Slashdot Mirror


Xeroxed Gene May Have Paved the Way For Large Human Brain

sciencehabit writes Last week, researchers expanded the size of the mouse brain by giving rodents a piece of human DNA. Now another team has topped that feat, pinpointing a human gene that not only grows the mouse brain but also gives it the distinctive folds found in primate brains. The work suggests that scientists are finally beginning to unravel some of the evolutionary steps that boosted the cognitive powers of our species. "This study represents a major milestone in our understanding of the developmental emergence of human uniqueness," says Victor Borrell Franco, a neurobiologist at the Institute of Neurosciences in Alicante, Spain, who was not involved with the work.

93 comments

  1. And please put flowers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On Algernons grave

    -Charlie

  2. Pinky and the Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... will finally take over the world.

    1. Re:Pinky and the Brain by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

      The limiting factor to human brain development has been the birth process

      If we apply this technique to animals that have larger birth canals, then we can create beings that have brains that are much larger than a humans

      All hail our future bovine overlords!

      You don't think that they will hold a grudge over the past few millennia do you?

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:Pinky and the Brain by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I guess everybody thought of Pinky & the Brain first..

    3. Re:Pinky and the Brain by roger10-4 · · Score: 1

      Yup...well for anyone old enough to remember them anyway :)

    4. Re:Pinky and the Brain by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole birth canal thing was the cause of humans being one of the only animals to give birth to a baby that is completely helpless for several years.

      Head gets too big for birth canal, must exit before gestation is complete.

      Brains continue to grow after birth. Newborns are 350 - 400g. Adults are 1300 to 1400g

    5. Re:Pinky and the Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the whole birth canal thing was the cause of humans being one of the only animals to give birth to a baby that is completely helpless for several years.

      Head gets too big for birth canal, must exit before gestation is complete.

      Brains continue to grow after birth. Newborns are 350 - 400g. Adults are 1300 to 1400g

      Also why human males find a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 so attractive in females.. root cause.

    6. Re:Pinky and the Brain by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I did some googling and found a competing theory that it is the restrictions of the mother's metabolism that demands that the baby be born at nine months. As compared to a chimpanzees development at birth (brain 1/2 the size at adulthood) the birth canal would only need to be 3 centimeters wider, a size that many women could accommodate

      link to study:
      http://blogs.scientificamerica...

      Taking that out of consideration, I still have to wonder at the novelty of increasing brain size and complexity in mammals. I think that mice would have severe limitations to the size of the brain that they could support. What mammals would be capable of supporting a brain of similar size to humans? Elephants can obviously support a very large brain, would this gene provide for a more human-like brain (increase in folds and complexity). They would face limitations in terms of supportability (kinda hard to keep that super-intelligent elephant in an urban environment.

      What would be an appropriate target for engineering an intelligent companion for humans? Dogs, cats or even horses? To be honest I selected cows because of the intelligent cow at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe offering to serve up portions of its own body for consumption. But they would also have a fairly docile pattern of behavior and we are pretty good at keeping them in line. Pigs may be another option (Animal Farm anybody).

      Suggestions?
       

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    7. Re:Pinky and the Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh even bigger, give me a Kelly Clarkson-style wide-hipped fat ass build, but without that pugnacious face.

    8. Re:Pinky and the Brain by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You need an animal with an upright neck. Humans have a huge muscle connected to the back of our skull. When we're standing, our neck is straight, with the weight supported by bones. Big brains are heavy, along with the extra bone in the skull to accommodate it.

    9. Re:Pinky and the Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must be really showing my age, then.... because my first thought was "Flowers for Algernon".

    10. Re:Pinky and the Brain by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The size of the brain is much less important than the brain to body mass ratio. Several animals have larger brains than humans (elephants being one), but they all have large bodies as well: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/b...

    11. Re:Pinky and the Brain by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      You don't think that they will hold a grudge over the past few millennia do you?

      Not unless your geneticist is stupid enough to give them hands along with the bigger brain.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    12. Re:Pinky and the Brain by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The size of the brain is much less important than the brain to body mass ratio. Several animals have larger brains than humans (elephants being one), but they all have large bodies as well:

      No, not really. What sets a human and elephant apart is not how smart an individual human is compared to an individual elephant, but the ability to communicate. Human language is Turing complete, art is basically communication for the sake of communication, and our perhaps most popular form of entertainment is making up stories and sharing them. That's the draw of this very website, and even now I'm using it to serialize a particular neural network - an idea - which you then can deserialize at your leisure.

      Almost all human beings who have ever lived are part of a single millenia-old, planet-spanning superorganism we call "culture". It doesn't matter how much gray matter an elephant might be lugging around, it can't even begin to compare to the ~ 100 billion kg total for human species, even with all the issues with coordinating that mass.

      And we're getting better at that coordination, too.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  3. Poor mice by jrumney · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's a bugger when the species you genetically engineered to solve complex mathematical equations starts experimenting on your brain.

  4. Unintended Consequences by Limekiller42 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Look, I'm all about the advancement of science and human knowledge, but this feels like the neurobiological version of "Hold my beer and watch this." I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time, science people, but when our new rodent masters (who I, of course, welcome) enslave the human race and bring about Planet of the Apes: Mickey Mouse Edition maybe you'll be a bit more careful next time.

    1. Re:Unintended Consequences by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At what point does it become unethical to consider and treat these as lab animals. How much brain complexity is enough? This probably isn't it, and our A.I. isn't good enough yet. But some year we're going to cross the line, and I'm sure that as a society we're going to be completely unaware and in denial when we do.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Unintended Consequences by amRadioHed · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure the mice will tell us when we've reached that point.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Unintended Consequences by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Does this unit have a soul?

    4. Re:Unintended Consequences by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      They wouldn't dare violate the intellectual property rights of Disney.

    5. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working late at night in the biology lab, feels a tap on the shoulder, glances across and notices an out-size rodent paw, screams hysterically, roll opening titles.

    6. Re:Unintended Consequences by dpilot · · Score: 1

      If that unit has been willing to work for the Good Magician Humphrey for a year to get the answer to that question, there can be only one answer.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    7. Re:Unintended Consequences by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Because they are strong enough to escape from their cages?

      I hope this was tongue in cheek and I'm an idiot.

      Because they aren't going to put this, along with strength genes, into the same species, at the same time, until they realize that they need to do this. Unless they are stupid, these will be gradual steps with no idiotic guards who all of a sudden decide to abandon their posts.

      This is very important for understanding how these genes interact, and actually work in an organism. We don't know how our genes work, not really. We are interested in why we have a folded brain with more surface area than most primate. We don't really know why you aren't sitting in a tree shitting on things and trying to figure out how to eat food safely.

      If the answer isn't "God did it", then I want to know how we got from single celled organisms to primates to people.

      I don't understand yet how my soul, if there is such a thing, has chosen this year and this body to inhabit. I don't yet know how I am a person, capable of replying to you.

      I would like to know why I am a person, and Chumpy the Chimp is limited to being a Chimpanzee. Not that chimps are stupid - but they are by far different. And I want to know why.

      If it starts with rats, I'm good with that.

    8. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've past that point, most animal research isn't helpful at all and each new study of the effectiveness of animal models continues to show that. Perhaps in this case sure it was helpful, but the majority of the time it doesn't contribute to our knowledge and understanding of homosapien medical kowledge.

    9. Re:Unintended Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't really a problem, we'll just need to make smarter cats to catch the smarter mice.

    10. Re:Unintended Consequences by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      There will not only be denial. There will be a well organized cover up at the highest levels of both corporations and government. Think the Ood situation with monkeys or dogs. However, we will not have to worry about this with cats, they will readily tell us to fuck off as soon as they know how.

  5. Pinky and The Brain will be real soon by cruff · · Score: 1

    Finally, "The Brain" will be a reality. The cartoon was prescient in its detail.

    1. Re:Pinky and The Brain will be real soon by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What about the rats of NIMH?

    2. Re: Pinky and The Brain will be real soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft. Those rats are common folk next to the Brain. Did the rats of NIMH ever build a robot human suit to blend in with society? No, they didn't. Did they ever hypnotize everyone on Earth? Nope.

  6. Are we calling this one Gamma? by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't care for this new UI. What I really don't care for though, is the increase in cross-site javascript. I've been using Slashdot since it had no client-side scripting, and it worked just fine without any javascript at all.

    I think that Slashdot/Dice is telling me that it's time to get off the computer and go out and live my life in the real world again. Perhaps I should listen.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by jrumney · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm calling it unreadable mess. (the bottom line of most posts, specifically).

    2. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Could you repeat that? The bottom line of your post merged with the "reply" and "share" links.

    3. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Maybe the Slashdot programmers could borrow some of this special protein and get some cortical folding going on.

      Either that or just read a book on CSS.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they would at least offer up some LSD to help us cope with this crap, but no.

      fuck gamma

      CAPTCHA: coffins (figures)

    5. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      That's a feature, not a bug, sir.

      If you can't explain yourself properly prior to the final line,

      you've been necessarily culled, then.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Oh, I thought someone just took a shit on my Slashdot today. So... It's going to stay that way, huh? Huh...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    7. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by gringer · · Score: 1

      Can I suggest SoylentNews?

      http://soylentnews.org/

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    8. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is never a bad idea to go out and live your life, but you can try this Slashdot-reinvented site (that actually respects its users) if you feel nostalgic:
      http://soylentnews.org/

    9. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Oh, I thought someone just took a shit on my Slashdot today.

      Today? Opening threads in new tabs/windows has been broken for a while now - the comment area is clipped to half of screen size, with a huge useless margin on the right.

      So... It's going to stay that way, huh?

      My guess is it's going to get worse. Someone has decided Beta is a matter of principle/authority/whatever for them, and is slowly sabotaging the real Slashdot to smoke out the users before it'll go down.

      I guess the lesson here is to never build community around a centralized resource, like a server, especially one owned by a company. I wonder if a forum or an imageboard could be implemented in a P2P fashion?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a forum or an imageboard could be implemented in a P2P fashion?

      I think teh usenets worked (or could be made to work) like that, but everyone old enough to know is probably dead or doolally.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      I set up UUCP to uunet once. Does that count? I think I still have a box of bangs around somewhere, I guess I could do it again.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    12. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      I can say that this is a good alternative some days. Some days have the same stories as slashdot but with a lag. Some times before. And other articles you will not see here.

    13. Re:Are we calling this one Gamma? by morkk · · Score: 1

      >and it worked just fine without any javascript at all
      it still does

  7. Nymh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone getting a "Secret of Nymh" vibe, here?

    1. Re:Nymh by narcc · · Score: 1

      Not really. The image I have is of an isolated village in the south seas fruitlessly building runways.

    2. Re:Nymh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this cargo cult science or just media hype?

      Now another team has topped that feat, pinpointing a human gene that not only grows the mouse brain but also gives it the distinctive folds found in primate brains.

      Nowhere in the paper could I find evidence for the first claim (that the brains were "grown", presumably meaning larger). They do show some interesting pictures of deformed embryonic mouse brains that look reminiscent of a sulcus-gyrus pattern, but it is only unilateral, and only partial even on that side.
      http://www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1975

      Also, slashdot seems to be self-destructing. Why change the code to this unworking version when it was working fine previously?

  8. Hey Devs!!! by itsenrique · · Score: 2

    The "Reply to This" button and the end of the comments are mashing together. So now beta is beta, but original is the new alpha?

    1. Re:Hey Devs!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd hazard a guess it's the signature section overflowing? I'm seeing none of these problems when logged out...

      FWIW, I'm running FF38 with noscript & requestpolicy set to allow only slashdot and fsdn.

  9. Planet of the Mice by HangingChad · · Score: 0

    And that kids is how mice first became intelligent and eventually took over the earth. Later the crew of an earth space ship from the past crashed on earth and were captured by the mice. When one tried to escape the mice netted him and he uttered the classic line, "Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty mice!"

    All the mice really wanted was the recipe for cheese.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Planet of the Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me who starts thinking of Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH? :)

      Apparently I can no longer log in because my password is too short. Bummer!

    2. Re:Planet of the Mice by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      lol, yeah, that's what I was thinking, they must be doing this research at NIMH!

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  10. I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new hyperintelligent mouse overlords.

  11. So now that we have Splinter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. are we going to try this on turtles next?

    1. Re:So now that we have Splinter by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      .. are we going to try this on turtles next?

      Slashdot programmers would be my vote. That way if they screw it up, nothing of any value would be lost.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. Xeroxed gene... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it was a gene responsible for a 600cc skull capacity which xeroxed became 800cc, so it grew bigger.

  13. Why are we still using Xerox? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Xeroxing has become a seriously anachronistic term. Believe it or not, the target audience does know words like "duplicate" or "copy", but younger generations exposure to the "Xerox" company is very limited. Let that word die please.

    1. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by rmdingler · · Score: 0

      Wipe the spilled kethup off with a kleenex and slashdot this link if you really want to know.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re: Why are we still using Xerox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, it's a brand not a word - and one that had limited exposure outside the USA. Brits would love nice have said 'photocopied' t r their lazy analyst gies

    3. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we know Xerox, they made the GUI, the mouse, the laser printer, ethernet, the Interpress pecursor to PostScript...........

      what has that to do with duplication though?

    4. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      what has that to do with duplication though?

      The people who made the GUI, the mouse, the laser printer, ethernet, the Interpress pecursor to PostScript........... Xeroxed the Xerox when they made it available to consumers.

    5. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by PPH · · Score: 2

      Why not mimeographed?

      Oh yeah. Intelligence gains would have been wiped out by sniffing the copies.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was never a word.

      I have recieved letters from their laywers before to not say Xerox when I mean photocopy as they had a tradmark on it.

    7. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody remembers "ditto" machines? I was in the sixth grade when our little school got a new machine, and anybody who said "ditto" got disciplined, even suspended for a day. It was a Xerox!

    8. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by robi5 · · Score: 1

      Youngsters can Google it.

    9. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      Even worse, when I saw the headline, I immediately started wondering when the hell Xerox got into genetics.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    10. Re:Why are we still using Xerox? by sudon't · · Score: 1

      What? Xerox is hip-hop slang. Where you been?

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  14. Xeroxed ? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    You mean photocopied or something having to do with a registered trademark? Why not simply "Copied".

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Xeroxed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My God; they created the Brain. Now where's Pinky. :)

    2. Re:Xeroxed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duplicated is the term your are searching for.

      And you would think Slashdot would be better at respecting intellectual property. Sheesh!

  15. Old News by Trihalo42 · · Score: 1

    The concept of "co-opting" genetic material is old news. It was a key argument in the Behe Dover trial over Irreducible Complexity, which itself devolved into straw man attacks and false claims made about research papers. http://www.discovery.org/a/142... This article also elaborates on the over simplification in defining "genetic material", and is a good start in understanding why genetic co-opting isn't a widely accepted theory.

    One key problem with any mutation, including attempts to explain new genetic material via "co-opting", is that sexually reproducing organisms are usually governed by hereditary traits. An example of this is seen in White Tigers, in that they must be inbred to continue the mutation. Any complex sexually reproducing organism that experiences a significant mutation that then breeds back with the general population that does not share that mutation will create hybrids and usually see the mutation "bred out" in a very few generations. This has led researchers to look for things like ways that several of a species could express suppressed genes simultaneously so that a sufficient population mutated simultaneously to eliminate the problems with "breeding out" a mutation and still avoid the problems from inbreeding. Thus regardless of where and how a mutation gets its genetic material, hereditary traits still present a barrier to that mutation continuing, especially with more extreme mutations.

    Actual genetic research is far beyond what is mentioned with the monkey brain, but it's still interesting that such a forced mutation could have such dramatic effects on a primate.

  16. "Flowers for Algernon" comes true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sf story was written by Daniel Keyes and became the source for the film "Charly".

    1. Re:"Flowers for Algernon" comes true? by userw014 · · Score: 1

      It's more like "Flowers for Algernon's Baby" - especially if you want to mix in more Elder Worlds horror than the original story's rather cerebral horror had.

  17. Re:I'm not saying aliens, but YEAH... ALIENS. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, it's really so hard to believe.

    Denisova hominins and Neandertals are distinct, and separate from Homo Erectus. As well as Homo Sapiens.

    You should stop talking about anything related to this in public, or risk extreme mocking.

    How did we get from nothing to lower primates? I would posit that this is where the magic happened. Primates to humans was largely a bit of chance, but it could be easily replicated given many many years from tool inventing primates.

  18. unexpected AI revolution? by swframe · · Score: 1

    Could we make other animals smarter before we create AI? Wow! that would be interesting. Imagine, "an ape just took your job".

  19. Nimh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very soon Jonathan will help the rats escape

  20. Re:I'm not saying aliens, but YEAH... ALIENS. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    Well you should be congratulated on your omniscience... I'm sure it was well earned.

  21. Let the Uplift begin! by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    Who are we going to do first, the chimps or the dolphins?

  22. Any of these researchers . . . by phrackthat · · Score: 1

    happen to be named Moreau?

  23. Re:I'm not saying aliens, but YEAH... ALIENS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Denisova hominins and Neandertals are distinct, and separate from Homo Erectus. As well as Homo Sapiens.

    THAT'S RACIST!

    Typical biolobigot.

  24. Re:I'm not saying aliens, but YEAH... ALIENS. by umghhh · · Score: 1

    What advanced intelligence?

  25. Forget Mice by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    It would be more interesting to do it with a larger animal with a bigger brain. Could you raise an elephant that was smarter than people?

    *Pauses, looks at Congress.*

    Never mind. Already there.

    1. Re:Forget Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively "Pauses, looks at Congress." Never mind, that won't work.

    2. Re:Forget Mice by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      I immediately thought of putting it into a whale, God knows what we could create then.. (insane Frankenstein cackle....)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  26. Coulda, not shoulda by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "Hey, we found Pandora's Box! Let's crack that sucker open!"

  27. kethup? by ionymous · · Score: 1

    I don't think anyone gets your point and what is kethup?

  28. Yes but... by Orleron · · Score: 1

    Can these enhancements enable the rat to learn the art of Ninjutsu?

  29. What's a Disney? by tepples · · Score: 1

    With Jerry, Fievel Mousekewitz, Elizabeth Brisby, and others, who needs Mickey Mouse?

  30. Interesting by Frontier+Owner · · Score: 1

    I will welcome our rodent overlords as our saviors from the robot overlords mentioned earlier this week.

  31. they finally found... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Secret of Nimh

  32. How soon can i expect my house guests to kill me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have mice in the walls, when can I expect them to start drawing designs upon my life?

  33. Brains ain't all there is to it by surd1618 · · Score: 1

    We can do a tremendous variety of things with our hands. Witness my typing for an example of the incredibly sophisticated and dextrous manipulation of my physical environment that I can effect with training and practice (especially considering how crappy the keyboard on my laptop is). I think that having a large terminal bundle of neurons is great, but you have to be able to do a lot of different things with it in order to learn to be a good learner.

    One thing I have spent some time pondering: creatures that have stepped up to higher cognitive plateaus live in more 3-dimensional environments. For instance, horses and cows basically live on surfaces that we can hike, whereas our ancestors lived in forest canopies. Dolphins live in several different levels of aquatic environments. Birds get full overhead space, but they are hampered by weight considerations.