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 Jenny Marder and Rebecca Jacobson Scientists at the NIH are mapping the activity of thousands of individual neurons inside the brain of a zebrafish as the animal hunts for food. In a small, windowless room that houses two powerful electron microscopes, a scientist is searching for the perfect fish brain. As the massive machines hum nearby, two gigantic fish eyes loom large, taking up most of a computer screen. The magnified perspective is misleading. The zebrafish is a larva, a newborn, just one week old, and barely six millimeters long. On the screen, it looks grumpy, like it’s frowning. Chris Harris, a postdoctoral researcher at the lab, is scrolling through the image. As he zooms in, the eyes become even larger and then disappear altogether, replaced by a glimpse of what lies within and behind them in its brain: a jungle of axons and dendrites and cell bodies — all the stuff that makes up individual neurons. He traces the outer edge of one of the cells with a gloved finger. “This layer is the nuclear membrane,” he says. “And just outside of that is the cell body membrane itself.” He points out the mitochondria, the individual axons, which send nerve impulses from one neuron to the next; the branching dendrites, which receive signals; and thick black dots that represent synaptic vesicles — pouches that hold neurotransmitters, or brain chemicals. © 1996 - 2014 MacNeil / Lehrer Productions.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 19792 - Posted: 07.04.2014
By Gary Stix Tony Zador: The human brain has 100 billion neurons, a mouse brain has maybe 100 million. What we’d really like to understand is how we go from a bunch of neurons to thought, feelings, behavior. We think that the key is to understand how the different neurons are connected to one another. So traditionally there have been a lot of techniques for studying connectivity but at a fairly crude level. We can, for instance, tell that a bunch of neurons here tend to be connected to a bunch of neurons there. There are also techniques for looking at how single neurons are connected but only for individual links between those neurons. What we would love to be able to do is to tell how every single neuron in the brain is connected to every single other neuron in the brain. So if you wanted to navigate through the United States, one of the most useful things you could have is a roadmap. It wouldn’t tell you everything about the United States, but it would be very hard to get around without a complete roadmap of the country. We need something like that for the brain. Zador: Traditionally the way people study connectivity is as a branch of microscopy. Typically what people do is they use one method or another to label a neuron and then they observe that neuron at some level of resolution. But the challenge that’s at the core of all the microscopy techniques is that neurons can extend long distances. That might be millimeters in a mouse brain or, in fact, in a giraffe brain, there are neurons that go all the way from the brain to its foot, which can be over 15 feet. Brain cells are connected with one another at structures called synapses, which are below the resolution of light microscopy. That means that if you really want to understand how one neuron is connected to another, you need to resolve the synapse, which requires electron microscopy. You have to take incredibly thin sections of brain and then image them. © 2014 Scientific American
Helen Shen As US science agencies firm up plans for a national ten-year neuroscience initiative, California is launching an ambitious project of its own. On 20 June, governor Jerry Brown signed into law a state budget that allocates US$2 million to establish the California Blueprint for Research to Advance Innovations in Neuroscience (Cal-BRAIN) project. Cal-BRAIN is the first state-wide programme to piggyback on the national Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative announced by US President Barack Obama in April 2013 (see Nature 503, 26–28; 2013). The national project is backed this year by $110 million in public funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). California researchers and lawmakers hope that the state’s relatively modest one-time outlay will pave the way for a larger multiyear endeavour that gives its scientists an edge in securing grants from the national initiative. “It’s a drop in the bucket, but it’s an important start,” says Zack Lynch, executive director of the Neurotechnology Industry Organization, an advocacy group in San Francisco, California. Cal-BRAIN sets itself apart from the national effort by explicitly seeking industry involvement. The proposal emphasizes the potential economic benefits of neuroscience research and calls for the formation of a programme to facilitate the translation of any discoveries into commercial applications. © 2014 Nature Publishing Group,
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 19768 - Posted: 06.25.2014
Carl Zimmer A novelist scrawling away in a notebook in seclusion may not seem to have much in common with an NBA player doing a reverse layup on a basketball court before a screaming crowd. But if you could peer inside their heads, you might see some striking similarities in how their brains were churning. That’s one of the implications of new research on the neuroscience of creative writing. For the first time, neuroscientists have used fMRI scanners to track the brain activity of both experienced and novice writers as they sat down — or, in this case, lay down — to turn out a piece of fiction. The researchers, led by Martin Lotze of the University of Greifswald in Germany, observed a broad network of regions in the brain working together as people produced their stories. But there were notable differences between the two groups of subjects. The inner workings of the professionally trained writers in the bunch, the scientists argue, showed some similarities to people who are skilled at other complex actions, like music or sports. The research is drawing strong reactions. Some experts praise it as an important advance in understanding writing and creativity, while others criticize the research as too crude to reveal anything meaningful about the mysteries of literature or inspiration. Dr. Lotze has long been intrigued by artistic expression. In previous studies, he has observed the brains of piano players and opera singers, using fMRI scanners to pinpoint regions that become unusually active in the brain. Needless to say, that can be challenging when a subject is singing an aria. Scanners are a lot like 19th-century cameras: They can take very sharp pictures, if their subject remains still. To get accurate data, Dr. Lotze has developed software that can take into account fluctuations caused by breathing or head movements. © 2014 The New York Times Company
by Helen Thomson KULLERVO HYNYNEN is preparing to cross neuroscience's final frontier. In July he will work with a team of doctors in the first attempt to open the blood-brain barrier in humans – the protective layer around blood vessels that shields our most precious organ against threats from the outside world. If successful, the method would be a huge step in the treatment of pernicious brain diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, by allowing drugs to pass into the brain. The blood-brain barrier (BBB) keeps toxins in the bloodstream away from the brain. It consists of a tightly packed layer of endothelial cells that wrap around every blood vessel throughout the brain. It prevents viruses, bacteria and any other toxins passing into the brain, while simultaneously ushering in vital molecules such as glucose via specialised transport mechanisms. The downside of this is that the BBB also completely blocks the vast majority of drugs. Exceptions include some classes of fat and lipid-soluble chemicals, but these aren't much help as such drugs penetrate every cell in the body – resulting in major side effects. "Opening the barrier is really of huge importance. It is probably the major limitation for innovative drug development for neurosciences," says Bart De Strooper, co-director of the Leuven Institute for Neuroscience and Disease in Belgium. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Link ID: 19748 - Posted: 06.19.2014
By Michelle Roberts Health editor, BBC News online Scientists say they have devised a helmet that can quickly determine whether a patient has had a stroke. It could speed diagnosis and treatment of stroke to boost chances of recovery, the scientists say. The wearable cap bounces microwaves off the brain to determine whether there has been a bleed or clot deep inside. The Swedish scientists who made the device plan to give it to ambulance crews to test after successful results in early studies with 45 patients. When a person has a stroke, doctors must work quickly to limit any brain damage. If it takes more than four hours to get to hospital and start treatment, parts of their brain tissue may already be dying. But to give the best treatment, doctors first need to find out if the stroke is caused by a leaky blood vessel or one blocked by a clot. A computerised tomography (CT) scan will show this, but it can take some time to organise one for a patient, even if they have been admitted as an emergency to a hospital that has one of these scanners. Any delay in this "golden hour" of treatment opportunity could hamper recovery. To speed up the process, researchers in Sweden, from Chalmers University of Technology, Sahlgrenska Academy and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, have come up with a mobile device that could be used on the way to hospital. The helmet uses microwave signals - the same as the ones emitted by microwave ovens and mobile phones but much weaker - to build a picture of what is going on throughout the brain. BBC © 2014
In a new study, scientists at the National Institutes of Health took a molecular-level journey into microtubules, the hollow cylinders inside brain cells that act as skeletons and internal highways. They watched how a protein called tubulin acetyltransferase (TAT) labels the inside of microtubules. The results, published in Cell, answer long-standing questions about how TAT tagging works and offer clues as to why it is important for brain health. Microtubules are constantly tagged by proteins in the cell to designate them for specialized functions, in the same way that roads are labeled for fast or slow traffic or for maintenance. TAT coats specific locations inside the microtubules with a chemical called an acetyl group. How the various labels are added to the cellular microtubule network remains a mystery. Recent findings suggested that problems with tagging microtubules may lead to some forms of cancer and nervous system disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, and have been linked to a rare blinding disorder and Joubert Syndrome, an uncommon brain development disorder. “This is the first time anyone has been able to peer inside microtubules and catch TAT in action,” said Antonina Roll-Mecak, Ph.D., an investigator at the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), Bethesda, Maryland, and the leader of the study. Microtubules are found in all of the body’s cells. They are assembled like building blocks, using a protein called tubulin. Microtubules are constructed first by aligning tubulin building blocks into long strings. Then the strings align themselves side by side to form a sheet. Eventually the sheet grows wide enough that it closes up into a cylinder. TAT then bonds an acetyl group to alpha tubulin, a subunit of the tubulin protein.
Link ID: 19729 - Posted: 06.14.2014
By JAMES GORMAN The National Institutes of Health set an ambitious $4.5 billion price tag on its part of President Obama’s Brain Initiative on Thursday, stamping it as an effort on the scale of the Human Genome Project. The goals of the Brain Initiative were clearly grand when Mr. Obama announced it a year ago — nothing less than developing and applying new technology to crack the toughest unsolved puzzles of how the brains of humans and animals function. The hope is to lay a foundation for future advances in the medical treatment of brain disorders. But the initiative began with $110 million budgeted for 2014, shared by three major entities: the National Science Foundation; the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and the N.I.H., which has a $40 million share. By calling for such a major commitment, to be spread over 12 years, the institutes answered concerns among neuroscientists about the initial level of funding. “This is a realistic amount of money,” said Dr. Eric R. Kandel, director of the Kavli Institute for Brain Science at Columbia University, who, like some other neuroscientists, had been skeptical of what could be accomplished with the funding committed when the initiative was announced about a year ago. Gerald Rubin, the executive director of the Janelia Farm Research Campus in Virginia, also found that this budget request allayed some of his concerns, but not all. “I am much more concerned about convincing Congress to fund the Brain Initiative at this level,” he said. © 2014 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 19697 - Posted: 06.06.2014
Sarah C. P. Williams This, in all its molecular complexity, is what the bulging end of a single neuron looks like. A whopping 300,000 proteins come together to form the structure, which is less than a micrometer wide, hundreds of times smaller than a grain of sand. This particular synapse is from a rat brain. It’s where chemical signals called neurotransmitters are released into the space between neurons to pass messages from cell to cell. To create a 3D molecular model of the structure, researchers first isolated the synapses of rat neurons and turned to classic biochemistry to identify and quantify the molecules present at every stage of the neurotransmitter release cycle. Then, they used microscopy to pinpoint the location of each protein. Some proteins—like the red patches of SNAP25 visible in the video at 0:14—aid in the release of vesicles, tiny spheres full of neurotransmitters. Others—like the green, purple, and red rods at 0:45—help the synapse maintain its overall structure. Different proteins surround vesicles when they’re inside the synapse—the circles scattered throughout the structure at 0:56—than when the vesicles are forming at the edge of the synapse—as shown at 2:08. Researchers can use the model, described online today in Science, to better understand how neurons function and what goes wrong in brain disorders. (Video credit: Wilhelm et al. 2014, Science) © 2014 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 19678 - Posted: 05.31.2014
Elizabeth Norton Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent. "This is the first study to look at the way dads' brains change with child care experience," says Kevin Pelphrey, a neuroscientist at Yale University who was not involved with the study. "What we thought of as a purely maternal circuit can also be turned on just by being a parent—which is neat, given the way our culture is changing with respect to shared responsibility and marriage equality." The findings come from an investigation of two types of households in Israel: traditional families consisting of a biological mother and father, in which the mother assumed most of the caregiving duties, though the fathers were very involved; and homosexual male couples, one of whom was the biological father, who'd had the child with the help of surrogate mothers. The two-father couples had taken the babies home shortly after birth and shared caregiving responsibilities equally. All participants in the study were first-time parents. Researchers led by Ruth Feldman, a psychologist and neuroscientist at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, visited with the families in their homes, videotaping each parent with the child and then the parents and children alone. The team, which included collaborators at the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center in Israel, also took saliva samples from all parents before and after the videotaped sessions to measure oxytocin—a hormone that's released at times of intimacy and affection and is widely considered the "trust hormone.” Within a week of the home visit, the participants underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging scanning to determine how their brains reacted to the videotapes of themselves with their infants. © 2014 American Association for the Advancement of Science
By JAMES GORMAN H. Sebastian Seung is a prophet of the connectome, the wiring diagram of the brain. In a popular book, debates and public talks he has argued that in that wiring lies each person’s identity. By wiring, Dr. Seung means the connections from one brain cell to another, seen at the level of the electron microscope. For a human, that would be 85 billion brain cells, with up to 10,000 connections for each one. The amount of information in the three-dimensional representation of the whole connectome at that level of detail would equal a zettabyte, a term only recently invented when the amount of digital data accumulating in the world required new words. It equals about a trillion gigabytes, or as one calculation framed it, 75 billion 16-gigabyte iPads. He is also a realist. When he speaks publicly, he tells his audiences, “I am my connectome.” But he can be brutally frank about the limitations of neuroscience. “We’ve failed to answer simple questions,” he said. “People want to know, ‘What is consciousness?’ And they think that neuroscience is up to understanding that. They want us to figure out schizophrenia and we can’t even figure out why this neuron responds to one direction and not the other.” This mix of intoxicating ideas, and the profound difficulties of testing them, not only defines Dr. Seung’s career but the current state of neuroscience itself. He is one of the stars of the field, and yet his latest achievement, in a paper published this month, is not one that will set the world on fire. He and his M.I.T. colleagues have proposed an explanation of how a nerve cell in the mouse retina — the starburst amacrine cell — detects the direction of motion. If he’s right, this is significant work. But it may not be what the public expects, and what they have been led to expect, from the current push to study the brain. © 2014 The New York Times Company
By JAMES GORMAN Crowd-sourced science has exploded in recent years. Foldit enlists users to help solve scientific puzzles such as how proteins are put together. Zooniverse hosts dozens of projects, including searching for planets and identifying images of animals caught on automatic cameras. Eyewire, which came out of H. Sebastian Seung’s lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about a year and a half ago, is neuroscience’s entry into the field. The EyeWirers, as the players are called, have scored their first scientific success, contributing to a paper in the May 4 issue of Nature by Dr. Seung and his M.I.T. colleagues that offers a solution to a longstanding problem in how motion is detected. Anyone can sign up online, learn to use the software and start working on what Amy Robinson, the creative director of Eyewire, calls a “3-D coloring book.” The task is something like tracing one piece of yarn through an extremely tangled ball. More than 130,000 players in 145 countries, at last count, work on a cube that represents a bit of retinal tissue 4.5 microns on a side. The many branches of neurons are densely packed within. A micron is .00004 inches or, in Eyewire’s calculus, about one-tenth the width of a human hair. Some of the players spend upward of 40 hours a week on Eyewire. These cubes are created by an automated process in which electron microscopes make images of ultrathin slices of brain tissue. Computers then analyze and compile the data to create a three-dimensional representation of a cube of tissue with every neuron and connection visible. © 2014 The New York Times Company
Eliana Dockterman @edockterman A new study that could affect whether adoption agencies are willing to work with gay couples shows that after adopting, gay men's brain activity resembles that of both new moms and new dads Research has shown that a new mother’s brain activity changes after having a baby. Turns out, gay men’s pattern of brain activity also adapts to parenthood, and resembles that of both new moms and new dads, in findings published Monday. A study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sought to determine whether mothers’ brains became hyper-reactive to emotional cues, like hearing their child cry after birth, because of hormonal changes or parenting experience. Researchers videotaped 89 new moms and dads taking care of their infants at home. They then measured parents’ brain activity in an MRI while the parents watched videos in which their children were not featured, followed by the footage shot in their home with their kids. The 20 mothers in the study—all of whom were the primary caregivers—had heightened activity in the brain’s emotion-processing regions; the amygdala, a set of neurons that processes emotions, was five times more active than the baseline. The 21 heterosexual fathers had increased activity in their cognitive circuits, which helped them determine which of the baby’s body movements indicated the need for a new diaper and which ones signaled hunger. The 48 gay fathers’ brain waves, on the other hand, responded similarly to both the heterosexual mom and dad. Their emotional circuits were as active as mothers’, and their cognitive circuits were as active as the fathers’. Researchers also found that the more time a gay father spent with the baby, the greater a connection there was between the emotional and cognitive structures.
By Neuroskeptic Nothing that modern neuroscience can detect, anyway. This is the message of a provocative article by Pace University psychologist Terence Hines, just published in Brain and Cognition: Neuromythology of Einstein’s brain As Hines notes, the story of how Einstein’s brain was preserved is well known. When the physicist died in 1955, his wish was to be cremated, but the pathologist who performed the autopsy decided to save his brain for science. Einstein’s son Hans later gave his blessing to this fait accompli. Samples and photos of the brain were then made available to neuroscientists around the world, who hoped to discover the secret of the great man’s genius. Many have claimed to have found it. But Hines isn’t convinced. Some researchers, for instance, have used microscopy to examine Einstein’s brain tissue on a histological (cellular) level. Most famous amongst these studies is Diamond et al, who in 1985 reported that Einstein’s brain had a significantly higher proportion of glial cells than those of matched, normal control brains. However, Hines points out that this ‘finding’ may have been a textbook example of the multiple-comparisons problem: Diamond et al. (1985) reported four different t-tests, each comparing Einstein’s brain to the brains of the controls. Only one of the four tests performed was significant at the .05 level. Although only the results of the neuron to glial cell ratios were reported by Diamond et al. (1985), the paper makes it clear that at least six other dependent measures were examined: (1) number of neurons, (2) total number of glial cells, (3) number of astrocytes, (4) number of oligodendrocytes, (5) neuron to astrocyte ratio and (6) neuron to oligodendrocyte ratio. Thus a total of seven different dependent measures were examined in four different brain areas for a total of 28 comparisons… one p less than 0.05 result out of 28 is not surprising. Other histological studies followed from other researchers, but Hines says that they do not present a coherent picture of clear differences:
The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues today released its first set of recommendations for integrating ethics into neuroscience research in the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Last July, President Barack Obama charged the commission with identifying key ethical questions that may arise through the BRAIN Initiative and wider neuroscience research. The report is “a dream come true,” says Judy Illes, a neuroethicist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, who was a guest presenter to the commission. Brain research raises unique ethical issues because it “strikes at the very core of who we are,” said political scientist and philosopher Amy Gutmann of the University of Pennsylvania, who chairs the commission, in a call with reporters yesterday. Specific areas of concern identified in the report include questions of brain privacy raised by advances in neuroimaging research; whether research participants and patients with dementia can give informed consent to participate in experimental trials; and research into cognitive enhancement, which raises “issues of distributive justice and fairness,” Gutmann says. Parsing hope from hype is key to ethical neuroscience research and its application, Gutmann notes. Citing the troubled ethical history of psychosurgery in the United States, in which more than 40,000 people were lobotomized based on shaky evidence that the procedure could treat psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia and depression, Gutmann cautions that a similar ethical derailment is possible in contemporary neuroscience research. A misstep with invasive experimental treatments such as deep brain stimulation surgery would not only be tragic for patients, but have “devastating consequences” for scientific progress, she says. © 2014 American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Melissa Hogenboom Science reporter, BBC Radio Science Neuroscience is a fast growing and popular field, but despite advances, when an area of the brain 'lights up" it does not tell us as much as we'd like about the inner workings of the mind. Many of us have seen the pictures and read the stories. A beautiful picture of the brain where an area is highlighted and found to be fundamental for processes like fear, disgust or impaired social ability. There are so many stories it can be easy to be swayed into thinking that much more of the brain's mystery has been solved than is the case. The technology is impressive but one of the most popular scanning methods - functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) actually measures regional regional changes of blood flow to areas of the brain, not our neurons directly. Researchers use it when they want to understand what part of the brain is involved in a particular task. They can place a person in a brain scanner and see which areas become active. The areas that light up are then inferred to be important for that task, but the resulting images and phrase "lighting up the brain" can lead to over interpretation. Neuroscientist Molly Crocket from University College London explains that while fMRI is extremely useful, we are still very far from being able to read an individual's mind from a scan. "There's a misconception that's still rather common that you can look at someone's brain imaging data and be able to read off what they're thinking and feeling. This is certainly not the case," Dr Crocket told the BBC's Inside Science programme. 19th Century brain "A study will have been done which tells us something about the brain, but what [the public] really want to do is make the leap and understand the mind." She cites an article with the headline, "You love your iPhone, literally". In this case a team saw an area previously associated with love - the insula - was active when participants watched videos of a ringing iPhone. BBC © 2014
By Gabriella Rosen Kellerman By 1664, the year he published his most famous book of neuroanatomy, Cerebri Anatome, Dr. Thomas Willis was already renowned in Britain for saving lives. Fourteen years earlier, the corpse of executed murderer Anne Green had been delivered to Willis and some of his colleagues for autopsy. Upon opening the coffin—the story goes—the doctors heard a gasp. Ms. Green, they discovered, had been hanged but not executed. Thanks to the resuscitation efforts of Willis and his colleagues, Green survived, and was given a stay of execution. She died fifteen years later. The episode supposedly drew jealousy from Willis’s contemporaries, who could have had no idea just how many lives Willis’s work would one day save. Among the important discoveries included in Cerebri Anatome, considered the founding text of neurology, is the Circle of Willis, a map of the interconnecting arteries at the base of the brain. Such circular connections among arteries are called anastomoses. They enable blood to reach vital tissue along multiple routes so that when one is blocked, the blood has an alternative outlet. The Circle of Willis is perhaps most important because of its implications for stroke. Stroke, which is the third leading cause of death in this country, occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted. This can occur when an artery gets blocked with plaque or a clot (called an ischemic stroke) or when at artery bursts (called hemorrhagic stroke). Many of these problems, particularly the latter kind of stroke, occur in the Circle of Willis. © 2014 Scientific American
Link ID: 19564 - Posted: 05.03.2014
By Greg Miller As a journalist who writes about neuroscience, I’ve gotten a lot of super enthusiastic press releases touting a new breakthrough in using brain scans to read people’s minds. They usually come from a major university or a prestigious journal. They make it sound like a brave new future has suddenly arrived, a future in which brain scans advance the cause of truth and justice and help doctors communicate with patients whose minds are still active despite their paralyzed bodies. Amazing, right? Drop everything and write a story! Well, not so fast. Whenever I read these papers and talk to the scientists, I end up feeling conflicted. What they’ve done–so far, anyway–really doesn’t live up to what most people have in mind when they think about mind reading. Then again, the stuff they actually can do is pretty amazing. And they’re getting better at it, little by little. In pop culture, mind reading usually looks something like this: Somebody wears a goofy-looking cap with lots of wires and blinking lights while guys in white lab coats huddle around a monitor in another room to watch the movie that’s playing out in the person’s head, complete with cringe-inducing internal monologue. We are not there yet. “We can decode mental states to a degree,” said John-Dylan Haynes, a cognitive neuroscientist at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. “But we are far from a universal mind reading machine. For that you would need to be able to (a) take an arbitrary person, (b) decode arbitrary mental states and (c) do so without long calibration.” © 2014 Condé Nast.
By JAMES GORMAN SAN DIEGO — Dr. Karl Deisseroth is having a very early breakfast before the day gets going at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. Thirty thousand people who study the brain are here at the Convention Center, a small city’s worth of badge-wearing, networking, lecture-attending scientists. For Dr. Deisseroth, though, this crowd is a bit like the gang at Cheers — everybody knows his name. He is a Stanford psychiatrist and a neuroscientist, and one of the people most responsible for the development of optogenetics, a technique that allows researchers to turn brain cells on and off with a combination of genetic manipulation and pulses of light. He is also one of the developers of a new way to turn brains transparent, though he was away when some new twists on the technique were presented by his lab a day or two earlier. “I had to fly home to take care of the kids,” he explained. He went home to Palo Alto to be with his four children, while his wife, Michelle Monje, a neurologist at Stanford, flew to the conference for a presentation from her lab. Now she was home and, here he was, back at the conference, looking a bit weary, eating eggs, sunny side up, and talking about the development of new technologies in science. A year ago, President Obama announced an initiative to invest in new research to map brain activity, allocating $100 million for the first year. The money is a drop in the bucket compared with the $4.5 billion the National Institutes of Health spends annually on neuroscience, but it is intended to push the development of new techniques to investigate the brain and map its pathways, starting with the brains of small creatures like flies. Cori Bargmann of Rockefeller University, who is a leader of a committee at the National Institutes of Health setting priorities for its piece of the brain initiative, said optogenetics was a great example of how technology could foster scientific progress. © 2014 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 19520 - Posted: 04.22.2014
By JAMES GORMAN As the Brain Initiative announced by President Obama a year ago continues to set priorities and gear up for what researchers hope will be a decade-long program to understand how the brain works, two projects independent of that effort reached milestones in their brain mapping work. Both projects, one public and one private, are examples of the widespread effort in neuroscience to create databases and maps of brain structure and function that can serve as a foundation for research. While the Obama initiative is concentrating on the development of new tools, that research will build on and use the data being acquired in projects like these. One group of 80 researchers, working as part of a consortium of institutions funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, reported that it had mapped the genetic activity of the human fetal brain. Among other initial findings, the map, the first installment of an atlas of the developing human brain called BrainSpan, confirmed the significance of areas thought to be important in the development of autism. A group of 33 researchers, all but one at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, announced an atlas of the mouse brain showing the connections among 295 different regions. Ed Lein, an investigator at Allen, was the senior author on the fetal brain paper. He said the research required making sections only 20 microns thick, up to 3,500 for each of four brains, two from fetuses at 15 weeks of development and two from about 21 weeks. The researchers measured the activity of 20,000 genes in 300 different brain structures. One interesting finding, Dr. Lein said, was that “95 percent of the genome was used,” meaning almost all of the genes were active during brain development, significantly more than in adult brains. The team also found many differences from the mouse brain, underscoring the findings that, despite the many similarities in all mammalian brains, only so much can be extrapolated to humans from other animals. © 2014 The New York Times Company