Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Identify Genes Activated During Learning And Memory

Posted by samzenpus on from the programmed-to-learn dept.

Researchers have theorized that certain genes must be activated to alter neuron activity inside the brain for learning and memory to take place. Finding and cataloging all the genes involved in learning is a formidable job. Scientists have now developed a computational approach to provide a rapid way to identify the likely members of this sought-after set of genes.

8 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Well.... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one am not surprised one bit it took them this many years considering the percentage of the human population who would be able to activate these genes regularly enough for them to be noticeable.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  2. Title is misleading by HateBreeder · · Score: 4, Informative

    They didn't identify the genes... they developed a method that might help in identifying these genes.

    --
    Sigs are for the weak.
  3. That's all fine and dandy... by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but I do hope no-one's looking forward to some sort of treatment which would drastically improve our memory, except maybe as a way to diminish symptoms of Alzheimer's or similar diseases.

    Much as I've always wanted a btter memory, studies conducted on the few people with truly eidetic memory showed that while they indeed had nearly perfect recollection, they also lacked the ability to discriminate between important and unimportant, though I still have my doubts as to what is the cause of which.

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
    1. Re:That's all fine and dandy... by rde · · Score: 4, Insightful

      studies conducted on the few people with truly eidetic memory showed that while they indeed had nearly perfect recollection, they also lacked the ability to discriminate between important and unimportant

      Irrespective of which causes which, it's unlikely that we're going to get an all-or-nothing scenario; it should be possible to improve memory and/or learning without going the whole hog. And TBH, I think the effect on Alzheimer's is likely to be limited; while IANAN, I imagine that it's not defective memory-activating genes that cause it as much as it is plaques 'n' stuff in the brain.
      Besides, have you looked at the internet lately? It seems that it's not eidetic memory that causes one to lose one's ability to distinguish between the important and the irrelevent; it's a modem.

    2. Re:That's all fine and dandy... by kevinadi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't consider the lack of ability to have photographic memory is necessarily bad though. I have a really bad memory, forget people's names within 5 minutes of meeting them, can't seem to remember street names and address, etc.

      This results in me getting really bad grades in memory-minded Asian school, since we're practically must memorize every single little thing in exams. However, this lack of ability also allows me to be very selective on what to memorize (e.g. I discovered rather quickly what is important and what is not) and allows me to develop other skills to compensate since I can't remember shit.

      I have to say that my lack of strong memory actually helped me a lot in later life. I learned at an early age, much unlike my peers, that if I understand something I don't need to memorize it. When everyone in my class tried very hard to memorize an A4 paper full of formulas, I can get away with memorizing three of them (in parts no less; I have problem memorizing a full formula so I have to separate them into logical parts) and derive the rest during exam. Now as far as I know I'm the only person in my high school class doing a PhD in Engineering. And I still can't remember shit.

      Now what was that article about again?

  4. Mixed feelings by Stripsurge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the one hand pinpointing all the genes involved in memory will undoubtedly help towards finding cures for the myriad of memory related disorders. Hooray!

    On the other hand I can't help but feel like unlocking the secrets of the mind will inevitably lead to the obsolescence of the everyday human. Granted, we're still a long way off from creating super smart people with the flick of a switch but one day it will happen. We've already seen the creation of super strong rats and the like (too lazy to find links). The brain is quite complex however and chances are some mad scientists somewhere are bound to created a more than a few scrambled melons before striking success.

    With each new discovery of the human genome we inch closer to fully understanding it. Once we have a complete grasp there are bound to be those who wish to further the species with "unnatural means". I would argue that we would only be speeding what would otherwise take thousands of years to take place (although there are certainly no guarantees we'll ever get much smarter as a whole). If survival of the fittest is the name of the game, and why would we not want further generations to be the best they can be? I suppose that can be answered by any number of sci-fi flicks, but Hollywood seems to paint a grim picture of genetically modified people as if they automatically become evil, or at least have the chance of snapping and turning evil at any moment. I see no reason we can't eventually re-create the likes of a Da Vinci. The only problem is that this type of work doesn't benefit an individual because he would be contributing to his own demise, the end of "natural" humans. If something that at least somewhat looks/acts/feels like a human makes it off this planet and onto other worlds I'd be happy knowing we lived on in at least some form.

    1. Re:Mixed feelings by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The process also totally ignores environmental factors and random chance.

      I'm not arguing that Da Vinci wasn't brilliant. But in today's society, would he even be noticed? We have more geniuses than ever, and as such, they are less noteworthy than ever. In Da Vinci's time, it was dangerous and difficult to be a genius. Being different was a lot harder back then, and if you should come up with an idea that was against the local religion, you would probably die. Now if you go against the grain, you merely get screamed at, screamed with, and get a lot of publicity. Not necessarily in that order.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  5. This is nothig new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to rain on anyone's parade here but this is pretty routine stuff. Basically, transcription factors bind to a gene's promoter region (the 'control' points) and control the production of protein from the gene. If you know that a certain transcription factor is involved in regulating some process (like learning) and you know some genes that the transcription factor regulates, you can look for sequence similarities (similar characters) in the promoter regions of those genes and then look for similar sequence in other genes to find other genes that the transcription factor _might_ control. Simplest algorithms that do this just use regular expressions while more sophisticated ones use a probabilistic model. But the results from these algorithms are not perfect (or close) because transcription factors really bind to specific 3D shapes and sequences of genetic characters are just a simple proxy for the real 3D shape (which we can't easily calculate and which depend on many other factors).

    Anyway, according to the article, the work was done by an undergraduate student and it probably was good research but nothing news worthy. These kinds of press releases don't really do anyone (not the author, the scientific community nor the reader) any justice.