'Master Gene' Makes Mouse Brain Look More Human 121
sciencehabit writes "Researchers have found a genetic mutation that causes mammalian neural tissue to expand and fold. When they mutated this gene in mice, the rodents developed brains that look more like ours (abstract). The discovery may help explain why humans evolved more elaborate brains than mice, and it could suggest ways to treat disorders such as autism and epilepsy that arise from abnormal neural development. The findings go against a common conception that 'dumber species will have different genes' for brain development than more intelligent species, Borrell says. He adds that the mechanism could help explain how New World monkeys, with their small, smooth brains, could have evolved from an ancestor with a bigger and more folded brain."
Disappointed. (Score:5, Funny)
I was somehow hoping this study was done at NIMH.
Re:Disappointed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disappointed. (Score:4, Interesting)
... conflating folding of the neural tissues with intelligence (rather than simply viewing it as a necessary precursor) sounds like the modern version of "men are more intelligent than women because their brains weigh more"
Very true !!!
Even amongst the humans, there are some who are very intelligent and then there are some who are very very stupid
As humans, both the very intelligent and the very very stupid have brains which fold --- which indicates that it's not the folding of the brain which gives rise of intelligence
Re: (Score:1)
All this speculation about Intelligenct has me wondering why they didn't test mice to see if there were any noticable changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Disappointed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the stupidest, most retarded or genetically impoverished human is orders of magnitude more sentient and "intelligent" than 99.999% of the other species on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but since more than 80% of the species on the planet are insects, technically he's probably still right...
Re: (Score:2)
However, they do believe they are when they post their made up statistics on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The bit I don't get is how "a genetic mutation that causes mammalian neural tissue to expand and fold" disproves "'dumber species will have different genes'? Since, well, it's a gene that's different.
It's a poorly worded sentence. The theory is that having a more intelligent and more complex brain requires significantly more complex genes to develop. A single gene making such a big change means that the genetic instructions for the "smart" and "dumb" variations are actually encoded into both genomes, and just require this "master gene" to activate them.
What makes this significant is that it may contradict our current theories of evolutionary history. Finding turned-off intelligence in "dumb" mammals sug
Re: (Score:3)
Erk... as someone who's at least cursorily looked at genes related to intelligence, let me tidy that up for you.
Human intelligence depends on a lot of very strange mutations that are unique to humans. We know with certainty that these mutations happened very recently because all of the other animals have very similar genes in the same area. For the functionality to have been lost, it would have had to disappear every time we split from another animal, and vanish in the exact same way. Before you know it you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The ways brains are organized, is that you have the actual processing (gray matter) on the outer 2.5 millimeters of the brain , while all the interconnections (white matter) are in the center of the brain. The wrinkling helps to boost short-distance connections. Look for pictures on "diffusion tensor imaging" to get pictures of these connections. There was some research carried out that indicated that indicated that the length of the connections and thickness of the gray matter influenced a persons abilitie
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect. :)
The bit I don't get is how "a genetic mutation that causes mammalian neural tissue to expand and fold" disproves "'dumber species will have different genes'? Since, well, it's a gene that's different. Also, conflating folding of the neural tissues with intelligence (rather than simply viewing it as a necessary precursor) sounds like the modern version of "men are more intelligent than women because their brains weigh more."
There's no data showing that it's even a necessary precursor or has anything to do with growing a smarter brain. Surely humans are born with a defect in that gene sometimes. Are they dumb?
Re: (Score:2)
Surely humans are born with a defect in that gene sometimes. Are they dumb?
Probably. Humans are born dumb for a whole bunch of reasons that will someday be easily fixed by science. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Surely humans are born with a defect in that gene sometimes. Are they dumb?
Probably. Humans are born dumb for a whole bunch of reasons that will someday be easily fixed by science. :(
I agree it's probable. But until you've done the research you don't *know* and it's important to therefore refrain from making too many assumptions that are not backed up by solid evidence.
This same point confused me momentarily, but.. (Score:2)
what they seem to have discovered is that one and the same gene in each species can mutate in a different way and cause two different brain types. That is a single gene mutates rather than two separate and unique genes. From TFA:
"Because the human cerebral cortex is generally considered "special," some scientists have hypothesized that the genes that govern its development of cortical folds and furrows are also unique to humans..."
Apparently these scientists hypothesized wrong.
I for one welcome our n
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of tissue growth and development is controlled by reaction-diffusion equations. In two dimensions you get patterns like infinite growing spots, spots, stripes, labyrinths, branching and spirals. In three dimensions you get infinite growing spheres, spots, spot-splitting, sheets, 3D tube labyrinths and scroll waves. In between infinite growing spheres and labyrinths you get wrinkled brains. You can model this using the Gray-Scott reaction diffusion system. Just a single change in ratios of a single che
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the realm of comparative anatomy, "intelligence" is thought to be increased with both mass (to body ratio) and by area [brynmawr.edu] of the neocortex [wikipedia.org], called lissencephaly [wikipedia.org]. The area of the neocortex is increased by brain folding,much like the surface area of the small bowel is increased by folds and vili and micro vili.
Genes are only one part of the development process - mutations in genes can add or delete function. Promoters in DNA control how those genes are expressed. A "good" gene can be present, but under exp
Re: (Score:1)
Does the body somehow hinder intelligence, or why is it assumed that a brain of the same mass is less intelligent if it sits in a larger body?
Re: (Score:2)
What are we going to do tonight Brain? (Score:1)
Same thing we do every night Pinky - try to take over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were already in charge? Or maybe I'm confusing them with dolphins.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but my master is a super-intelligent shade of the color blue.
Re: (Score:2)
i, for one, welcome our new rodent overlord.
FTFY.
Re:What are we going to do tonight Brain? (Score:4, Informative)
Knowledge is worth pursuing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Knowledge is worth pursuing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is, however scientists and reporters covering science research have no shortage of evidence demonstrating that if they don't provide concrete possible practical applications, the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military. Now if you want all research that is worth pursuing even if it doesn't lead to any practical applications receive that treatment, I'm pretty sure that there will be a large number of people willing to encourage the lambasting.
Re: (Score:1)
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Original post actually. I agree that knowledge that does not result in practical applications is worth research. As an example a moth's wings are covered in dust, which we don't find on butterflies. Why? What's the advantage that this provides a moth? Pilots know that dust on an aircraft wing has a significant impact on the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing, so there is the possibility that if we understand why a moth's wings are covered in dust, from an aerodynamic perspective, we may be able to deve
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt there is a reason why moths have dust on their wings. Your claim that knowing why might be useful in aircraft bigger than moths is wild, baseless speculation. You should be embarrassed to make such claims. But it might eventually be applied on insect-sized drones, or engineered insects that function as drones.
You apparently didn't get my point. The $56000 hammer is useful. It's a hammer, for Christ's sake. But paying $56000 for it is not a prudent way to spend money.
Likewise, it may be true
Re: (Score:2)
The question you posed was 'What makes you think they are wrong?' in response to the perception that the scientists are squandering research funding, in the example as a $56000 hammer being sold to the military is perceived. That question makes two presumptions, that perhaps the $56000 hammer is fundamentally not squandering, or that scientists are squandering. While the image I had of a $56000 hammer was the idea of a 16 oz claw hammer with a wood handle, I concede that for $56000 one could be considering
Re: (Score:2)
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
When you have a $56,000 hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re: (Score:2)
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
When you have a $56,000 hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yeah, but would you hit an ordinary nail with a $56000 hammer, or would you be looking for MIL-SPEC nails?
Re: (Score:2)
... the public perception is that scientists are getting research funding that they are squandering in the science equivalent of the $56,000 hammer sold to the military...
What makes you think they're wrong?
When you have a $56,000 hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yeah, but would you hit an ordinary nail with a $56000 hammer, or would you be looking for MIL-SPEC nails?
M56K nails FTW.
Re: Knowledge is worth pursuing (Score:1)
New World monkeys (Score:5, Funny)
No need for name calling. Treat our American friends with respect, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ZORT!
Fear the day ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... when the mice become self-aware.
Re: (Score:2)
... when the mice become self-aware.
I'm more scared of the day when the mice decide human meat is the best way to feed their species.
Re: (Score:2)
But humans make useful servants. What other species on the planet has managed to get another species a hundred times larger than themselves to bring them food, water and clean their homes for them?
Re: (Score:1)
But humans make useful servants. What other species on the planet has managed to get another species a hundred times larger than themselves to bring them food, water and clean their homes for them?
Go into the next pet shop, and you'll find a few.
Re: (Score:2)
... when the mice become self-aware.
Are you implying that they're not aware of themselves? I mean, they are obviously self aware. They just have less awareness than you. Try not to apply such terms in a chauvinistic manner. You're not that special, and the article supports this assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
... when the mice become self-aware.
Don't worry, the self-aware machines will help keep them under control.
Re: (Score:1)
Slow night (Score:1)
No "Flowers for Algeron" jokes yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Screw Charlie, I somehow accidentally got the first post yet apparently no one on ./ knows who Mrs. Frisbee is...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely a good read. I thought this right away. As rescuers sift through the rubble of what once was the research lab at Ludwig Maximilian University, they will uncover a journal with the sentence
"Algernon bit me today."
BrainNz!!! (Score:2)
Master Gene (Score:1)
So I take it scientists will create FEV next? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't you get the memo? Everything not fitting into the generally accepted definition of "normal" must be adjusted. Just wait 10 years and we'll have pills that make you smarter and maybe also pills that make you dumber but happier.
It's kinda like a mix between Harrison Bergeron and Brave New World...
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you get the memo? Everything not fitting into the generally accepted definition of "normal" must be adjusted. Just wait 10 years and we'll have pills that make you smarter and maybe also pills that make you dumber but happier.
It's kinda like a mix between Harrison Bergeron and Brave New World...
... and the ones your mother gives you don't do anything at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Very disappointed at the suggestion that autism is a "disorder".
I prefer to think of us as "alternatively saned".
Re: (Score:3)
Tell that to the kids and grown-ups hugging their blankets and succumbing to blind panic if lunch is five minutes late.
Re: (Score:2)
Autism is a disorder, yeah. Autism is definitely a disorder.
Prepare the maze. (Score:3)
I want to know if the folding increases their intelligence in any measurable way.
Re: (Score:2)
why not suggest that these mutant mice could make better human analogues, and help test treatments against brain disease?
What's next, crash test smarties?
Re: (Score:2)
here is a great use case... Human foetuses can be made with just this one gene flipped, so now babies can be made strictly for the purpose of organ donation. Since the brain would be the equivalent of a rodent's, there wouldn't be as much of a moral quandary.
What are we going to do today? (Score:3)
Why didn't they evolve a "better" brain? Easy (Score:2, Interesting)
It was not necessary.
Do you know what that thing between our ears "costs" our body? 20% of our total energy output is gobbled up by that thing! For 2% of the body mass. It better be effin' worth it!
Evolution will never allow something that's not strictly beneficial for survival and reproduction to prevail. A bigger brain needs more food, and in times of shortages, mice who would evolve a bigger brain would starve to death first. They don't win anything from higher intelligence, on the other hand.
We did. Mos
Re: (Score:1)
We're actually quite adept at running long distances at medium speeds; enough to run a deer or antilope to the ground. You can still see it in effect - a lot of ground-bound animals wouldn't manage a marathon (even at scale, however you want to scale it).
Re: (Score:1)
I cannot believe how stupid you are and it's painful to see you got "Score: 3" for it.
We're awesome at staying alive.
> If it wasn't for that brain that allowed us to develop
> tools to compensate our shortcomings.
Here's where you're so wrong: it's the other way around.
We used to be stronger but we figured out how to use tools and weapons, so we no longer need to be powerhouses ourselves.
We used to have fur/feathers to keep us warm, but that shit was no longer necessary when we started using animal fur
Re: (Score:1)
Uh huh, humans fly south for the winter every year in one shot. Yup, we've got endurance.
Hmmm, what planet are you posting from?
On this one, whenever a human needs to, he can actually fly damn near anywhere on the planet. And do it MUCH faster than any other animal that has ever lived.
Re:Why didn't they evolve a "better" brain? Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
... Mostly because we are, essentially speaking, a big evolutionary mistake.
BULLSHIT
We shouldn't exist anymore, honestly. We're terrible at staying alive.
Must be why there are 6+ BILLION humans spread over the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET
We can't run fast,
Wrong. There aren't all that many land animals that can cover long distances faster than humans.
we're not strong,
Wrong. Humans are stronger than wolves. A good-sized wolf can't THROW a human. Yet any decently-strong human can actually pick up and throw a full-grown wolf.
Of course, getting bit might be a problem, but that can be avoided.
we can't hide easily,
Wrong.
we have no fur or feathers to keep us warm (which means we have to burn a LOT of calories just to heat up the air around us in cold periods!)...
Irrelevant. Besides, neither do a lot of other large mammals.
We are, essentially, an evolutionary mistake. ...
Oxymoron at best. Meaningless babble at worst.
Evolution makes no "mistakes" - evolution is not directed, it has no goal.
Re: (Score:2)
20% of our total energy output is gobbled up by that thing!
So are fat folks just not using their brains enough . . . ?
I bet a lot of dieters would be delighted to hear that they can just think away their excess weight!
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming that those bigger brains led to more intelligent mice...
Re:Why didn't they evolve a "better" brain? Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually we are able to long distance run better than any other animal on earth, so a good hunting strategy for humans is to just run after animals until they are too tired. We have a greater amount of throwing strength than any other animal, which makes throwing rocks a valid hunting strategy. Our combined abilities to climb, swim, and sprint allow us to escape predators, most of which can only do one or two of those three. Even if we didn't have our brainpower, we would be successful mid-tier predators and scavengers in temperate climates. The Homo genetic line didn't one day become super-geniuses compared to other animals. The extra brain power only allowed us to go from a niche predator to an apex predator.
Re: (Score:2)
We did. Mostly because we are, essentially speaking, a big evolutionary mistake. We can't run fast, we're not strong, we can't hide easily, we have no fur or feathers to keep us warm (which means we have to burn a LOT of calories just to heat up the air around us in cold periods!
No, evolution does not make mistakes. Because evolution does not have a goal, does not have place to reach. When there is no right way for it to work, there can not be a wrong way. So by its very nature what evolution does can not be called right or wrong.
We have not been leopard food for at least the last 15 million years. What is the proof? None of the greater apes have a life span less than 30 years. Animals that can die for no fault of them, purely due to chance, no matter how good they are in whatever survival strategy they follow die young. Insects, mice, most prey animals. Even predators that use the high risk chases die of accidents. Their life span is limited. Species that have control of their life, slow down. Elephants, rhinoceri, hippopotamus, great aps, larger birds, they have no predators, that is how they live that long. So we have been at the top of the food chain for at least 15 million years, since the great ape lines branched off from rest of the primates. Did you know all living things have exactly the same length of life in terms of heart beats. All animals get about 2 billion heartbeats of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know all living things have exactly the same length of life in terms of heart beats. All animals get about 2 billion heartbeats of life.
Did you know that most factoids found on the Internet are wrong?
First, the factoid states 1 billion, not 2.
Second, it only holds remotely true when restricted to mammals.
Third, it's really not a very tight correlation between 1 billion beats and lifespan. [sjsu.edu] (scroll down a bit)
Fourth, the real correlation is between energy consumption and size.
Fifth, don't believe everything you read, and please, please, don't go spouting off everything you "know."
Great news! (Score:2)
So I will finally be able to buy mouse-brain humans for chores around the house?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like we used to be able to buy humans for chores around the house?
How long before mouse slavery is banned too?
I am abhorred. (Score:2)
Is marked as interesting. I'm sorry. If science is all laser beams are pew pew awesome, then fine. Whatever. I dig it. But this is actual science. You shou
Halfway There! (Score:2)
We found the "Master Gene", now all we need is the "Blaster Gene", and we'll finally be able to Run Barter Town! [youtube.com]
Misleading title (Score:2)
Well Bain, What are We Going to Do Tonight? (Score:2)
The most important question... (Score:2)
Did the mice with more brain sound like Orson Welles?
Re: (Score:2)