71 ms·

Number of neurons doesn't explain superiority of the human brain

12 points by FiReaNG3L 18y ago

berryg 18y ago
One step closer to The Singularity? Maybe Ray Kurzweil is right with his predictions on the growth of technology and knowledge.
jackchristopher 18y ago
It's the quantity and quality of connections. We're more intelligent because we have more neurons and those neurons are better organized. Problem is, we don't know what "better organized" looks like.
niels_olson 18y ago
See, this is a major problem with fee-for-article access to journals. 10 journalists talk to the author (or does the author contact the journalists?), the journalists feel confident enough to write an article, there's a headline, some callouts, and then there's some metaheadline on another site with commentary virtually unrelated to the original details. For the sweet love of . . . did anyone not think that the synaptic structure of a human neuron might be a smidge more complex than that of a fruit fly? What's really sad is that most people here could understand the article perfectly well if they could only access it. If you want to be understood, publish in an open-access journal, like PLoS. Here's the [link to the paper](http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.2135.html;jsessionid=9FB91A9B67EDC7E9E01952D3603B3BEA http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.213...), and the abstract, below >Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity >Richard D Emes1,6, Andrew J Pocklington2,6, Christopher N G Anderson3,6, Alex Bayes3, Mark O Collins3, Catherine A Vickers4,5, Mike D R Croning3, Bilal R Malik2, Jyoti S Choudhary3, J Douglas Armstrong2 & Seth G N Grant3 >Abstract >Understanding the origins and evolution of synapses may provide insight into species diversity and the organization of the brain. Using comparative proteomics and genomics, we examined the evolution of the postsynaptic density (PSD) and membrane-associated guanylate kinase (MAGUK)-associated signaling complexes (MASCs) that underlie learning and memory. PSD and MASC orthologs found in yeast carry out basic cellular functions to regulate protein synthesis and structural plasticity. We observed marked changes in signaling complexity at the yeast-metazoan and invertebrate-vertebrate boundaries, with an expansion of key synaptic components, notably receptors, adhesion/cytoskeletal proteins and scaffold proteins. A proteomic comparison of Drosophila and mouse MASCs revealed species-specific adaptation with greater signaling complexity in mouse. Although synaptic components were conserved amongst diverse vertebrate species, mapping mRNA and protein expression in the mouse brain showed that vertebrate-specific components preferentially contributed to differences between brain regions. We propose that the evolution of synapse complexity around a core proto-synapse has contributed to invertebrate-vertebrate differences and to brain specialization.
- psyklic 18y ago
  Actually, the complexity of synaptic structure between species is not obvious (and hence, this is one reason the article made it into Nature Neuroscience, a highly regarded journal). Since the neuron is the fundamental unit of the nervous system in all species, it is a decent prediction that it is of the same "complexity" across all species. I do agree that articles should be published in open-access journals. However, most people here probably could not understand the article well (no offense to HN readers!). You really do need a very good biology background to even understand the experiments or to interpret the conclusions and their reliability. In addition, scientific articles are very dry, and if a journalist did not simplify it for you, you likely (1) would have missed the big ideas (which are often phrased in scientific jargon), and most importantly, (2) would have never read the article in the first place!
  - niels_olson 18y ago
    I suspect this is in Nature Neuroscience at least as much for it the technical challenge behind the research as anything to do with the big idea. I would also hesitate to make any claim as to whether or not the average HN reader can, today, understand the article. If I was going to identify any shortcoming in their ability, I would focus on our educational systems with their obscene focus on hyper-specialization ("I specialize in the left kidney . . . no, no, I don't do right kidneys.") It has become increasingly my experience, as someone with training in physics, military, medicine, and computers, that one of our major problems as a society is how uninvolved we are with anything, anything, outside our hyperfocused domains, or the spoonfed news we get from the MSM. I like the idea PG expressed about the nature of Boston: you feel like you really should read those <classics | groundbreaking studies | revolutionary opinions>.

12 points by FiReaNG3L 18y ago

One step closer to The Singularity? Maybe Ray Kurzweil is right with his predictions on the growth of technology and knowledge.

jackchristopher 18y ago

It's the quantity and quality of connections. We're more intelligent because we have more neurons and those neurons are better organized. Problem is, we don't know what "better organized" looks like.

niels_olson 18y ago

See, this is a major problem with fee-for-article access to journals. 10 journalists talk to the author (or does the author contact the journalists?), the journalists feel confident enough to write an article, there's a headline, some callouts, and then there's some metaheadline on another site with commentary virtually unrelated to the original details. For the sweet love of . . . did anyone not think that the synaptic structure of a human neuron might be a smidge more complex than that of a fruit fly? What's really sad is that most people here could understand the article perfectly well if they could only access it. If you want to be understood, publish in an open-access journal, like PLoS. Here's the [link to the paper](http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.2135.html;jsessionid=9FB91A9B67EDC7E9E01952D3603B3BEA http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn.213...), and the abstract, below >Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity >Richard D Emes1,6, Andrew J Pocklington2,6, Christopher N G Anderson3,6, Alex Bayes3, Mark O Collins3, Catherine A Vickers4,5, Mike D R Croning3, Bilal R Malik2, Jyoti S Choudhary3, J Douglas Armstrong2 & Seth G N Grant3 >Abstract >Understanding the origins and evolution of synapses may provide insight into species diversity and the organization of the brain. Using comparative proteomics and genomics, we examined the evolution of the postsynaptic density (PSD) and membrane-associated guanylate kinase (MAGUK)-associated signaling complexes (MASCs) that underlie learning and memory. PSD and MASC orthologs found in yeast carry out basic cellular functions to regulate protein synthesis and structural plasticity. We observed marked changes in signaling complexity at the yeast-metazoan and invertebrate-vertebrate boundaries, with an expansion of key synaptic components, notably receptors, adhesion/cytoskeletal proteins and scaffold proteins. A proteomic comparison of Drosophila and mouse MASCs revealed species-specific adaptation with greater signaling complexity in mouse. Although synaptic components were conserved amongst diverse vertebrate species, mapping mRNA and protein expression in the mouse brain showed that vertebrate-specific components preferentially contributed to differences between brain regions. We propose that the evolution of synapse complexity around a core proto-synapse has contributed to invertebrate-vertebrate differences and to brain specialization.

psyklic 18y ago
Actually, the complexity of synaptic structure between species is not obvious (and hence, this is one reason the article made it into Nature Neuroscience, a highly regarded journal). Since the neuron is the fundamental unit of the nervous system in all species, it is a decent prediction that it is of the same "complexity" across all species. I do agree that articles should be published in open-access journals. However, most people here probably could not understand the article well (no offense to HN readers!). You really do need a very good biology background to even understand the experiments or to interpret the conclusions and their reliability. In addition, scientific articles are very dry, and if a journalist did not simplify it for you, you likely (1) would have missed the big ideas (which are often phrased in scientific jargon), and most importantly, (2) would have never read the article in the first place!
- niels_olson 18y ago
  I suspect this is in Nature Neuroscience at least as much for it the technical challenge behind the research as anything to do with the big idea. I would also hesitate to make any claim as to whether or not the average HN reader can, today, understand the article. If I was going to identify any shortcoming in their ability, I would focus on our educational systems with their obscene focus on hyper-specialization ("I specialize in the left kidney . . . no, no, I don't do right kidneys.") It has become increasingly my experience, as someone with training in physics, military, medicine, and computers, that one of our major problems as a society is how uninvolved we are with anything, anything, outside our hyperfocused domains, or the spoonfed news we get from the MSM. I like the idea PG expressed about the nature of Boston: you feel like you really should read those <classics | groundbreaking studies | revolutionary opinions>.