First a little background: As a simple description, methylation is a switch mechanism for DNA. Chemically, methylation of DNA takes place when a methyl group (a molecule of carbon and hydrogen, CH₃) is added to either cytosine or adenine (two of the bases of DNA). The addition of a methyl group disables (turns off) the corresponding gene, that is, the gene is no longer available to guide the production of protein. Removing the methyl group, demethylation, reverses the process (turns it on). Methylation or demethylation is used within the genome to set up a pattern of active and inactive genes so that, among other things, cells become specialized. For example, a particular methylation pattern directs a cell to become a heart muscle. That pattern in then passed on (inherited) through subsequent cell divisions. The overall process is called epigenetic regulation and is one of if not the principle means of determining cell development, as in a stem cell that becomes a heart cell and stays that way through the life of an organism. It is also used to modify cell functioning in response to environmental conditions. As a rule, changes in epigenetic regulation are not inheritable through the egg or sperm (intergenerational), although the number of known exceptions is growing. The discovery and study of methylation and epigenetics is not much more than thirty years old with the bulk of the research starting in the 1990’s – it is a very young field.

Recent research in methylation continues to expand its reach. Neuroscientists primarily at the Johns Hopkins Brain Science Institute and led by Hongiun Song have been working on the role of methylation in the genome of brain cells (neurons). In previous research they had discovered that the brain cells of mice could be induced to faster growth through electric shock, which was decreasing the amount of DNA methylation. In the recent work, published in Nature Neuroscience [28 August 2011, paywalled, Neuronal activity modifies the DNA methylation landscape in the adult brain] they sequenced the genome of electrically stimulated and non-stimulated mouse brains and compared the results. They found that stimulated brains decreased or increased methylation (cytosine methylation) by 1.4%.

More significantly, they discovered that demethylation was taking place in neurons that were non-dividing on a large scale. This was surprising, as existing scientific consensus held that non-dividing cells were basically passive and the methylation would change very little, if at all. In other words, methylation in brain cells was almost exclusively for directing cell development.

“It was mind-boggling to see that so many methylation sites — thousands of sites — had changed in status as a result of brain activity,” Song says. “We used to think that the brain’s epigenetic DNA methylation landscape was as stable as mountains and more recently realized that maybe it was a bit more subject to change, perhaps like trees occasionally bent in a storm. But now we show it is most of all like a river that reacts to storms of activity by moving and changing fast.”

[Source: Johns Hopkins Medical Center]

Dr. Song’s expression is rather poetic, but the impact of this finding could be far-reaching. It implies that the methylation process in neurons has a function other than cell development (via cell division). What that function is and how exactly it works remains high on the research agenda. Since it is known that in other circumstances methylation is a means of responding to the environment, it is possible that a similar process is at work in the brain. I should mention that other studies have already forwarded the idea that methylation, or some form of epigenetics, may be the basis of memory.

I’m going to try something unusually, um, structural for this review. It’s in keeping with a structural notion of dream levels used in Inception and it may help shed some light on the divide that separates the idolaters from the unimpressed. By the divide I mean the many fans of Inception who are convinced that it is one of the greatest movies of all time (8.9 IMDb rating and top 250 movie), versus those who, in various words to the effect, think it is crap. There seem to be very few in the middle. Maybe that’s the interesting point.

Level 1: Confusion

Here’s something that tells you quite a bit: Even the people who really like Inception say that you need to see it more than once. How many movies are so confusing that you almost have to see it twice to understand what’s going on – and a lot of people think that’s okay? Inception seems to divide the audience like the Red Sea parting for Moses: “…way too long and confusing. Not that there was any depth or cleverness to the film. Too much repetition. Just explosions and dumb dialog, with shallow characters and a convoluted storyline.” OR “This is storytelling at the level of high art, a magnificent blend of visual wonders with a smart story about working out memories through our dreams.”

To say the least Inception is not a quiet little film. It’s a big, musically pulsing, action-filled, high-tension Hollywood movie about implanting an idea in somebody’s head through their dreams. So it’s kind of a movie about dreams. Movies about dreams usually go phantasmagorical, this one is no exception. The reality inverting ‘dream sequences,’ at least ¾ of the movie, have spectacular special effects such as a chunk of Paris folding on top of itself. Movies about dreams also like to play head games with the audience, especially with time and reality. Inception is no exception. Most such movies, even well crafted ones like Inception, walk the line between dramatic effect and confusion. Inception crosses and re-crosses the (time)line deliberately. Given it’s pace and complexity I’d be surprised if most of the audience didn’t get confused at least some of the time.

Level 2: Comprehension

Whether on the first, lucky you, second or fifth time you see Inception and you get it, it does enhance your appreciation. Essentially there are two pieces of the story. The big piece is the inception job, where Dom Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, is the leader of a group that normally does industrial espionage by picking important information out of dreams. In something of a twist, Cobb is asked by a Japanese energy company tycoon (Ken Watanabe) not to steal information but implant information in a competitor’s mind – an inception. This is considered impossible, except that Cobb knows it can be done. That’s where the story connects to the second piece: Cobb and his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) experimented with going through three levels of dreams and falling into the limbo level of dreaming. That’s a dream within a dream within a dream and after that there’s limbo nothingness. It’s a good setup for a mind bender movie. It’s almost as good a setup as director Christopher Nolan’s previous opus in this vein, Memento. In that movie the protagonist is trying to solve the murder of his wife but he has almost no short-term memory, so basically Memento’s story unfolds backwards in time as he tries to piece together his memories.

In a way the Cobb character is also piecing together what happened at the death of his wife, an apparent suicide. Was it part of their dream or are the pieces from his memory? The American authorities believe he killed her, so Cobb is a fugitive in France. There is nothing he wants more than to return to the U.S. and be reunited with his children. (And why aren’t his children brought to France? Plot requirement, of course.) He takes the inception job because if successful the Japanese tycoon can arrange his legal return to the U.S. These two pieces of the story intertwine, the father-wife-children story providing the emotional dynamic and the inception job providing the action plot.

Level 3: Consequence

Here’s the thing, when you get the story and the pieces more or less fit together, what have you got? Now we are at level three. Having come through confusion and comprehension, the movie should provide some take-home. This might be analysis such as ‘a nifty study of dreams’, or ‘I really symphathized with DiCaprio’s character’ or even ‘it was a helluva ride.’ If you go with the ‘it’s just a movie’ cliche then a thrill is enough, Inception’s got thrills.

Other than that, the way Nolan constructs his movies, the payoff from Inception was always going to be the result of a balancing act – balancing interest with confusion. For most of the movie the balance is action playing off puzzles. Nolan loves to set up conundrums and explode them, sometimes literally. There’s often a frustrated, emotionally drained smart guy who’s trying to get his own psyche together while dealing with the needs and necessities of those around him. In Memento this is obvious and the main character’s dilemma is the focus of the movie – the only focus. Inception has two things to focus on, Cobb’s dilemma with his family and the job at hand. The dilemma with his wife is emotional, explosive, and difficult to comprehend – it is for him too. The job at hand is a designer dream, which turns out to be a variation of heist movie, full of sound and fury. The two parts don’t play well enough together, they’re out of balance – and often so are the music, pacing and even the visuals.

In switching back and forth between scenes of car-chase shoot-em-up mayhem and relatively complex psychology, people not only get confused, but they can stop caring about what’s going on. For me it happened somewhere around the two-hour mark while the movie was in the tour-de-force “attack the alpine fortress in the snow segment.” (This was supposedly concocted by the architect of the dream, played by Ellen Page, but is clearly a bald-faced homage to James Bond movies by Mr. Nolan.) It was at that cartoonish point that I didn’t care what happened. In the layer upon layer of dream-state and the constant rush of the action, I lost the emotional attachment to the story or the characters. If this was all Cobb’s dream, start to finish as the movie foolishly tries to imply, then I didn’t really care that he found some closure with his family. If this was really some sort of clever-heist movie, then I didn’t really care whether the mission worked or not. In retrospect, why should I care whether one energy monopoly wins out over another energy monopoly?

Is this everybody’s reaction? Obviously not. Inception will have its fans. I do suspect Inception won’t have legs – it isn’t a movie for the ages. It is neither conceptually brilliant like Memento, nor does it provide endearing or enduring characters (which means no sequels). It is visually interesting but not the visuals are not sustaining. Do you learn much from Inception? Certainly nothing about dreams.

I suppose question of learning something only matters if Inception had claims on being a movie with great depth. Obviously there a many good movies that aren’t illuminating about anything in particular; mostly they’re entertaining. In the movie business that’s kind of a limbo, but a good limbo. Inception is probably one of those movies.

Science Spoilers

Let’s start with an interesting but not terribly important question: Is Inception a science fiction flick? Quick answer: No it’s not. I’d argue that first and foremost it’s an action-heist movie, secondarily it is science fantasy. The story, about implanting an idea in someone’s mind as part of corporate sabotage, provides the action-heist movie, but it depends on the ability of characters to enter into a shared dream world. That’s the science part. How many people who have seen the movie for the first time can describe what exactly is done to put the characters into the dream-state? It’s drugs and a controlled connection not unlike the ancient communicator system used in Stargate Universe, but who cares…the mechanics are a throw-away. The movie maker isn’t interested in the scientific machinery and only peripherally interested in the psychology of dreams. Dream psychology, such as it is in the movie, is there to move the plot forward. In short, the science in Inception is minimal, not crucial to the story and acts as a springboard for the extended dream fantasy that is the bulk of the movie. I’m not being derogatory; it’s just that in my opinion Inception is science fantasy, not science fiction. As I alluded to above, for many people this distinction is unimportant.

So what about the science? It’s all about dreams, which are as slippery a subject as there is in science. Try reading Freud. As of the time when the movie was made (2010), scientists have more than a century of research on dreams behind them and agree on almost none of it. The parts of the brain that are active during dreams have been partially mapped. There are many studies about the possible purposes for dreams and twice that many theories. There are libraries of anecdotal information and dream interpretation stretching back into antiquity. In short, in terms of neuroscience it is not yet known what dreams are, especially at the cellular level, and it is not fully known what functions they perform. Consequently, for Inception to base a story on entering other people’s dreams and manipulating them is pure fiction, or as I’d say, fantasy. It’s a wonderful milieu for the storyteller because just about anything goes, visually, emotionally or otherwise. It’s not now and won’t be science for a long while.

Neuroscientists have known for some time that nerve endings near the critical junction points between nerve cells, the synapses, are filled with tiny sacs (like microscopic bubbles) containing chemicals called neurotransmitters. Neurons work by sending a pulse of electro-chemical energy along the length of the cell (through nerve fibers of the axons) until it reaches a synapse – a gap between the end of one neuron and the beginning of another. For the pulse to cross this gap it must trigger the release of neurotransmitters stored in vesicles (those tiny sacs) that cross the gap. Depending on how much and what kinds of neurotransmitters are released, they may fire triggers in the next neuron and so the nerve impulse passes on, from toe to brain in some cases. This is not, as you can tell, the convenient metaphor of an electrical charge travelling down a wire. We are not ‘wired,’ actually; it’s more like tenuously and conditionally connected, something like your computer connected to Wi-Fi.

This is not the most efficient or high speed way of transmitting an electrical signal (parenthetically, some types of neuron actually do act like an efficient ‘wire’); so why are most neurons set up this way? That’s one of the big questions in neuroscience. I mention this because it’s also been clear for some time that the function of the synaptic vesicles and their neurotransmitters is to ‘filter’ or ‘weigh’ the meaning or importance of a pulse coming across the synapse.

An important sub-question for neuroscientists concerns the nature of the vesicles. There are two kinds, identified many years ago because some of them sit around the very end of neuron and release the neurotransmitters when an impulse arrives, and others (the majority) are pooled-up nearby. As far as scientists could tell, the two kinds of vesicles were identical, except that one was in a ‘resting’ pool and the others were in the ‘recycling’ pool. How do these two pools of vesicles interact? What roles are played? The chemistry involved, especially in the composition of the neurotransmitters and their function in transferring electrical information from one neuron to another, is very complicated. It all added up to a lot of unknowns, a mystery, if you like.

A research team at the University of California San Francisco (USA) under Robert Edwards and publishing in the journal Neuron [11 August 2011, paywalled, v-SNARE Composition Distinguishes Synaptic Vesicle Pools] has developed the first evidence that the two vesicles are not the same, that they are defined by having different proteins on their surface.

By using very high powered microscopes and ‘labeling’ specific proteins with glowing markers derived from jellyfish, they were able to determine that the vesicles in the resting pool have a high concentration of the protein VAMP7 on their surface. From this they were able to learn that the particular protein is involved in regulating the release of neurotransmitters, and that there are connections between the behavior of ‘resting’ and ‘recycling’ vesicles.

At this point, it would seem the appropriate reaction might be, “That’s it?” Yes, for the moment. Like a lot of important advances in science, this is one of those seemingly little keystone pieces. It’s a starting point, a piece of knowledge, upon which a much greater edifice will eventually be built. Now that scientists know that the two kinds of vesicles are different in their protein composition and that the protein(s) involved are significant in the release of neurotransmitters, it opens up a vast new area of research. It also points in the direction of that big question in neuroscience, how (and eventually why) do synapses use vesicles to transmit information? It appears that proteins may be at the basis of answering that question. This is consistent with the discoveries across the board in biochemistry that the role of proteins is far more crucial and complex than previously thought. Thus the burgeoning of the new field of proteomics, the study of proteins.

I was debating whether this story has real ‘impact’ or is it just another one of those many steps in the process of scientific discovery. Well, it is that, but I think that in this case science is dealing with one of the most fundamental biological mechanisms, finally dealing with it at the molecular level. In there, we can suspect, might be some answers to how the brain (all the trillions of connections and billions of neurons) turns into ‘mind’ and ‘consciousness.’ This discovery is a long way and maybe decades from that, but just learning that vesicles are different in their use of proteins points neuroscience in a new and potentially important direction.

Philosophers and scientists have been pondering, poking and experimenting around the concept and physical reality of memory for centuries. Saying, “We’re a lot closer now,” is probably true, but like determining the properties of an elephant, what we know is probably bits and pieces. That said, as new pieces are added, something that resembles a working hypothetical framework is emerging, and science thrives on frameworks that answer questions and lead to testable results.

A new piece, and potentially a very important new piece, has been added by John Lisman and Zalman Kekst at the Lisman Laboratory at Brandeis University (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) and published in the Journal of Neuroscience [22 June 2011, paywalled, Role of the CaMKII/NMDA Receptor Complex in the Maintenance of Synaptic Strength]. In short, memory appears to be related to proteins that exist in the unique space between neurons called the synapse.

The finding, which I’ll describe in more detail in a moment, is not in itself surprising. Neuroscientists have suspected for some time that proteins are involved in the memory process. It figures, because proteins are the ‘building blocks of biology.’ They are the most flexible, adaptable, and varied of all the biochemical materials. Why wouldn’t memory, which probably requires trillions of coding possibilities, make use of proteins? Well, it hasn’t always been seen that way. Among the many models of how memory works, it was held for some time that neurons themselves, brain cells, were created, shaped and connected to create memory. That model is in the process of being superseded by findings that indicate memory is more likely created in the synapses between neurons.

I won’t get deeply into neuroscience 101, but perhaps you’re familiar with the image of a neuron with a long ‘tail,’ an axon lead out from it and coming up next to – but not touching – another axon from another neuron. The tiny space between axons is the synapse, where the most complicated of all electrobiochemistry takes place, and where a bioelectrical impulse (action potential) ‘jumps,’ is transmitted, between axons. Only the jumping isn’t always the point. Neuroscientific research is reaching consensus that the ‘strength’ of the synapse (to oversimplify, its electrical charge) in some brain neurons is an element of memory encoding. Increase the strength and a bit of information is stored. Decrease the strength below a certain point, and that information is erased.

I’m using some terminology used around computer memory because it’s familiar. Care should be taken not to assume that what happens in the synapses is like computer memory. At this point, it’s only an analogy.

This model or hypothesis about memory has been the focus of research for about two decades, and as I mentioned it has been suspected that proteins are involved. Now, according to the new findings, a specific protein complex has been identified. It has an unmemorable (!) name: Calcium/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II or CaMKII, combined with a NMDAR glutamate receptor to make the CaMKII/NMDAR complex, which doesn’t help much. This complex determines how strong a synapse is, which translates into how well memory is stored.

A long chain of research, which revealed the presence of this complex in the material of the synapse, led to specific experiments based on simple logic: More of the complex in the synapse would indicate a strong memory; less of the complex (or none) would indicate a weak or non-existent memory. It’s kind of the put-in-take-out sort of experiment that can lead to solid results – which in this case is what happened. Using neuron segments from the hippocampus of rats, an area long associated with memory formation, the scientists used a chemical to dissolve the complex, which should lead to a loss of memory. It did. Learning, the reverse process, has been shown to increase the quantity of the complex.

So, according to this research, at least one protein complex has been associated with memory formation and loss. No one is claiming this is the end of the story. Obviously, there are other proteins or other chemicals involved, some of which may not be fully discovered. Perhaps there are aspects to the proteins, such as the configuration (folding) that play a role. The precise mechanism of protein formation in this complex is not fully understood. Of course, the 64 trillion connection question, is what, if any, is the code used for memory? The upshot is that neuroscientists don’t know yet how memory works, BUT isolating at least one of the crucial protein complexes involved is a big step in the (hopefully) right direction.

The impact of this finding is not that the elephant in the room has been fully revealed, but that the blind men attempting to figure out what it is have another piece of fact to help shape the next round of exploration. If you’ve ever seen a room full of excited blind men dancing around an elephant…neither have I, but I presume that neuroscientists celebrate their own prospects.

What is not yet available is a reliable, non-destructive, relatively safe way to connect with the elements, for example axons, of specific neurons. As an example of a new approach to connecting neurons and as an example of a new use of nanotechnology, researchers at the University of Wisconsin (Madison, USA) led by Justin Williams found that by seeding areas outside of variously shaped nanotubes (in this case extremely fine tubes of layered silicon and germanium) with mouse neurons, the neurons produced axons (filaments) that would readily enter and grow through the tubes. The results published in ACS Nano, 2 March 2011, [Semiconductor Nanomembrane Tubes: Three-Dimensional Confinement for Controlled Neurite Outgrowth] represent the kind of ‘could-be really important’ research, very early in its development, or it could be very little at all.

The important thing with this approach is the ability to take a semiconductor material (the silicon/germanium tube) and non-destructively mate it with neural material. The tubes are coated with amino acids that attract neuron growth, which according to the experiment works quite well. At the moment, using the tubes makes it possible to control the growth pattern of selected neurons so that experiments with connection shapes and designs can be performed. This may be useful, but the real potential is down the road.

The portions of the neuron growing down the tubes are the transmitter elements. The next step in the research is to put nanoscale sensors and transmitters into the tube material so that electrical and electro-chemical activity in the neurons can be detected. This would allow neuroscientists to monitor the activity of individual neurons and at least some of their connections to other neurons. (A single neuron usually has thousands of such connections.)

Eventually – read: many years – it might be possible to use this technique to make a truly controlled and targeted interconnection between neurons and electronic implants (or other electronic devices). In a way it would be like putting conductive sleeves on electrical wires, so that the current can be measured, tapped, augmented or otherwise controlled. From this use of nanotechnology could follow a much better way to hook-up prosthetic devices or make brain implants. The engineering challenge, however, is great. At this point the researchers don’t even know if the neurons are sending signals through the axons in the tubes, much less whether a tissue of such nanotube connected neurons will function in any way like a normal group of neurons. Nevertheless, this is intriguing science and technology – the kind of stuff that provokes the imagination.

See also: World of Weird Things blog – Moving one inch close to real world wetware

Research by Marina Bedny and colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA) and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 28 February 2011 [Language processing in the occipital cortex of congenitally blind adults] has shown that in people born blind, part of the visual cortex is converted to language processing.

It’s important to understand that this does not mean language and speech can be produced without Broca’s or Wernicke’s areas, but it does mean that other parts of the brain previously thought dedicated to a specific function can be marshaled for other purposes. The implications are many and important. This discovery, born out by fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) of brain areas in people born without sight, implies that even very complex so-called higher level functions such as language, can be performed by ‘non-language-specialist’ regions of the brain.

In fact, it is part of a follow-up study by the research group to see if the additional brain cells acquired from the visual cortex may give blind people certain advantages in language processing. It’s a matter of common observation that people who have lost one of their senses tend to have one or more of the other senses strengthened. This was born out by research, for example from animal studies by Mriganka Sur (also at M.I.T.), where brain regions were surgically rewired early in life, and the brain cells eventually adapted to the new role. However, the Bedny study is the first to indicate the same thing can happen with more complex mental processes.

They found that was indeed the case — visual brain regions were sensitive to sentence structure and word meanings in the same way as classic language regions, Bedny says. “The idea that these brain regions could go from vision to language is just crazy,” she says. “It suggests that the intrinsic function of a brain area is constrained only loosely, and that experience can have really a big impact on the function of a piece of brain tissue.”

[Source: EurekAlert]

In short, this is another piece of evidence that the brain is more flexible than thought. The word is plastic, flexible. Under certain conditions, the brain can do extraordinary things by way of rerouting neuron circuits, changing or developing different neuron patterns, and coordinating previously unconnected regions. It’s almost ironic that the tool that has done the most to help neuroscientists isolate the functioning of brain regions, the fMRI, is now showing that the concept of dedicated brain regions needs something of a re-think.

“I firmly believe that understanding the origin and functionality of endogenous brain fields will lead to several revelations regarding information processing at the circuit level, which, in my opinion, is the level at which percepts and concepts arise,” Anastassiou says. “This, in turn, will lead us to address how biophysics gives rise to cognition in a mechanistic manner—and that, I think, is the holy grail of neuroscience.”

[Source: EurekAlert]

I could say something snarky about the use of language, but this is, after all, a scientist speaking. No, what ‘blows me away’ is the airy ease of making what amounts to this statement: Our study of endogenous brain fields will lead to unlocking the mysteries of mind and consciousness, finally providing the mechanistic explanation neuroscience has been looking for. Or, to put it even more succinctly: Now we can explain in scientific terms how humans think.

Mind you, this comes at the end of what looks like a perfectly routine press release titled, “Neurobiologists find that weak electrical fields in the brain help neurons fire together.” So naturally you’re not expecting the announcement of one of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of science.

Okay, now I’m being really snarky, mostly. It’s unfair. More importantly, there is a possibility they’re on to something.

The study is by a team at the California Institute of Technology (USA) led by neuroscientist Costas Anastassiou and published in the journal Nature Neuroscience February 1, 2011 [Ephaptic coupling of cortical neurons]. The work has two distinct starting points: One was the understanding that while it’s been known for a long time (decades) that the brain generates weak electrical fields in addition to the specific electrical activity of firing brain cells (neurons), these fields were considered epiphenomenon – superfluous side effects. The second point was that virtually nothing was known about these weak electrical fields because, in fact, they are usually too weak to measure and interpret at the level of individual neurons.

The question they decided to address was, “Can these weak fields (which we know exist) have any effect on neurons?” Experimentally, this was not easy. It’s difficult to measure such weak fields emanating from, or affecting, a relevant number of brain cells – the scale is measured in millionths of a meter (microns). The researchers used very small electrodes (microscale) in close proximity to a cluster of rat neurons and looked for what are called local field potentials, the electric field generated by neuron activity. This worked and they were able to measure the fields, even those as weak as one millivolt (one millionth of a volt). Their success in developing this experiment is perhaps the most technically novel aspect of the research.

What they found was surprising. Even very weak electrical fields, as weak as one millivolt per millimeter, could alter the firing of individual neurons. By this they mean that the energy of the external electrical field (endogenous brain fields) could have an effect on the coordination of neuron firing in multiple cells. It’s called spike field coherence. It’s known, for example, that in an epileptic fit, portions of the brain generate very strong electric fields; on the order of 100 millivolts per millimeter, which are associated with the violent seizures of epilepsy.

What this study showed is that even much weaker field energy, when directed at an appropriately responsive area of neurons creates what is called ephaptic coupling. This energy field “connection” could be another mode of coordination within the brain – one separate from the usual neuron-synapse channels.

“Could be” is the operative phrase. This research only sheds light on the possibility of communication via “endogenous brain fields.” It has not found the code book nor has it explained how these electrical fields, which by the definition of fields are ‘broadcast’ over a generalized area, can have purposeful effects on specific groups of neurons.

However, in a very wide view of recent biophysics, this study – perhaps – joins the research on the trail of how the brain seems to so rapidly coordinate diverse areas into what is called “thinking” (or consciousness, or intelligence, or whatever). Many neuroscientists believe that the relatively slow and almost infinitely intertwined activity of neurons and synapses doesn’t quite add up to the speed and efficiency of thought. They are looking at other possibilities, be it quantum effects or endogenous brain fields. It could be a very important direction for research, but it’s just starting.

Clean Transport – VW Hybrid achieves about 280 miles per gallon | There’s nothing like competitive pressure among engineers. Make a car that gets better mileage (sorry for the Americanism) than anybody else. It’s a wonderful competition for all concerned. In this case it is the wizards at Volkswagen (Germany) that developed a hybrid (electrical/internal combustion) vehicle that can achieve 100km per liter of fuel.
[The Engineer Blog, Hybrid concept car achieves record fuel economy]

Clean Transport – Split-cycle engine for 50% better fuel economy | The Scuderi Group, specialists in engine design, have announced a new angle on the split-cycle (4 cylinder, split into two pairs) engine that uses a compressor to capture engine heat-energy and achieve much greater fuel economy than similar engine designs.
[Popular Science, New Split-Cycle Engine Design Shown To Improve Fuel Economy by 50 Percent]

Neuroscience – The brain dumps data really fast | Here’s the punch line from the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self- Organization (Göttingen, Germany): “Due to the high deletion rate [one bit of data per neuron second], information about sensory input signals can only be maintained for a few spikes. These new findings indicate that the dynamics of the cerebral cortex are specifically tailored to the processing of brief snapshots of the outside world.”
[Max Planck Institute, Out of mind in a matter of seconds]

Neuroscience – The brain reconnects as it grows | Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute (USA) are attempting to map all of the neural connections in the animal brain have discovered that these connections reform (change their switching pattern, so to speak) as the brain develops with age. The picture of the connectome, as they call it, provided some important surprises: Neurons actively seek out partner neurons; the seeking, however, doesn’t go to the neuron but instead to the axonal boutons that already have connections; it is important for future studies to not only consider how neurons grow, but also how other neurons are eliminated during the process.
[EurekAlert, Scripps Research study shows map of brain connectivity changes during development]

Nanomedicine – Nanoparticles created by peptides and growth-factor speed healing | A combination of keratinocyte growth factor and elastin-like peptides were show to self-assemble (fuse) into a nanoparticle that can be used to treat deep-seated wounds more effectively and less expensively than using growth-factor alone.
[EurekAlert, Growth-factor-containing nanoparticles accelerate healing of chronic wounds]

Synthetic Biology – Growing human liver tissue for transplants | Researchers at the University Medical Center (Hamburg, Germany) have successfully grown human liver cells on a synthetic scaffolding (supporting structure) that can be used for replacement tissue in damaged or failing livers. The results are now undergoing confirmation.
[EurekAlert, Scientists grow human liver tissue to be used for transplantation]

For most people that would include cancer (in all its many forms) and heart disease (also in many forms). After these two, selection becomes a little more difficult: AIDS, malaria, cholera? Diabetes, influenza, lung diseases (many forms)? Dementia…dementia also comes in many forms, the most well-known being Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia is global, severe in its effects, and very difficult to treat, much less cure. But how prevalent is it?

A new study, intended to be the most comprehensive yet: The World Alzheimer Report 2010, was released September 21, 2010 by Alzheimer’s Disease International and authored by Anders Wimo (Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden) and Martin Prince (Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London, UK). The study focuses on the economic impact of Alzheimer’s and related diseases. (Technically, dementia is the broad category, with Alzheimer’s one of the many types of dementia).

While the figures are not new to health professionals, the standout statistics from the report are something of a ‘bang’ in terms of mass media (and intended to be so):

- The cost of dementia will exceed 1% of global GDP in 2010 – US$ 604 billion.
- The number of people with dementia will double by 2030, triple by 2050.
- The cost of treating dementia is rising, partly because of greater awareness and partly because of more sophisticated treatments

We – including many people in the under-developed parts of the world – are living longer. When humans live beyond seventy years, the chances increase for brain deterioration in some form of dementia. Statistically as populations of elderly enlarge, so does the incidence of dementia.

There is accumulating evidence that ‘modern lifestyle’ (bad diet, lack of exercise, stress, lack of sleep, abusive pharmacology) contributes to the occurrence of dementia.

In many parts of the world it is a rare extended family that does not have someone afflicted by dementia.

The pace of research on dementia has been increasing in the last decade, but the disease is elusive. For one thing, it’s beginning to look like even the mild symptoms of ‘aging forgetfulness’ are caused by the earliest appearance of dementia – which makes it much more widespread than first thought. While some apparent causes of dementia have been isolated – plaques in brain cells, certain genes (I’m leaving out lots of details) – the linkages are uncertain, meaning they haven’t been worked out at the chemical/molecular level.

Laboratories from academia to Big Pharma are busy looking for ways to treat the various forms of dementia, so far with limited success. However it is rare that a week goes by without some announcement relating to dementia. There may be a breakthrough at some point, but more likely various approaches and treatments will develop over time. Researchers may get lucky with this or that drug, but without an accurate understanding of what dementia is (at the molecular level within the neuron) and what factors are involved in its development, a true ‘cure’ is unlikely.

Dementia is an immense challenge, one not unique to the 21st century but perhaps a hallmark disease of our times. It is both a symptom and a result of our longer lives – a tradeoff of a sort – that affects millions of people and their families with usually devastating results. It is a major disease.

Over the years neurologists have learned that certain areas of the brain are associated with certain kinds of activity, for example monitoring the senses, regulating the body, and emotional response. It’s also known that most brain activity isn’t confined to these specific locales. When you see danger (a bear approaching) all kinds of responses are set in motion – instantly. Such responses involve nearly every part of the brain but are coordinated. That coordination, which is sophisticated in the details and obviously complex, baffles scientists.

By analogy the mystery of brain integration is a massive puzzle, a three-dimensional puzzle at that. One piece has just been identified: Researchers at the University of California Berkeley (USA) have found that the brain uses cortical rhythms, electrical oscillations operating at specific frequencies, to coordinate the work of many neurons in many different locations.

So yes, the brain’s got rhythm. The research, published in the September 20, 2010 online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) [Oscillatory phase coupling coordinates anatomically dispersed functional cell assemblies] started from the observations of Donald Hebb who first described the concept of the brain coordinating ad-hoc groups of neurons to perform various functions. Hebb called these groups cell assemblies and considered them the most important unit of brain function.

To gain insight on how neuron assemblies might work; the Berkeley team sifted through four years of data from testing a group of four macaque monkeys. Specifically they were looking for the timing of electrical activity (action potentials) that occurred across multiple areas of the brain. They found there were identifiable timings at specific frequencies, for example, cortical oscillations at 25-40 hertz (cycles per second) were associated with brain areas active in motor control.

In essence, the neurons would ‘tune in’ to a specific frequency and become part of a functional network, which could involve neurons operating in many different locations in the brain. This is how neuron cell assemblies form. In this schema, neurons physically next to each other could, in fact, be operating in completely unrelated cell assemblies.

“It is like the radio communication between emergency first responders at an earthquake,” Canolty [UC Berkeley postdoc] said. “You have many people spread out over a large area, and the police need to be able to talk to each other on the radio to coordinate their action without interfering with the firefighters, and the firefighters need to be able to communicate without disrupting the EMTs. So each group tunes into and uses a different radio frequency, providing each group with an independent channel of communication despite the fact that they are spatially spread out and overlapping.”

The authors noted that this local-to-global relationship in brain activity may prove useful for improving the performance of brain-machine interfaces, or lead to novel strategies for regulating dysfunctional brain networks through electrical stimulation. Treatment of movement disorders through deep brain stimulation, for example, usually targets a single area. This study suggests that gentler rhythmic stimulation in several areas at once may also prove effective, the authors said.

[Source: EurekAlert]

In some ways, this research begs more questions than it answers. How is it individual neurons recognize specific frequencies? Why those frequencies? How are the frequencies generated? What information, if any, is carried at those frequencies? How is the coordination achieved? The insight that the brain uses rhythms (frequencies) is an important first step – but only the first step – through a gateway to a much longer trail of research that will probably lead deep into the realm of molecular biology.