eyes,” Daniell said. “Here we show it may be both, and that we can dissolve the plaques through an oral route.”
Daniell hopes that this technique of delivering proteins across the blood-brain and blood-retina barriers could serve to treat a variety of diseases beyond Alzheimer’s. Several current clinical trials have failed because of an inability to deliver drugs to the brain. Currently, treatments of some eye conditions must physically penetrate the retina with an injection, an approach that requires anesthesia and risks retinal detachment. Treatment with an ingestible capsule would be safer, easier, and more cost-effective.
As a next step, Daniell hopes to collaborate with Alzheimer’s experts at Penn to advance these studies and add a behavioral component to determine whether the CBP-MBP compound not only removes plaques but also improves the memory and functioning of mice with the Alzheimer’s disease.