May I direct your attention this way? If you really want to make a case that GW Bush has been hurting American science, look where it really counts: follow the money. The Scientific Activist has the numbers, and it’s rather dramatic how research funding has dwindled over the years.
This week, my students are thinking about SIDS,
aging,
Christiane Nusslein-Volhard,
oncogenes,
hunger,
individuality,
worm movies,
obesity,
sunscreen, and whether to
divide or die. A fairly typical set of undergraduate concerns, right?
They’ve all also been reading chapters 3 and 4 of Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful, and their summaries are here: α,
β,
γ,
δ,
ε, and
ζ.
If you missed it, here’s Last week’s digest and a brief explanation of what it’s all about.
I’m a little surprised at the convergence of interest in this news report of a conserved mechanism of organizing the nervous system—I’ve gotten a half-dozen requests to explain what it all means. Is there a rising consciousness about evo-devo issues? What’s caused the sudden focus on this one paper?
It doesn’t really matter, I suppose. It’s an interesting observation about how both arthropods and vertebrates seem to partition regions along the dorso-ventral axis of the nervous system using exactly the same set of molecules, a remarkable degree of similarity that supports the idea of a common origin. Gradients of a molecule called Bmp may be the primitive mechanism for establishing dorso-ventral polarity in animals.
Both Proper Study of Mankind and Thoughts in a Haystack have summaries of this bizarre paper that was published in Science last week, showing a connection between a sense of cleanliness and ethical thought. I guess it’s not surprising that physical sensations impinge on unconscious decisions, but it is interesting in that it hooks into some cultural rituals. I’m not at all clear on what it means, though: should I skip out on taking a shower so I’ll feel more compelled to do good in thought and deed to compensate, or should I do pre-emptive washing so I won’t be hindered from skullduggery?
I’ve been tinkering with a lovely software tool, the 3D Virtual Embryo, which you can down download from ANISEED (Ascidian Network of In Situ Expression and Embryological Data). Yes, you: it’s free, it runs under Java, and you can get the source and versions compiled for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X. It contains a set of data on ascidian development—cell shapes, gene expression, proteins, etc., all rendered in 3 dimensions and color, and with the user able to interact with the data, spinning it around and highlighting and annotating. It’s beautiful!
Unfortunately, as I was experimenting with it, it locked up on me several times, so be prepared for some rough edges. I’m putting it on my list of optional labs for developmental biology—3-D visualization of morphological and molecular data is one of those tools that are going to be part of the future of embryology, after all—but it isn’t quite reliable enough for general student work. At least not in my hands, anyway. If one of my students were to work through the glitches and figure out how to avoid them, though, it could be a useful adjunct to instruction in chordate development.
If you want to play with it, I’ll give you a quick overview of what’s going on in the dataset. A paper by Munro et al. has used these kinds of data to summarize key events in the transformation of a spherical ball of cells into an elongate, swimming tadpole larva.
The latest issue of Science has a fascinating article on Exotic Earths—it contains the results of simulations of planet formation in systems like those that have been observed with giant planets close to their stars. The nifty observation is that such simulations spawn lots of planets that are in a habitable zone and that are very water-rich.
Dynamics of Cats has a better summary than I could give, and it leads in with this lovely illustration of an hypothetical alien organism on one of these hot water worlds.
The only thing cooler than a cephalopod has to be a tentacled alien cephalopodoid. There’s a high-res version of that image at Dynamics of Cats—and I’ve got a new desktop picture.
Since I saw this meme at Dr Crazy’s place, I thought I’d toss it up here for the commenters to make suggestions.
” If I were designing a Pharyngula Halloween costume, it would consist of…”
It’s actually relevant. I just put out a call at my university for volunteers for Cafe Scientifique, which we will be holding on the last Tuesday of each month…and the October calendar puts that on Halloween. I’m going to be trying to organize a panel session on “Mad Scientists and Monsters” as the topic that day, and ask the panelists to show up in costume. So let’s see what suggestions you might come up with!
I’m having second thoughts about the virtues of proximity to my colleagues of that other discipline after watching this video of people plunking alkali metals into water. Cesium looks…interesting.
Fortunately, my chemistry pals aren’t British, or I might have trouble understanding their comments. What the heck does “the dog’s nuts of the periodic table” mean, anyway?
I was reading a review paper that was frustrating because I wanted to know more—it’s on the evolution of complex brains, and briefly summarizes some of the current confusion about what, exactly, is involved in building a brain with complex problem solving ability. It’s not as simple as “size matters”—we have to jigger the formulae a fair bit to take into account brain:body size ratios, for instance, to get humans to come out on top, and maybe bulk is an inaccurate proxy for more significant matters, such as the number of synapses and nerve conduction velocities.
There’s also a growing amount of literature that takes genomic approaches, searching for sequences that show the signatures of selection, and plucking those out for analysis. There have been some provocative results from that kind of work, finding some candidate genes like ASPM, but another of the lessons of that kind of work seems to be that evolution has been working harder on our testis-specific genes than on our brains.
The encouraging part of the paper is that the authors advocate expanding our search for the correlates of intelligence with another group of organisms with a reputation for big brains, but brains that have evolved independently of vertebrates’. You know what I’m talking about: cephalopods!
The Cephalopoda are an ancient group of mollusks originating in the late Cambrian. Ancestors of modern coleoid cephalopods (octopus and squid) diverged from the externally-shelled nautiloids in the Ordovician, with approximately 600 million years of separate evolution between the cephalopod and the vertebrate lineages. The evolution of modern coleoids has been strongly influenced by competition and predatory pressures from fish, to a degree that the behavior of squid and octopus are more akin to that of fast-moving aquatic vertebrates than to other mollusks. Squid and octopuses are agile and active animals with sophisticated sensory and motor capabilities. Their central nervous systems are much larger than those of other mollusks, with the main ganglia fused into a brain that surrounds the esophagus with additional lateral optic lobes. The number of neurons in an adult cephalopod brain can reach 200 million, approximately four orders of magnitude higher than the 20-30,000 neurons found in model mollusks such as Aplysia or Lymnaea. Cephalopods exhibit sophisticated behaviors a number of studies have presented evidence for diverse modes of learning and memory in Octopus and cuttlefish models. This learning capacity is reflected in a sophisticated circuitry of neural networks in the cephalopod nervous system. Moreover, electrophysiological studies have revealed vertebrate-like properties in the cephalopod brain, such as compound field potentials and long-term potentiation. Thus cephalopods exhibit all the attributes of complex nervous systems on the anatomical, cellular, functional and behavioral levels.
Unfortunately, the purpose of the paper is to highlight an unfortunate deficiency in our modern research program: there is no cephalopod genome project. The closest thing to it is an effort to sequence the genome of another mollusc, Aplysia, which is a very good thing—Aplysia is a famous and indispensable subject of much research in learning and memory—but it’s no squid. The authors are advocating additional work on another animal, one with a more elaborate brain.
A parallel effort on a well-studied octopus or squid should provide insights on the evolutionary processes that allowed development of the sophisticated cephalopod nervous system. For example, have cephalopods undergone accelerated evolution in specific nervous system genes, as has been suggested for primates? Have specific gene families undergone expansion in the cephalopod lineage and are these expressed in the nervous system? Are there clear parallels in accelerated evolution, gene family expansion, and other evolutionary processes between cephalopods and vertebrates? Answers to these and related questions will provide useful perspectives for evaluation of the processes thought to be involved in the evolution of the vertebrate brain.
I’m all for it—let’s see a Euprymna genome project!
Jaaro H, Fainzilber M (2006) Building complex brains—missing pieces in an evolutionary puzzle. Brain Behav Evol 68(3):191-195.
