Chapter 2. Functional Neuroanatomy: The Nervous System and Behavior
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.
By Neuroskeptic Thanks to newly-developed “super-resolution” microscopy techniques, a group of French neuroscientists have discovered a remarkable world of complexity on a tiny scale. Writing in the Journal of Neuroscience, Deepak Nair colleagues report that: Super-Resolution Imaging Reveals That AMPA Receptors Inside Synapses Are Dynamically Organized in Nanodomains Regulated by PSD95 Neurons communicate with each other via chemical synapses. Here, two cells almost touch each other, and one of them can release a messenger molecule (neurotransmitter) which activates proteins (receptors) on the receiving (postsynaptic) neuron, thus conveying information. Here’s part of a single cell: the synapses are where the little ‘spines’ or ‘bulbs’ meet those present on another cell (not pictured).Until now, it’s been believed that within a synapse, receptors are just randomly distributed over the postsynaptic cell membrane. However, Nair et al’s work reveals an unsuspected level of organization. It turns out that receptors – or at least AMPA receptors, the only kind they looked at – are in fact clustered together into structures the authors dub nanodomains. Each nanodomain contains about 20 receptors, and is about 70 nanometers across. This is small. It’s roughly the size of a virus, and about 1/1000th the width of a human hair. When I saw this picture, it didn’t call to mind anything else I’d ever seen in neuroscience. Rather, it reminded me of the Hubble Deep Field images of distant galaxies… and funnily enough, one of the proteins that plays a secondary role in this paper is called stargazin.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18492 - Posted: 08.12.2013
By Bahar Gholipour, Children with Asperger's syndrome show patterns of brain connectivity distinct from those of children with autism, according to a new study. The findings suggest the two conditions, which are now in one category in the new psychiatry diagnostic manual, may be biologically different. The researchers used electroencephalography (EEG) recordings to measure the amount of signaling occurring between brain areas in children. They had previously used this measure of brain connectivity to develop a test that could distinguish between children with autism and normally developing children. "We looked at a group of 26 children with Asperger's, to see whether measures of brain connectivity would indicate they're part of autism group, or they stood separately," said study researcher Dr. Frank Duffy, a neurologist at Boston's Children Hospital. The study also included more than 400 children with autism, and about 550 normally developing children, who served as controls. At first, the test showed that children with Asperger's and those with autism were similar: both showed weaker connections, compared with normal children, in a region of the brain's left hemisphere called the arcuate fasciculus, which is involved in language. However, when looking at connectivity between other parts of the brain, the researchers saw differences. Connections between several regions in the left hemisphere were stronger in children with Asperger's than in both children with autism and normally developing children. © 2013 Yahoo! Inc
By Andrea Anderson In spring a band of brainy rodents made headlines for zipping through mazes and mastering memory tricks. Scientists credited the impressive intellectual feats to human cells transplanted into their brains shortly after birth. But the increased mental muster did not come from neurons, the lanky nerve cells that swap electrical signals and stimulate muscles. The mice benefited from human stem cells called glial progenitors, immature cells poised to become astrocytes and other glia cells, the supposed support cells of the brain. Astrocytes are known for mopping up excess neuro-transmitters and maintaining balance in brain systems. During the past couple of decades, however, researchers started suspecting astrocytes of making more complex cognitive contributions. In the 1990s the cells got caught using calcium to accomplish a form of nonelectrical signaling. Studies since then have revealed how extensively astrocytes interact with neurons, even coordinating their activity in some cases. Perhaps even more intriguing, our astrocytes are enormous compared with the astrocytes of other animals—20 times larger than rodent astrocytes—and they make contact with millions of neurons apiece. Neurons, on the other hand, are nearly identical in all mammals, from rodents to great apes like us. Such clues suggest astrocytes could be evolutionary contributors to our outsized intellect. The new study, published in March in Cell Stem Cell, tested this hypothesis. A subset of the implanted human stem cells matured into rotund, humanlike astrocytes in the animals' brains, taking over operations from the native mouse astrocytes. When tested under a microscope, these human astrocytes accomplished calcium signaling at least three times faster than the mouse astrocytes did. The enhanced mice masterfully memorized new objects, swiftly learned to link certain sounds or situations to an unpleasant foot shock, and displayed unusually savvy maze navigation—signs of mental acuity that surpassed skills exhibited by either typical mice or mice transplanted with glial progenitor cells from their own species. © 2013 Scientific American
By Daniel Engber Brain-bashing, once an idle pastime of the science commentariat, went mainstream in June. At the beginning of the month, Slate contributor Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld published Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience, a well-informed attack on the extravagances of “neurocentrist” thought. We’re living in dangerous era, they warn in the book’s introduction. “Naïve media, slick neuroentrepreneurs, and even an occasional overzealous neuroscientist exaggerate the capacity of scans to reveal the contents of our minds, exalt brain physiology as inherently the most valuable level of explanation for understanding behavior, and rush to apply underdeveloped, if dazzling, science for commercial and forensic use.” In the United Kingdom, the neuro-gadfly Raymond Tallis—whose own attack on popular brain science, Aping Mankind, came out in 2011—added to the early-summer beat-down, complaining in the Observer that “studies that locate irreducibly social phenomena … in the function or dysfunction of bits of our brains are conceptually misconceived.” By mid-June, these sharp rebukes made their way into the mind of David Brooks, a long-time dabbler in neural data who proposed not long ago that “brain science helps fill the hole left by the atrophy of theology and philosophy.” Brooks read Brainwashed and became a convert to its cause: “From personal experience, I can tell you that you get captivated by [neuroscience] and sometimes go off to extremes,” he wrote in a recent column with the headline “Beyond the Brain.” Then he gave the following advice: “The next time somebody tells you what a brain scan says, be a little skeptical. The brain is not the mind.” © 2013 The Slate Group, LLC
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18424 - Posted: 07.30.2013
By Simon Makin One common complaint about psychiatry is its subjective nature: it lacks definitive tests for many diseases. So the idea of diagnosing disorders using only brain scans holds great appeal. A paper published recently in PLOS ONE describes such a system, although it was presented only as an initial proof of concept. News reports, however, trumpeted the advent of “objective” psychiatric diagnoses. The paper used data from several earlier studies, in which researchers outlined key brain regions in MRI scans of people with bipolar disorder, ADHD, schizophrenia or Tourette's syndrome; people with low or high risk of developing major depressive disorder; and a healthy group. The scans were also labeled with the disorder or depression risk level of the original study participant. In the new study, scientists divided the scans randomly into two sets, one to build the diagnostic system and the other to test it. Their software then grouped the scans in the first set by the shape of various regions. Each group was labeled with the most common diagnosis found within it. During testing, the system analyzed the shapes of brain regions in each test scan and assigned it to the group it most resembled. The scientists checked its work by comparing the new labels on the test scans with the original clinical diagnoses. They repeated the procedure several times with different randomly generated sets. When the system chose between two disorders or one ailment and a clean bill of health, its accuracy was nearly perfect. When deciding among three alternatives, it did much worse. © 2013 Scientific American
Alison Abbott When neurobiologist Bill Newsome got a phone call from Francis Collins in March, his first reaction was one of dismay. The director of the US National Institutes of Health had contacted him out of the blue to ask if he would co-chair a rapid planning effort for a ten-year assault on how the brain works. To Newsome, that sounded like the sort of thankless, amorphous and onerous task that would ruin a good summer. But after turning it over in his mind for 24 hours, his dismay gave way to enthusiasm. “The timing is right,” says Newsome, who is based at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. He accepted the task. “The brain is the intellectual excitement for the twenty-first century.” It helped that the request for the brain onslaught was actually coming from Collins's ultimate boss — US President Barack Obama. Just two weeks after that call, on 2 April, Obama announced a US$100-million initial investment to launch the BRAIN Initiative, a research effort expected to eventually cost perhaps ten times that amount. The European Commission has equal ambitions. On 28 January, it announced that it would launch the flagship Human Brain Project with a 2013 budget of €54 million (US$69 million), and contribute to its projected billion-euro funding over the next ten years (see Nature 482, 456–458; 2012). Although the aims of the two projects differ, both are, in effect, bold bids for the neuroscientist's ultimate challenge: to work out exactly how the billions of neurons and trillions of connections, or synapses, in the human brain organize themselves into working neural circuits that allow us to fall in love, go to war, solve mathematical theorems or write poetry. What's more, researchers want to understand the ways in which brain circuitry changes — through the constant growth and retreat of synapses — as life rolls by. © 2013 Nature Publishing Group
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18382 - Posted: 07.18.2013
Ransom Stephens - The video linked here shows how a team of UC Berkeley researchers (two neuroscientists, a bioengineer, two statisticians, and a psychologist) decoded images from brain scans of test subjects watching videos. Yes, by analyzing the scans, they reproduced the videos that the subjects watched. While the reproduced videos are hazy, the ability to reproduce images from the very thoughts of individuals is striking. Here’s how it works: fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scans light up pixels in three dimensions, 2 mm cubes called voxels. You’ve seen the images, color maps of the brain. The colors represent the volume of blood flow in each voxel. Since an fMRI scan takes about a second to record, the voxel colors represent the time-average blood flow during a given second. Three different subjects (each of whom were also authors of the paper) watched YouTube videos from within an fMRI scanner. Brain scans were taken as rapidly as possible as they watched a large number of 12 minute videos. Each video was watched one time. The resulting scans were used to “train” models. The models consisted of fits to the 3D scans and unique models were developed for each person. By fitting a subject’s model to the time-ordered series of scans and then optimizing the model over a large sample of known videos, the model translates between measured blood flow and features in the video like shapes, edges, and motion. © 2013 UBM Tech,
by Douglas Heaven Toss a stone into a pool and it leaves ripples long after it sinks. Ideas and experiences have a similar affect on our brains: short bouts of intense neural activity leave ripples in the brain's background activity that can still be detected 24 hours later. The finding effectively opens a window into a person's recent past. Previous studies have shown that it is possible to use brain activity to detect simple thoughts or words, and even what image someone is looking at. But this is the first time activity from the past has been observed. Even when you are doing nothing, the brain is busy. Cut off from external stimuli and left to "idle", the brain enters a resting state. "You would expect it to quieten down," says Rafael Malach at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. But instead, the brain just switches gear, producing patterns of activity that are slower but no less noisy. "The activity is very organised, very rich and very consistent," says Malach. But what it means is largely a mystery. Malach and his colleagues wondered whether the activity might in fact be a kind of echo. Could it tell us something about what the brain had been up to previously? "It might be a window into the previous day's activity," says Malach. To test the idea, the team compared fMRI scans of 20 people taken before, during and after a period of intense cognitive activity. They focused on a region of the brain called the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, which is linked to decision-making and volition. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18326 - Posted: 06.29.2013
By Dwayne Godwin and Jorge Cham A new initiative aims to invent new technologies for understanding the brain
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18322 - Posted: 06.29.2013
By Ben Thomas Your neurons are outnumbered. Many of the cells in your brain – in your whole nervous system, in fact – are not neurons, but glia. These busy little cells shape and insulate neural connections, provide vital nutrients for your neurons, regulate many of the automatic processes that keep you alive, and even enable your brain to learn and form memories. The latest research is revealing that glia are far more active and mysterious than we’d ever suspected. But their journey into the spotlight hasn’t been an easy one. Unlike neurons, which earned their starring roles in neuroscience as soon as researchers demonstrated what they did, neuroglia didn’t get much respect until more than a century after their discovery. The man who first noted the existence of glia – a French physician named Rene Dutrochet – didn’t even bother to give them a name when he noticed them in 1824; he just described them as “globules” that adhered between nerve fibers. In 1856, when the German anatomist Rudolf Virchow examined these “globules” in more detail, he figured they must be some sort of neural adhesive, which he named neuroglia – “nerve glue” in Greek. As publicity campaigns go, it wasn’t the most promising start. Even worse, as other biologists investigated neuroglia over the next few decades, they started jumping to a variety of conclusions – not all of them accurate. For example, since glia appeared not to have axons – the long connective fibers that carry signals from one neuron to the next – most researchers assumed these cells must act as structural support; essentially serving as a stage on which neurons, the real stars of the show, could play their roles. Some even wondered if glia might not be nerve cells at all, but specially adapted skin cells instead. Though a few scientists did argue that glia also seemed to be crucial for neuron nutrition and healing, it was rare for anyone even to speculate that these cells might actually be involved in neural communication. © 2013 Scientific American
By Tina Hesman Saey Cells that sheathe the brain’s electrical wires in a protective coating called myelin have a brief career, a new study of zebrafish finds. Specialized brain cells known as oligodendrocytes wrap myelin around axons, long fibers that carry electrical messages between nerve cells. After only five hours, the cells bow out of the myelin production business, researchers from the University of Edinburgh report in the June 24 Developmental Cell. Myelination is crucial for brain function, and when it breaks down, so does communication among brain cells. The new results could influence treatment strategies for diseases such as multiple sclerosis, which damages myelin. Instead of coaxing existing cells to replenish myelin, doctors may need to stimulate new oligodendrocyte growth in patients’ nervous systems. In the new study, researchers made time-lapse movies of neural development in zebrafish by tagging electricity-generating neurons and myelin-making oligodendrocytes in the fishes’ spinal cords with different colors. A protein called Fyn kinase stimulates oligodendrocytes to produce more myelin sheaths for the first five hours of the cells’ existence, but the protein can’t persuade the cells to postpone retirement, the researchers discovered. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2013
Helen Shen An international group of neuroscientists has sliced, imaged and analysed the brain of a 65-year-old woman to create the most detailed map yet of a human brain in its entirety (see video at bottom). The atlas, called ‘BigBrain’, shows the organization of neurons with microscopic precision, which could help to clarify or even redefine the structure of brain regions obtained from decades-old anatomical studies. “The quality of those maps is analogous to what cartographers of the Earth offered as their best versions back in the seventeenth century,” says David Van Essen, a neurobiologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, who was not involved in the study. He says that the new and improved set of anatomical guideposts could allow researchers to merge different types of data — such as gene expression, neuroanatomy and neural activity — more precisely onto specific regions of the brain. The brain is comprised of a heterogeneous network of neurons of different sizes and with shapes that vary from triangular to round, packed more or less tightly in different areas. BigBrain reveals variations in neuronal distribution in the layers of the cerebral cortex and across brain regions — differences that are thought to relate to distinct functional units. The atlas was compiled from 7,400 brain slices, each thinner than a human hair. Imaging the sections by microscope took a combined 1,000 hours and generated 1 trillion bytes of data. Supercomputers in Canada and Germany churned away for years reconstructing a three-dimensional volume from the images, and correcting for tears and wrinkles in individual sheets of tissue. © 2013 Nature Publishing Group
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18296 - Posted: 06.22.2013
Posted by Gary Marcus Aristotle thought that the function of the brain was to cool the blood. That seems ludicrous now; through neuroscience, we know more about the brain and how it works than ever before. But, over the past several years, enthusiasm has often outstripped the limits of what current science can really tell us, and the field has given rise to pop neuroscience, which attempts to explain practically everything about human behavior and culture through the brain and its functions. A backlash against pop neuroscience is now in full swing. The latest, and most cutting, critique yet is “Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience,” by Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld. The book, which slams dozens of inconclusive studies that have been spun into overblown and downright dubious fields, like neurolaw and neuromarketing, is a resounding call for skepticism of the most grandiose claims being made in the name of neuroscience. The authors describe it as “an exposé of mindless neuroscience: the oversimplification, interpretive license, and premature application of brain science in the legal, commercial, clinical, and philosophical domains." The book does a terrific job of explaining where and how savvy readers should be skeptical. Unfortunately, the book is also prone to being misread. This is partly because it focusses largely on neuroscience’s current limitations rather than on its progress. Some, like David Brooks in the New York Times, are using books like “Brainwashed” as an excuse to toss out neuroscience altogether. In Brooks’s view, Satel and Lilienfeld haven’t just exposed some bad neuroscience; they’ve gutted the entire field, leading to the radical conclusion that “the brain is not the mind.” Brooks goes so far as to suggest that “it is probably impossible to look at a map of brain activity and predict or even understand the emotions, reactions, hopes and desires of the mind,” and that “there appears to be no dispersed pattern of activation that we can look at and say, ‘That person is experiencing hatred.’ ” The core of his claim is the idea that, if activity is distributed throughout the brain, it cannot be understood or interpreted. © 2013 Condé Nast.
Maggie Fox, NBC News Researchers have figured out how to read your mind and tell whether you are feeling sad, angry or disgusted – all by looking at a brain scan. The experiment, using 10 acting students, showed people have remarkably similar brain activity when experiencing the same emotions. And a computer could predict how someone was feeling just by looking at the scan. The findings could be used to help treat patients with various mental health conditions, and even provide a hard, medical diagnosis for emotional disorders. It might also be used to get a window into the minds of people with developmental disorders such as autism, the researchers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh say. And one big, immediate application – testing advertisements. “What emotion do you want to evoke with your ad for the latest BMW?” said psychology professor Marcel Just, who helped oversee the study. "This research introduces a new method with potential to identify emotions without relying on people's ability to self-report," added Karim Kassam, assistant professor of social and decision sciences at CMU, who led the study. "It could be used to assess an individual's emotional response to almost any kind of stimulus, for example, a flag, a brand name or a political candidate."
By Roland Pease BBC News "I'm a neuroengineer, and one of my goals is building brains." Prof Steven Potter was disarmingly understated as he introduced himself. It's not that tissue engineering is unusual. Nor even that doing it with neural cells should be an issue. If heart cells or skin cells can be reprogrammed, why not neurons? But "building brains" had been my flip way of labelling an intriguing, indeed unnerving, branch of science: the neurophysiology of disembodied brain-cell cultures. It was not a term I was expecting a serious scientist to turn to, as I set out on making "Build Me a Brain" for BBC Radio 4's Frontiers Programme. Yet Steven Potter, professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the US, is insistent that words like "brain" and "mind" belong to his endeavour. "One of the ways in which I differ from a lot of neuroscientists is to believe that there's a spectrum of minds. There isn't some point where the mind suddenly is there," he said. "I think that there is a different amount of mind in different animals. And even in you, whether you've had your coffee or not, whether you're asleep or awake. "There are always different levels of how much mind you have. So you could carry it all the way down to the cultured network, there is still some sort of proto-mind in there." BBC © 2013
Alison Abbott A simple brain scan may offer a way to predict which people being treated for depression will respond to drugs, and which will respond to cognitive behavioural therapy. Neurologist Helen Mayberg from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and her colleagues have run the first systematic, well-controlled study to identify the first potential biomarker that distinguishes between treatment responses. The work is published in JAMA Psychiatry1. Psychiatrists are desperate for such biomarkers, because fewer than 40% of people with depression go into remission after initial treatment. “It could be fabulous,” says Steven Zalcman, chief of clinical neuroscience research at the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in Bethesda, Maryland. But he cautions that the brain-scan biomarker still has to be validated in further trials — a process that could take a couple of years. Mayberg and her colleagues selected 82 people with untreated depression, and measured glucose metabolism in their brains using positron emission tomography (PET) scans. They then randomly assigned the subjects to treatment groups. One group received the common antidepressant drug escitalopram oxalate (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or SSRI) for 12 weeks. The other group received 16 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy over the same period. © 2013 Nature Publishing Group
By Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld By now you’ve seen the pretty pictures: Color-drenched brain scans capturing Buddhist monks meditating, addicts craving cocaine, and college sophomores choosing Coke over Pepsi. The media—and even some neuroscientists, it seems—love to invoke the neural foundations of human behavior to explain everything from the Bernie Madoff financial fiasco to slavish devotion to our iPhones, the sexual indiscretions of politicians, conservatives’ dismissal of global warming, and even an obsession with self-tanning. Brains are big on campus, too. Take a map of any major university, and you can trace the march of neuroscience from research labs and medical centers into schools of law and business and departments of economics and philosophy. In recent years, neuroscience has merged with a host of other disciplines, spawning such new areas of study as neurolaw, neuroeconomics, neurophilosophy, neuromarketing, and neurofinance. Add to this the birth of neuroaesthetics, neurohistory, neuroliterature, neuromusicology, neuropolitics, and neurotheology. The brain has even wandered into such unlikely redoubts as English departments, where professors debate whether scanning subjects’ brains as they read passages from Jane Austen novels represents (a) a fertile inquiry into the power of literature or (b) a desperate attempt to inject novelty into a field that has exhausted its romance with psychoanalysis and postmodernism. Brains are in demand. Once the largely exclusive province of neuroscientists and neurologists, the brain has now entered the popular mainstream. As a newly minted cultural artifact, the brain is portrayed in paintings, sculptures, and tapestries and put on display in museums and galleries. © 2013 The Associated Press
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18250 - Posted: 06.10.2013
by David Robson NO CREVICE of the human experience is safe. Our deepest fears and desires, our pasts and our futures – all have been revealed, and all in the form of colourful images that look like lava bubbling under the skull. That, at least, is the popular conception of neuroscience – and it's worth big money. The USMovie Camera and the European Union are throwing billions of dollars at two new projects to map the human brain. Yet there is also a growing anxiety that many of neuroscience's findings don't stand up to scrutiny. It's not just sensational headlines reporting a "dark patch" in a psychopath's brain, there are now serious concerns that some of the methods themselves are flawed. The intrepid outsider needs expert guidance through this rocky terrain – and there's no better place to start than Brainwashed by Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld. Satel, a practising psychiatrist, and Lilienfeld, a clinical psychologist, are terrific sherpas. They are clear-sighted, considered and forgiving of the novice's ignorance. Their first stop is the fMRI scan – a staple of much brain research. Worryingly, the statistical techniques used to construct the images sometimes create a mirage of activity where none should exist. They have a telling example: one research team watching a salmon in an fMRI scanner as images of human faces were flashed at it saw its brain spark into life in certain shots – even though it was dead. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18222 - Posted: 06.04.2013
Rebecca J. Rosen What would you draw if somebody told you to draw a neuron? According to a new study, your sketch will depend on how much science education you have, but not in the way you'd expect. In the image above, the top row -- those detailed, labeled, neat renderings -- are the work of undergraduates. The bottom row, with their janky, sparse lines, come from the leaders of neuroscience research laboratories. That martini-glass looking thing over there on the left? That's a neuron, as drawn by a professional scientist. The middle row, some intermediary step, shows drawings from postdocs and graduate students. These drawings come from a new study published in the journal Science Education. Its authors, a team at King's College London led by education professor David Hay, found that nearly every single undergraduate student they studied (all but three of 126) faithfully reproduced textbook-style neurons, something akin to a canonical image from an 1899 book detailing the brain, which, the authors say, "has enjoyed an unusually pervasive influence." These drawings are "typified by a multipolar cell body and truncated, feathery dendritic processes around a clearly demarcated nucleus." Many of the drawings were annotated. For the "trainee scientists" -- those in PhD programs or completing a postdoc -- the neurons appeared more like what would be seen in a microscope image. Nuclei were excluded, the number of dendrites was reduced, and orientation was inconsistent -- all characterizing neurons as you would see them "in nature" not in the pages of a textbook. © 2013 by The Atlantic Monthly Group
Kerri Smith When Karl Deisseroth moved into his first lab in 2004, he found himself replacing a high-profile tenant: Nobel-prizewinning physicist Steven Chu. “His name was still on the door when I moved in,” says Deisseroth, a neuroscientist, of the basement space at Stanford University in California. The legacy has had its benefits. When chemistry student Feng Zhang dropped by looking for Chu, Deisseroth convinced him to stick around. “I don't think he knew who I was. But he got interested enough.” Deisseroth is now a major name in science himself. He is associated with two blockbuster techniques that allow researchers to show how intricate circuits in the brain create patterns of behaviour. The development of the methods, he says, came from a desire to understand mechanisms that give rise to psychiatric disease — and from the paucity of techniques to do so. “It was extremely clear that for fundamental advances in these domains I would have to spend time developing new tools,” says Deisseroth. His measured tone and laid-back demeanour belie the frenzy that his lab's techniques are generating in neuroscience. First came optogenetics1, which involves inserting light-sensitive proteins from algae into neurons, allowing researchers to switch the cells on and off with light. Deisseroth developed the method shortly after starting his lab, working with Zhang and Edward Boyden, a close collaborator at the time. Optogenetics has since been adopted by scientists around the world to explore everything from the functions of neuron subtypes to the circuits altered in depression or autism. Deisseroth has lost count of how many groups are using it. “We sent clones to thousands of laboratories,” he says. © 2013 Nature Publishing Group
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 18210 - Posted: 05.30.2013