Home » Science »

February 2016
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29  

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 140 other subscribers

Cannot load blog information at this time.

+254-711-4219-88
Mon - Fri: 8.30am - 4.30pm
Sun: 10.00am - 4pm

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 140 other subscribers

“Humanized” Mice!

In­tro­duc­ing a “hu­man­ized” ver­sion of a lan­guage-linked gene in­to mice ac­cel­er­ates their learn­ing, ac­cord­ing to a stu­dy.

The gene, called Foxp2, is of a type known as tran­scrip­tion fac­tor—a gene that con­trols the ac­ti­vity of oth­er genes. It has al­so been linked to the de­vel­op­ment of hu­man speech and lan­guage. The gene is found in both hu­mans and mice, in slightly dif­fer­ent forms.

In the new stu­dy, re­search­ers cre­at­ed mice whose ver­sion of the Foxp2 gene had changes in two key ami­no acids—some­what equiv­a­lent to two “let­ters” of its ge­net­ic code. The changes were de­signed to make the gene more si­m­i­lar to hu­man Foxp2.

The study aimed at learn­ing “how ge­net­ic changes might have adapted the nerv­ous sys­tem” to lan­guage and speech, wrote the sci­en­tists, Ann Gray­biel of the Mas­sa­chu­setts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy and col­leagues. The re­port ap­peared Sept. 15 on­line in the jour­nal Pro­ceed­ings of the Na­t­ional Acad­e­my of Sci­ences.

The re­port, how­ev­er, did­n’t ad­dress what some sci­en­tists have de­scribed as eth­i­cal ques­tions posed by the mix­ing of hu­man and an­i­mal genes. One con­cern, for ex­am­ple, is that hu­man­ity might even­tu­ally have to con­front the weighty is­sue of wheth­er an an­i­mal with some hu­man genes de­serves hu­man rights.

Gray­biel and col­leagues found that the two-“letter” change af­fect­ed a part of the mouse brain known as the stria­tum and re­lat­ed cir­cuits called the cortico-basal gan­glia. These ar­eas are “known to be es­sen­tial for mo­tor and cog­ni­tive be­hav­iors such as speech and lan­guage ca­pa­bil­i­ties in hu­mans,” ex­plained a sum­mary of the re­port is­sued by the jour­nal.

Dif­fer­ent por­tions of the stria­tum un­der­lie two modes of learn­ing con­sid­ered cru­cial for speech and lan­guage, the re­search­ers said. One is a con­scious form of learn­ing called de­clar­a­tive learn­ing; the oth­er, a non-con­scious form called pro­ce­du­ral learn­ing.

In a se­ries of maze ex­pe­ri­ments, mice with the “hu­man­ized” gene learn­ed stimulus-response as­socia­t­ions more rap­idly than reg­u­lar mice when both de­clar­a­tive and pro­ce­du­ral forms of learn­ing were en­gaged, the in­ves­ti­ga­tors re­ported.

Parts of the stria­tum as­sociated with these two modes of learn­ing were found to re­spond dif­fer­ently in the mice, as judged by lev­els of dopamine, a mes­sen­ger chem­i­cal in the brain; by gene ac­ti­vity pat­terns; and by change­abil­ity in the strength of brain con­nec­tions, known as syn­ap­tic plas­ti­city. The find­ings sug­gest that the hu­manized gene dif­fer­ently in­flu­ences how dif­fer­ent re­gions of the stria­tum con­trib­ute to learn­ing, said the re­search­ers, who spec­u­late that these ef­fects may have con­trib­uted to the emer­gence of hu­man lan­guage.

Adapted from: World Science


Leave a comment