All posts by student

How breakfast rewires your brain – The Boston Globe

The traditional American breakfast is a high-carb affair, with its heaping dishes of pancakes, waffles, toast, cereal. It may affect not just our waistlines, but also who we are.

In a recent study at the University of Lbeck in Germany, scientists asked participants about what they ate in the morning, then had them play the ultimatum game a common experiment that measures how much people tolerate unfairness. In essence, they were trying to test whether human behavior is subject to a well-known clich: Are we what we eat?

Advertisement

We wanted to know whether our decision-making or thoughts might depend on what weve eaten, said So Young Park, a professor of social psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lbeck. We eat three times a day. And you can imagine that, if we change our behavior depending on our food, that would be quite striking information.

The ultimatum game puts study participants in an uncomfortable scenario. Players A and B are told that there is $10, but Player A must decide how the money is split between them. Scientists asked their study participants to act as Player B and watched how they reacted to lopsidedly unfair offers, such as being offered $1 out of $10. Study participants were told that, if they decided to reject an offer, neither person would take home any money at all.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

In theory, the respondent should accept any offer greater than zero, no matter how small, because its better than nothing, said Tobias Kalenscher, a professor of comparative psychology at the University of Dsseldorf. But respondents often would rather have nothing than live with an unfair deal.

The schools dining staff aims to become a national model for affordable, high-volume sourcing of locally grown food.

Though even a $2 offer could mean a nice doughnut for the next morning, scientists found that participants with high-carb breakfasts rejected unfair offers 40 percent more often than those with high-protein breakfasts.

We could see a very tremendous difference in these people, Park said. In a second experiment, breakfast was fed directly to study participants before they played the ultimatum game. Scientists found similar results, as well as differences in participants blood samples.

Advertisement

High-carb people had lower tyrosine levels. And the lower the tyrosine levels, the higher the rejection rate, Kalenscher explained. Tyrosine is an amino acid that acts as a precursor for dopamine, a neurotransmitter that plays a significant role in our brains reward system. But this connection doesnt mean that we should clear out our cupboards and start anew with high-protein, low-carb diets.

You can say that people with high rejection rates are just sensitive to unfair treatment, Kalenscher said. Its absolutely not a bad thing.

The point is that food dictates your choices, Park said. Depending on what you have eaten, your choice is being dramatically modulated that is what were showing. You should really try to have a balanced diet.

View original post here:
How breakfast rewires your brain - The Boston Globe

The Veterans’ Chaplain: Nature or Nature – Theadanews

A while back I wrote a column entitled, Is War Our Nature? (5.20.16). In it, I discussed a then-recent archeological discovery revealing that the earliest warfare among humans was believed to have taken place around ten thousand years ago. The rhetorical question that I asked in that column was: Are we humans predisposed to war and violence since our history, as a species, is replete with it? In other words, is war part of our nature?

That very question leads to the time-tested issue of whether we humans are born with a nature, or set of instincts. The issue is termed, nature versus nurture. When we are born, are we genetically preprogrammed to behave in certain ways, such as to be violent, or do we learn our behavior from other people, such as our parents? One of the prevailing theories on the nurture side of the issue is called the blank slate. According to blank slate reasoning, a developing human brain has no predetermined information, or instincts. The child is, thus, born with a blank slate that will be filled with information through the learning process. Of course, as our technology improves and we learn more about the prenatal development process, we are beginning to understand that some learning may take place prior to birth.

The most convincing evidence supporting the blank slate theory, at least with respect to violence, is that not everyone is violent. If humans were preprogrammed to be violent, we would all be violent. Since we are not all violent, some of us must learn violence and some of us do not. Problem solved.

If only questions involving human behavior were that simple. Getting back to that ten-thousand-year-old battle, evidence from the site suggested that one of the warring parties had traveled quite a distance in order to engage in that battle. This was no spur-of-the-moment anger reaction. My guess is, also, that it was not an isolated event. Because we have not found evidence of prior warfare does not mean that such evidence does not exist. It simply means that we have not found it.

What we know for certain is that people were conducting organized, group warfare at least ten thousand years ago. We do not know why they were fighting, nor do we know how or why they learned to fight. There is much that can be surmised but very little that can be established with any degree of certainty. There are lessons to be learned from those unfortunate nomadic hunter-gatherers who fought that day, however. What we, in the 21st century, CE, can learn from those people and those events ten thousand years ago will have to wait for next weeks column. In the meanwhile, be well, be kind, and may God bless you.

Read more:
The Veterans' Chaplain: Nature or Nature - Theadanews

Invitae To Acquire Good Start Genetics And CombiMatrix – Seeking Alpha

Quick Take

Genetic information company Invitae (NVTA) has announced agreements to acquire two companies, privately-held Good Start Genetics and CombiMatrix (CBMX).

The target companies offer a range of prenatal and post-pregnancy genetic-based screening services for clinicians and their patients.

Invitae is acquiring these two firms as part of an ongoing strategy to create a genetic information cafeteria that provides a wide range of diagnostics options.

Target Companies

Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Good Start was founded in 2008 to develop prenatal screening tests for persons wishing to have children.

Management is headed by CEO Jeffrey Luber, who has been with the company since 2014 and was previously CEO of EXACT Sciences (EXAS) during its turnaround and recapitalization. He was also co-founder and Vice President Corporate Development at SynapDx.

Below is a brief overview video about GoodStarts carrier screening:

(Source: Motivity Video)

Good Start has developed three types of tests:

Good Start had raised $32 million in investment from top tier investors such as OrbiMed, Safeguard Scientifics (SFE) and SV Health Investors.

CombiMatrix, which held its IPO in 2002, provides miscarriage analysis and advanced DNA testing for in-vitro fertility screening and determining genetic abnormalities involved in miscarriage & pediatric developmental disorders.

Prior to the acquisition announcement, CombiMatrix had a market capitalization of approximately $14.4 million.

Acquisition Terms and Rationale

For Good Start, Invitae intends to pay cash of $18.3 million, 1.65 million shares of Invitae stock ($15 million worth) and the assumption of Good Starts obligations, for a total transaction value of approximately $39.3 million.

For CombiMatrix, Invitae intends to pay up to $27 million in NVTA stock for CombiMatrix stock, RSUs and in-the-money options, plus up to $6 million in NVTA stock for Series F warrants, which were originally sold in 2016 as part of an $8 million financing. If holders of less than 90% of outstanding Series F warrants tender, then Invitae has the option to terminate the acquisition.

Notably, the deal announcement states that the cost to Invitae of those warrants may increase as follows,

To the extent the Series F warrants are not exchanged and are either exercised or assumed as part of the acquisition, the consideration payable by Invitae could increase by up to approximately $15.0 million in shares of Invitae, or approximately 1.58 million shares, subject to adjustment based upon a net cash calculation for CombiMatrix at the time of the acquisition.

Thus, Invitae is on the hook for up to an additional $15 million in stock consideration for CombiMatrix pertaining to what the Series F warrant holders choose to do.

So, to sum up both transactions, Invitae is spending $18.3 million in cash, issuing $48 million worth of stock and is potentially on the hook for an additional $15 million in stock, for a total combined deal value of $81.3 million.

Invitaes most recent 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017, indicated cash and marketable securities of $96.7 million and total liabilities of $70.3 million, so it appears the company has ample resources to pay for these two acquisitions since they are mostly paid for with stock.

The rationale for Invitaes moves to acquire both companies is to expand its offerings to families both before pregnancy and after childbirth or miscarriage.

This in turn is part of Invitaes strategic approach of providing genetic information to individuals throughout their life span.

As Invitae CEO Sean George stated in the deal announcement,

This is a transformative moment for Invitae, for our industry, and importantly for patients. By acquiring Good Start and CombiMatrix, Invitae intends to create the industry's first comprehensive genetic information platform providing high-quality, affordable genetic information coupled with world-class clinical expertise to inform healthcare decisions throughout every stage of an individual's life. We believe the strength of our existing platform, strategic acquisitions like these and our network of partners will fuel continued growth and further establish Invitae as a leading genetic information service provider.

Invitae management hasnt been shy about acquiring companies as it sees fit. I previously wrote on the companies last acquisition in June in my article, Invitae Acquires CancerGene Connect for Patient Family History Collection.

Invitae appears to be assembling a veritable cafeteria of options for genetic information for consumers, healthcare providers and other market participants.

Investors like what they see so far, although Invitaes stock in the past year has largely moved within a range of $6.00 per share to $11.00 per share. The stock is up 7.75% on the current two acquisition deal announcement:

(Source: Seeking Alpha)

It is likely that both acquisitions will be a drag on EPS in the near term, but promise to increase Invitaes breadth of service offerings as management appears to intend it to become a one-stop shop for genetic information.

The big question is whether or not that is a viable model in the nascent market for genetic information. Acquiring companies on the cheap certainly helps, although Im not convinced that these acquisitions are necessarily cheap.

So, the jury is out, and management will need to prove the value of these transactions over the next 12 to 18 months.

I write about M&A deals, public company investments in technology startups, insider activity, and IPOs. Click the Follow button next to my name at the top or bottom of this article if you want to receive future articles automatically.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Editor's Note: This article covers one or more stocks trading at less than $1 per share and/or with less than a $100 million market cap. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.

Continued here:
Invitae To Acquire Good Start Genetics And CombiMatrix - Seeking Alpha

Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing – Medical Xpress

A Stanford professor of genetics discusses the thinking behind a formal policy statement endorsing the idea that researchers continue editing genes in human germ cells.

A team of genetics experts has issued a policy statement recommending that research on editing human genes in eggs, sperm and early embryos continue, provided the work does not result in a human pregnancy.

Kelly Ormond, MS, professor of genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine, is one of three lead authors of the statement, which provides a framework for regulating the editing of human germ cells. Germ cells, a tiny subset of all the cells in the body, give rise to eggs and sperm. Edits to the genes of germ cells are passed on to offspring.

The statement, published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics, was jointly prepared by the American Society for Human Genetics and four other human genetics organizations, including the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and endorsed by another six, including societies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Africa and Asia.

Germline gene editing raises a host of technical and ethical questions that, for now, remain largely unanswered. The ASHG policy statement proposes that federal funding for germline genome editing research not be prohibited; that germline editing not be done in any human embryo that would develop inside a woman; and that future clinical germline genome editing in humans not proceed without a compelling medical rationale, evidence supporting clinical use, ethical justification, and a process incorporating input from the public, patients and their families, and other stakeholders.

Ormond recently discussed the issues that prompted the statement's creation with writer Jennie Dusheck.

Q: Why did you think it was important to issue a statement now?

Ormond: Much of the interest arose a couple of years ago when a group of researchers in China did a proof of principle study demonstrating that they could edit the genes of human embryos.

The embryos weren't viable [meaning they could not lead to a baby], but I think that paper worried people. Gene editing in human germ cells is not technically easy, and it's not likely to be a top choice for correcting genetic mutations. Still, it worried us that somebody was starting to do it.

We've been able to alter genes for many years now, but the new techniques, such as CRISPR/Cas9, that have come out in the past five years have made it a lot easier, and things are moving fast. It's now quite realistic to do human germline gene editing, and some people have been calling for a moratorium on such work.

Our organization, the American Society of Human Genetics, decided that it would be important to investigate the ethical issues and put out a statement regarding germline genome editing, and what we thought should happen in the near term moving forward.

As we got into the process, we realized that this had global impact because much of the work was happening outside of the United States. And we realized that if someone, anywhere in the world, were moving forward on germline genome editing, that it was going to influence things more broadly. So we reached out to many other countries and organizations to see if we could get global buy-in to the ideas we were thinking about.

Q: Are there regulations now in place that prevent researchers from editing human embryos that could result in a pregnancy and birth?

Ormond: Regulations vary from country to country, so research that is illegal in one country could be legal in another. That's part of the challenge and why we thought it was so important to have multiple countries involved in this statement.

Also, since 1995 the United States has had regulations against federal funding for research that creates or destroys human embryos. We worry that restricting federal funding on things like germline editing will drive the research underground so there's less regulation and less transparency. We felt it was really important to say that we support federal funding for this kind of research.

Q: Is germline editing in humans useful and valuable?

Ormond: Germline editing doesn't have many immediate uses. A lot of people argue that if you're trying to prevent genetic disease (as opposed to treating it), there are many other ways to do that. We have options like prenatal testing or IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing and then selecting only those embryos that aren't affected. For the vast majority of situations, those are feasible options for parents concerned about a genetic disease.

The number of situations where you couldn't use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to avoid having an affected child are so few and far between. For example, if a parent was what we call a homozygote for a dominant condition such as BRCA1 or Huntington's disease, or if both members of the couple were affected with the same recessive condition, like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, it wouldn't be possible to have a biologically related child that didn't carry that gene, not unless germline editing were used.

Q: What makes germline editing controversial?

Ormond: There are families out there who see germline editing as a solution to some genetic conditions. For example, during a National Academy of Sciences meeting in December of 2015, a parent stood up and said, "I have a child who has a genetic condition. Please let this move forward; this is something that could help."

But I also work in disability studies, as it relates to genetic testing, and there are many individuals who feel strongly that genetic testing or changing genes in any way makes a negative statement about them and their worth. So this topic really edges into concerns about eugenics and about what can happen once we have the ability to change our genes.

Germline gene editing impacts not just the individual whose genes are edited, but their future offspring and future generations. We need to listen to all of those voices and try to set a path that takes all of them into account.

That's a huge debate right now. A lot of people say, "Let's not mess around with the germline. Let's only edit genes after a person is born with a medical condition." Treating an existing medical condition is different from changing someone's genes from the start, in the germline, when you don't know what else you're going to influence.

Q: There was a paper recently about gene editing that caused mutations in excessive numbers of nontargeted genes, so called "off-target effects." Did that result surprise you or change anything about what you were thinking?

Ormond: I think part of the problem is that this research is moving very fast. One of our biggest challenges was that you can't do a good ethical assessment of the risks and benefits of a treatment or technology if you don't know what those risks are, and they remain unclear.

We keep learning about potential risks, including off-target mutations and other unintended consequences. Before anyone ever tries to do germline gene editing in humans, it is very important that we do animal studies where the animals are followed through multiple generations, so that we can see what happens in the long term. There's just a lot that we don't know.

There are so many unknowns that we don't even know what guidelines to set. For example, what's an appropriate new mutation level in some of these technologies? What is the risk we're willing to take as we move forward into human studies? And I think those guidelines need to be set as we move forward into clinical trials, both in somatic cells [cells of the body, such as skin cells, neurons, blood cells] and in germline cells.

It's really hard because, of course, we're talking about, for the most part, bad diseases that significantly impact quality of life. So if you're talking about a really serious disease, maybe you're willing to take more risk there, and these new mutations aren't likely to be as bad as the genetic condition you already have. But we don't know, right?

We haven't had any public dialogue about any of this, and that's what we need to have. We need to find a way to educate the public and scientists about all of these issues so people can have informed discussions and really come together as this moves forward, so that were not in that reactive place when it potentially becomes a real choice.

And that goes back to your first question, which is why did we feel like we needed to have a statement now? We wanted to get those conversations going.

Explore further: 11 organizations urge cautious but proactive approach to gene editing

Read more:
Genetics expert discusses creating ground rules for human germline editing - Medical Xpress

Neuroscience Research Seriously Flawed: A Conversation with Paul Silvia – HuffPost

The world is not fair to lefties. ---Paul J. Silvia

August 13 is International Left-Handers Day, a time to consider that in the world of cognitive neuroscience research roughly one billion lefties---10%-15% of the entire human population---do not exist. Sorry Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, you dont count. Indeed, I was shocked when University of North Carolina, Greensboro psychologist Paul Silvia informed me during the interview that follows that: Essentially all cognitive neuroscience research uses only right-handed people. Silvia says with lefties laterality in the brain is just so different that it throws off statistical group averaging. But doesnt that simply mean neuroscience research is seriously flawed?

Dutch researcher Roel M. Willems writing in Nature thinks so, because left-handedness falls within the normal range of human diversity---and so Willems has proposed the following:

Moreover, left handedness is not exclusive to Homo sapiens. Chimpanzees also exhibit left and right handedness, for example. And the beat goes on. . .

But I actually contacted Paul Silvia recently because he is one of three dozen academics currently funded by the Imagination Institute (bankrolled by the Templeton Foundation) to explore for an imagination quotient. Silvia and his collaborator Roger E. Beaty were awarded $175,000 to study how the brain generates creative ideas: Creative Connections: Measuring Imagination with Functional Network Connectivity. Results of their 2015-2017 investigation are about to be published.

In another 2015 Imagination Institute award, Silvia and Yale University co-investigator Zorana Pringle were recipients of $150,000 for a two-year study on self-regulation in creativity.

Silvia is the author of five books, among them, How to Write a Lot; and Public Speaking for Psychologists (with D.B. Feldman); and 150 academic papers. He serves on the editorial boards of nine professional journals: Imagination, Cognition, and Personality; Journal of Creative Behavior; International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving; Empirical Studies of the Arts; Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts; Self and Identity; Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Social Psychology; Social Psychological and Personality Science.

As a watchmaker (evenings and weekends) as well, Paul Silvia is especially aware of time. And in his spare time away from the watch bench and the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, where he is currently Lucy Spinks Keker Excellence Professor of Psychology, he shares his horological expertise with the world in his online blog: Adjusting Vintage Watches.

Paul Silva has taught psychology at UNC, Greensboro for the last 15 years. Hes also been a professor of psychology at the University of Hamburg, Germany, and before that a visiting researcher at the University of Erlangen, Germany (1999-2000). His PhD and MA are from the University of Kansas in psychology and his BA (with Honors) in psychology from the University of Southern California.

Suzan Mazur: You published an article in Nature in 2015 on the brain and creative idea production in collaboration with your colleague Roger Beaty and with current Imagination Institute scientific director Scott Kaufman et al. in which you conclude that generating novel ideas requires both cognitive control and spontaneous imaginative processes---in other words the whole brain is needed for creativity. How has your recent Imagination Institute project on generating creative ideas advanced those 2015 findings? Whats new?

Paul Silvia: The 2015 paper was our first toes-in-the-water. The whole brain view is really a good way to think about it. Traditionally with creativity and brain work, investigations have addressed: Whats the creative part? Wheres creativity in the brain? Whats the part that lights up?

And traditionally, the view has been: The right side is the creative part. But theres really no part or piece or even single system. Creativity is a very complex thing. Our earlier study was really a pilot study. We had a small number of people and we were pretty limited in how we were looking at creativity. People werent especially selected because they were creative or eminent or accomplished. It was kind of a proof of concept. There was enough to suggest that we were on to something with the idea.

Suzan Mazur: But why were all of your participants in that first study right-handed?

Paul Silvia: The world is not fair to lefties, Suzan.

Suzan Mazur: Are you left-handed?

Paul Silvia: Im not left-handed but I have a lot of friends who are left-handed.

Suzan Mazur: I am left-handed and particularly curious about this aspect of your study.

Paul Silvia: The reason why our participants were right-handed was largely because of laterality in the brain of lefties. You sort of have to pick all right-handers or all left-handers for a brain-scanning study because youre basically averaging all the brains at the end of the study. For lefties, the laterality is just so different. Also, there are just more righties available.

Something not really appreciated with brain research is that we end up studying a very special group of people who are not taking any medications, are extremely healthy, are not claustrophobic and are fine for two hours in a small space thats freakishly loud. You cant have subjects who have migraines or seizures or depression. So you wind up with very healthy, very emotionally-controlled kind of people as subjects.

Suzan Mazur: How has your research funded by Imagination Institute advanced the 2015 findings? Whats new?

Paul Silvia: Theres a lot thats new. Its hard to create anything large scale without funding and the Imagination Institute has really been a god-send. In our most recent study we were able to work with a lot more subjects, close to 200 people. [Everyone in the Imagination Institute study was paid in cash.] And we specifically recruited people actively pursuing creative careers. So not just anyone off the street.

Primarily, we were able to research in an incredibly comprehensive way. Instead of just seeing creative ideas a person can come up with while theyre in a MRI scanner, the more recent study looked at creativity in everyday life as well.

For 8 to 10 hours, participants filled out personality scales and took intelligence tests, cognitive tests, surveys about creative achievement and hobbies. Then for a whole week we interrupted them 10 or 12 times a day on their smartphones and via a survey app that asked them what they were doing, thinking, and working on right then. We looked at whether they were daydreaming at that very moment. What were they thinking about? Were they thinking about the future? Were they thinking about a creative goal? Was their dream realistic? Was their daydream fulfilling, silly, interesting, idea provoking---

Suzan Mazur: Was this again an all right-handed group?

Paul Silvia: Yes, this was all right-handed. There were lots of exclusions. Illnesses---from epilepsy to stroke---disqualified candidates. Use of a wide range of medications that affect the brain, including some very common ones like antidepressants, also disqualified.

Suzan Mazur: But getting back to the left-handed issue, youre saying its easier to test right-handed people because left-handed people have more lateral brain activity. Its too much work to test lefties?

Suzan Mazur: Thats fascinating.

Paul Silvia: Its mostly because there are more right-handers around. If you could study only lefties, maybe it would work out [laughs]. Youd have to test righties separately from lefties. You cant combine the two.

The left-handers brain isnt a photographic negative of the right-handers brain. If you had half leftie and half rightie, maybe you could make it work but its just that there are so few lefties.

Suzan Mazur: One billion people more or less in the world are left-handed. So cognitive neuroscience research appears to be seriously flawed if it is basing its science only on a right-handed population.

Paul Silvia: The other problem is the ambidextrous people.

Suzan Mazur: Humans have two useful hands. Arent most people ambidextrous in some ways?

Paul Silvia: Yeah, its really not a left/right thing. Its much more like theres this line from 1 to 100 and everyone is on there somewhere. Its something that develops.

My office neighbor is studying how people develop handedness, which starts prenatally. Everyone learns to be handed, its not a biological default. There are just some complex developmental reasons. It starts prenatally and most people end up right-handed.

Suzan Mazur: What was the overall goal of your second study?

Paul Silvia: It was primarily to put how creative ideas arise to a big test. In looking at the creative brain, we needed to learn what our 200 participants were thinking about in everyday life, particularly how people were using imagination in everyday life, and we saw what their brains looked like during those moments via the scanner. Daydreaming, mental imagery, thoughts about everyday environment---that was a really big part of it.

The real test of whether something works is whether you can figure it out inside the lab where things are controlled and can then also say something about what people are like in their everyday lives. We had more people in the second study and there have been advances in neuroscience methods since our first study.

We were using a very fancy-pants method for the second study. We were essentially looking at networks of networks. Instead of looking at individual areas of the brain, we looked at clusters of areas that work together. There are a lot of these networks. Sometimes they compete with each other. Sometimes they cooperate with each other. Creativity seems to come from cooperation among networks that normally compete and inhibit and antagonize each other.

Suzan Mazur: When will you publish your findings of this second study?

Paul Silvia: Well be publishing a lot of different papers. Were now wrapping up the big main one. That should be ready to submit to a journal within a couple of weeks. This project went very well, very smoothly.

We suggested in the earlier paper that theres an old idea about creativity going back decades and decades that theres kind of a yin-yang quality to creative thinking. There are people who say creativity is expansive, its daydreaming, its uncontrolled, its letting your mind roam free. Its loose, a spontaneous way of thinking. But theres a whole other side to this argument that has to do with planning, thinking things through, focus, controlled problem solving.

Many humanist thinkers have suggested that a fusion of these opposites happens in the brain, that there is a network for spontaneous thought, but there is also a network for controlled thought. And when people are coming up with different ideas, these two otherwise unfriendly networks work together.

Suzan Mazur: There is a recent study from Queen Mary and Goldsmiths universities indicating that suppression of the thinking and reasoning centers of the brain--- the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex---through electrical stimulation results in more creative problem solving. However, the ability to solve problems where a higher working memory is needed is apparently worse with electrical stimulation to the same region. Any comment?

Paul Silvia: That would be an example where the unfriendly networks dont work together. We say, sort of to this approach. Yes, and mostly.

Whenever you have really two opposing schools of thought that have existed for centuries, its usually because they both do have some kernel of truth. Clearly an uncontrolled, spontaneous way of thinking is crucial to creativity.

Suzan Mazur: Emotion is coming from the oldest part of the brain.

Paul Silvia: Our brains are always mind wandering, daydreaming and very vivid, very emotional. But the other side is that theres planning, practice, deliberation, foresight and sustained focus. Not letting your mind wander away.

Suzan Mazur: Theres another relevant study, published in Nature earlier this year, by Shi et al.---who cite your 2015 paper. The authors look at grey matter volume across the brain and identify two types of creativity: (1) artistic and (2) scientific, which they associate with two regions of the brain. They say scientific creativity is closely associated with the executive attention network and semantic processing, but also note that the neural basis of scientific creativity is still pretty elusive. Artistic creativity they think is associated with the salience network (dynamic switching network), but say there are conflicting conclusions and that more studies are needed. Are you aware of this study and can you say more about it?

Paul Silvia: I think its a sign of where studies of the creative brain are really going. In the paper we are about to publish based on our large sample and more comprehensive assessment of creativity, it looks like theres a sort of mega-network. Theres the default network---spontaneous thought [deep prefrontal cortex & temporal lobe]; executive network of focused, controlled thought [outer prefrontal cortex & posterior parietal lobe]; and the salience network [dorsal anterior cingulate cortices & anterior insular], which is connecting things that are really important.

People who are most creative use a mega-network of all three working together. Notably the executive and default networks are usually antagonistic. But the calm focus that creative people experience, the expansive focus---there are not a lot of words for it---seems to resonate with a lot of people as a creative high.

Suzan Mazur: You are a watchmaker as well as social scientist. What is your fascination with watches?

Paul Silvia: Watchmaking helps me to cultivate a focus and awareness, its very contemplative. Watches are so intricate. Its fascinating to me that long ago people could make such micro-mechanical machines. It boggles the mind. You can take a watch 20 years old, clean it up, tune it up and it keeps time as good as a Rolex that costs $10,000.

I think time---humans always have a sense that we move through time, time means something to us. The clock is a powerful metaphor.

Suzan Mazur: As a scientist and watchmaker, do you see the brain using algorithms to gather and encode information?

Paul Silvia: Its funny to think of watchmaking and the brain because humans have always used whatever the most advanced technology was at the time as a metaphor for the brain. In ancient Greece, it was a catapult. Its comical now to think of the brain as a catapult as a metaphor. Then you get to telephone systems and switchboards. Certainly, watches and clocks since the 1700s with all these interlocking pieces. The brain as a computer, as software. The most modern metaphor, its almost not a metaphor, is the brain as an organic network, a distributed system---like human society.

Suzan Mazur: I understand the Imagination Institute is looking to find an imagination quotient. Is it findable? Or is it as biologist Stan Salthe says, bell on cat.

Paul Silvia: The Imagination Institute has taken an investment approach in funding three dozen young scholars with fairly far-out ideas. It has a high-risk, high-reward model that importantly raises the profile of imagination studies. From our research, it does appear that some people have much more vivid imagery than others and find it easier to come up with really cool ideas, although humans in general have a lot of mental imagery. Everyone is creative.

Read the original here:
Neuroscience Research Seriously Flawed: A Conversation with Paul Silvia - HuffPost

30m research neuroscience research boost at UCL – Lab News

The UCL Institute of Neurologyhas won a 29m infrastructure award to enable the creation of the worlds leading translational neuroscience facility.

The move will combine the UCL Neurology Institute with the operational headquarters of the UK Dementia Research Institute, also based at the university. This move will find better ways across the university of diagnosing and treating neurological disorders such as dementia, stroke and epilepsy.

Professor Michael Hanna, from the Institute of Neurology, said: This major award significantly advances progress towards our vision to create the worlds leading centre for translational neuroscience which will enable us to find treatments, train the next generation and work in close partnerships with industry, funders and patients.

Funding will provide new integrated spaces for laboratories, drug discovery and experimental neurology and its hoped that this drive closer collaboration with patients, funders and industry.

The grant from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has also been supplemented by a number of philanthropists such as a consortium of retailers. Including Iceland, ASDA, HSS Hire, Morrisons and Waitrose, they have all donated the levy on plastic carrier bags to the UCL Dementia Research Initiative. In addition, other partnerships have been formed with medical charities and industry partners who are contributing to this project.

The UK Research Partnership Fund (UKRPIF), which awarded the money to UCL, was launched in 2012 with 100m. Since then, government investment has risen to 900m with UKRPIF funded until 2021.

Go here to see the original:
30m research neuroscience research boost at UCL - Lab News

Image: Astronaut Paolo Nespoli and the Mares human physiology … – Phys.Org

Credit: ESA/NASA

The newest crewmember on the International Space Station, ESA astronaut Paolo Nespoli, has hit the ground running. After arriving in the early hours of 29 July and taking the rest of the day off, Paolo and the crew were back to work by 30 July.

First up on Paolo's schedule is a human physiology experiment using the Mares machine. The Muscle Atrophy Research and Exercise System, housed in Europe's Columbus laboratory module, is a three-in-one muscle-measuring machine that monitors astronauts' muscles as they work out.

Muscle strength decreases during spaceflight and researchers need to know why in order to prepare for long missions and safe space tourism.

The measurements are part of the Sarcolab-3 experiment that is assessing how weightlessness affects the calf and ankle muscles, the parts of the leg that carry the load of the rest of the body.

"This is important, as establishing the mechanisms involved in space-related muscle deterioration will help us to devise optimised countermeasures," says Thu Jennifer Ngo-Anh, head of ESA's Human Research Office.

Sarcolab-3 is a unique experiment, involving scientists from NASA, ESA and the Russian Institute of Biomedical Problems an example of international cooperation benefitting scientific research.

Watch a timelapse video of Mares being assembled, an all-day task in itself.

Explore further: Video: Vita docking

See the original post:
Image: Astronaut Paolo Nespoli and the Mares human physiology ... - Phys.Org

physiology | Definition & Bodily Function | Britannica.com

Physiology, study of the functioning of living organisms, animal or plant, and of the functioning of their constituent tissues or cells.

The word physiology was first used by the Greeks around 600 bce to describe a philosophical inquiry into the nature of things. The use of the term with specific reference to vital activities of healthy humans, which began in the 16th century, also is applicable to many current aspects of physiology. In the 19th century, curiosity, medical necessity, and economic interest stimulated research concerning the physiology of all living organisms. Discoveries of unity of structure and functions common to all living things resulted in the development of the concept of general physiology, in which general principles and concepts applicable to all living things are sought. Since the mid-19th century, therefore, the word physiology has implied the utilization of experimental methods, as well as techniques and concepts of the physical sciences, to investigate causes and mechanisms of the activities of all living things.

The philosophical natural history that comprised the physiology of the Greeks has little in common with modern physiology. Many ideas important in the development of physiology, however, were formulated in the books of the Hippocratic school of medicine (before 350 bce), especially the humoral theory of diseasepresented by a philosopher, Nemesius, in the treatise De natura hominis (4th century ce; On the Nature of Man). Other contributions were made by Aristotle and Galen of Pergamum. Significant in the history of physiology was the teleology of Aristotle, who assumed that every part of the body is formed for a purpose and that function, therefore, can be deduced from structure. The work of Aristotle was the basis for Galens De usu partium corporis humani (On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body) and a source for many early misconceptions in physiology. The tidal concept of blood flow, the humoral theory of disease, and Aristotles teleology, for example, led Galen into a basic misunderstanding of the movements of blood that was not corrected until English physician William Harveys work on blood circulation in the 17th century.

The publication in 1628 of Harveys Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus (An Anatomical Dissertation upon the Movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals) usually is identified as the beginning of modern experimental physiology. Harveys study was based only on anatomical experiments; despite increased knowledge in physics and chemistry during the 17th century, physiology remained closely tied to anatomy and medicine. In 1747 in Berne, Switzerland, Albrecht von Haller, eminent as anatomist, physiologist, and botanist, published the first manual for physiology. Between 1757 and 1766 he published eight volumes entitled Elementa Physiologiae Corporis Humani (Elements of Human Physiology); all were in Latin and characterized his definition of physiology as anatomy in motion. At the end of the 18th century, Antoine Lavoisier wrote about the physiological problems of respiration and the production of heat by animals in a series of memoirs that still serve as a foundation for understanding these subjects.

Physiology as a distinct discipline utilizing chemical, physical, and anatomical methods began to develop in the 19th century. Claude Bernard in France; Johannes Mller, Justus von Liebig, and Carl Ludwig in Germany; and Sir Michael Foster in England may be numbered among the founders of physiology as it now is known. At the beginning of the 19th century, German physiology was under the influence of the romantic school of Naturphilosophie. In France, on the other hand, romantic elements were opposed by rational and skeptical viewpoints. Bernards teacher, Franois Magendie, the pioneer of experimental physiology, was one of the first men to perform experiments on living animals. Both Mller and Bernard, however, recognized that the results of observations and experiments must be incorporated into a body of scientific knowledge, and that the theories of natural philosophers must be tested by experimentation. Many important ideas in physiology were investigated experimentally by Bernard, who also wrote books on the subject. He recognized cells as functional units of life and developed the concept of blood and body fluids as the internal environment (milieu intrieur) in which cells carry out their activities. This concept of physiological regulation of the internal environment occupies an important position in physiology and medicine; Bernards work had a profound influence on succeeding generations of physiologists in France, Russia, Italy, England, and the United States.

Mllers interests were anatomical and zoological, whereas Bernards were chemical and medical, but both men sought a broad biological viewpoint in physiology rather than one limited to human functions. Although Mller did not perform many experiments, his textbook Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen fr Vorlesungen (1837) and his personal influence determined the course of animal biology in Germany during the 19th century.

Test Your Knowledge

Bovine: Fact or Fiction?

It has been said that, if Mller provided the enthusiasm and Bernard the ideas for modern physiology, Carl Ludwig provided the methods. During his medical studies at the University of Marburg in Germany, Ludwig applied new ideas and methods of the physical sciences to physiology. In 1847 he invented the kymograph, a cylindrical drum used to record muscular motion, changes in blood pressure, and other physiological phenomena. He also made significant contributions to the physiology of circulation and urine secretion. His textbook of physiology, published in two volumes in 1852 and 1856, was the first to stress physical instead of anatomical orientation in physiology. In 1869 at Leipzig, Ludwig founded the Physiological Institute (neue physiologische Anstalt), which served as a model for research institutes in medical schools worldwide. The chemical approach to physiological problems, developed first in France by Lavoisier, was expanded in Germany by Justus von Liebig, whose books on Organic Chemistry and its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology (1840) and Animal Chemistry (1842) created new areas of study both in medical physiology and agriculture. German schools devoted to the study of physiological chemistry evolved from Liebigs laboratory at Giessen.

Britannica Lists & Quizzes

The British tradition of physiology is distinct from that of the continental schools. In 1869 Sir Michael Foster became Professor of Practical Physiology at University College in London, where he taught the first laboratory course ever offered as a regular part of instruction in medicine. The pattern Foster established still is followed in medical schools in Great Britain and the United States. In 1870 Foster transferred his activities to Trinity College at Cambridge, England, and a postgraduate medical school emerged from his physiology laboratory there. Although Foster did not distinguish himself in research, his laboratory produced many of the leading physiologists of the late 19th century in Great Britain and the United States. In 1877 Foster wrote a major book (Textbook of Physiology), which passed through seven editions and was translated into German, Italian, and Russian. He also published Lectures on the History of Physiology (1901). In 1876, partly in response to increased opposition in England to experimentation with animals, Foster was instrumental in founding the Physiological Society, the first organization of professional physiologists. In 1878, again due largely to Fosters activities, the Journal of Physiology, which was the first journal devoted exclusively to the publication of research results in physiology, was initiated.

Fosters teaching methods in physiology and a new evolutionary approach to zoology were transferred to the United States in 1876 by Henry Newell Martin, a professor of biology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. The American tradition drew also on the continental schools. S. Weir Mitchell, who studied under Claude Bernard, and Henry P. Bowditch, who worked with Carl Ludwig, joined Martin to organize the American Physiological Society in 1887, and in 1898 the society sponsored publication of the American Journal of Physiology. In 1868 Eduard Pflger, professor at the Institute of Physiology at Bonn, founded the Archiv fr die gesammte Physiologie, which became the most important journal of physiology in Germany.

Physiological chemistry followed a course partly independent of physiology. Mller and Liebig provided a stronger relationship between physical and chemical approaches to physiology in Germany than prevailed elsewhere. Felix Hoppe-Seyler, who founded his Zeitschrift fr physiologische Chemie in 1877, gave identity to the chemical approach to physiology. The American tradition in physiological chemistry initially followed that in Germany; in England, however, it developed from a Cambridge laboratory founded in 1898 to complement the physical approach started earlier by Foster.

Physiology in the 20th century was a mature science; during a century of growth, physiology became the parent of a number of related disciplines, of which biochemistry, biophysics, general physiology, and molecular biology are the most vigorous examples. Physiology, however, retains an important position among the functional sciences that are closely related to the field of medicine. Although many research areas, especially in mammalian physiology, have been fully exploited from a classical-organ and organ-system point of view, comparative studies in physiology may be expected to continue. The solution of the major unsolved problems of physiology will require technical and expensive research by teams of specialized investigators. Unsolved problems include the unravelling of the ultimate bases of the phenomena of life. Research in physiology also is aimed at the integration of the varied activities of cells, tissues, and organs at the level of the intact organism. Both analytical and integrative approaches uncover new problems that also must be solved. In many instances, the solution is of practical value in medicine or helps to improve the understanding of both human beings and other animals.

The anatomical and medical origins of physiology still are reflected in university courses and textbooks that concentrate on functional organ systems of animals (e.g., frog, dog, cat, and rat). The trend in physiology, however, is to emphasize function rather than structure. Hence, comprehensive functional specializations such as nutrition, transport, metabolism, and information have replaced earlier structural studies of organ systems. This trend can be explained in part by the fact that the analysis of an organ system typically involves studies at the levels of cells and molecules, and functional emphasis accommodates such studies better than the organ-system approach.

Early in the 20th century the emphasis on cells as units of function resulted in a view that all physiology is essentially cell physiology and that all teaching therefore should pivot around the properties of cells. In later years successful analyses of cellular mechanisms involving synthesis, control, and inheritance led to similar emphasis at a new and more fundamental level, the molecules that constitute cells. The study of physiology now encompasses molecules, cells, organs, and many types of animals, including humans. The comparisons resulting from such studies not only strengthen human physiology but also generate new problems that extend into evolution and ecology. Much of the impetus for comparative physiology resulted from the economic or medical importance to humans of parasites, insects, and fishes.

Most of the physiology of microorganisms and plants developed independently of animal physiology. The concept of comparative biochemistry provided the foundations for a physiology of microorganisms that extended beyond the parasitic forms that are of medical importance and resulted in recognition of the fundamental roles of microorganisms in the biosphere. Botanists and agriculturists explore the physiology of higher plants, but fundamental differences in the modes of life of animals and plants leave little common ground above the molecular and cellular levels. In a little-known textbook, Claude Bernard stated that there is only one way to live, only one physiology of all living things. The goal of general physiology is to abstract this single physiology from the physiologies of all types of organisms. Although common or general features usually are found at the cellular and molecular levels of organization, multicellular structures also are studied. Processes that underlie cell function are emphasized in an approach based on analyses in terms of physical and chemical principles.

In the late 19th century the principle of conservation of energy was derived in part from observations that fermentation and muscle contraction are essentially problems in energetics. Biological energetics began with studies that established the basic equation of respiration as:Fuel + oxygen carbon dioxide + water + heat. It was realized that the heat produced in fermentation and the work performed during muscle contraction must originate in similar processes and that fuel in the equation above is a source of potential energy. Early in the 20th century, studies of animal calorimetry verified these concepts in humans and other animals. Calorimetry studies showed that the energy produced by the metabolism of foodstuffs in an animal equals that produced by the combustion of these foodstuffs outside the body. After these studies, measurement of the basal metabolic rate (BMR) was used in the diagnosis of certain diseases, and data relating the composition of foodstuffs to their value as sources of metabolic energy were obtained.

Early in the 20th century it was established that measurable amounts of the carbohydrate glycogen are converted to lactic acid in frog muscles contracting in the absence of oxygen. This observation and studies of alcoholic fermentation confirmed that the energy for fermentation or muscle contraction depends on a series of reactions now known as glycolysis. In order to show that the conversion of glycogen to lactic acid could provide the necessary energy for muscular contraction, extremely delicate measurements of the heat produced by contracting muscles were required. As a result of glycolysis studies, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was recognized as an important molecule in cellular energy transfer and utilizatione.g., movement, generation of electricity, transport of materials across cell membranes, and production of light by cells. Soon it was discovered that a muscle protein called myosin acts as an enzyme (organic catalyst) by liberating the energy stored in ATP and that ATP in turn can modify the physical properties of myosin molecules. It was also shown that a muscle fibre has an elaborate and ordered structure, which is based on a precise arrangement of myosin and another muscle protein called actin.

Glycolysis is an anaerobic process (i.e., it does not require oxygen) and may represent one of the oldest mechanisms for cellular energy transfer, since the process could have evolved before there was free oxygen in Earths atmosphere. Most cells, however, derive their energy from a series of reactions involving oxygen and called the tricarboxylic acid cycle (Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle). The enzymes for the cycle are part of the structure of a mitochondrion, which is an elaborate cellular component filled with membranes, generally shaped like a bean. In the course of the oxidation, three molecules of energy-rich ATP are generated for each oxygen atom used to form a molecule of water. The mitochondrion, therefore, is the cellular site of respiratory combustion first clearly demonstrated in whole animals by Lavoisier.

The ultimate source of foodstuffs used by animals is plants. Early 19th-century studies of photosynthesis were closely related to those of respiration and began with Joseph Priestleys demonstration that plants could restore the air used during respiration or combustion. The most important equations for living things therefore, are mutually inverse. In respiration:(CH2O)n + nO2 nCO2 + nH2O + heat. carbo-oxygen carbon water hydrate dioxide In photosynthesis:nCO2 + nH2O + light (CH2O)n + nO2.

In the 1930s, it was shown that photosynthesis involves splitting hydrogen from water and that the oxygen liberated in photosynthesis comes from water. During the light reactions, light energy is captured by a green pigment called chlorophyll and used to generate reactive hydrogen and ATP that are used during dark reactions in which carbohydrates and other cell constituents are synthesized.

The classical fields of organ-system physiology have a role subsidiary to that of cellular metabolism. Feeding and digestion, for example, become a means for the enzyme-catalyzed breakdown of organic compounds into relatively small molecules that can be transported readily; nutrition, therefore, is a way to supply animals with sufficient sources of energy and specific substances that they cannot synthesize. Comparative animal studies, which were of practical importance in the discovery of some vitamins, led also to the general observation that the specific nutrient requirements of animals are consequences of a slow evolutionary deterioration in which synthetic abilities are lost through changes or mutations in hereditary material.

Nutrition and digestion, however, also have been important in obtaining information at the cellular and molecular levels. It was through studies of digestion, for example, that the existence and nature of enzymes were first disclosed clearly. In addition, early recognition of similarities between digestion and fermentation foreshadowed knowledge of the important role of fermentation in cellular metabolism. Finally, the study of vitamin nutrition was closely integrated with that of cellular oxidation, in which certain vitamins play an essential catalytic role.

In intact organisms, the chemical activities of individual cells do not interfere with the functions of the organism. Much of the study of physiology is concerned with the ways by which cells obtain their nutrients and dispose of their waste products. Knowledge of the mechanism of protein synthesis and its connections with inheritance and cellular control mechanisms have initiated new inquiries into functions at all levels (i.e., cells, organs, and organisms).

Many important advances in surgery and medicine have been based on the physiology of circulation, which was first studied in 1628. The measurement of blood pressure, for example, was introduced on a practicable basis late in the 19th century and has become an important part of medical diagnosis. The physiology of circulation is concerned with the origin of blood pressure in the force of the heartbeat and the regulation of heart rate, blood pressure, and the flow of blood.

Variations in heart rate that led Aristotle to consider the heart as the seat of the emotions (an idea later proven incorrect) were among the phenomena whose explanation revealed the existence of the autonomic nervous system. More important to the circulatory system than variation in heart rate, however, is the ability of the heart to adjust the strength of its beat to meet certain demands of the body.

The peripheral control of blood pressure and blood flow depends upon a maze of interacting control mechanisms, the most significant of which are in direct control of the diameter of small arterial branches that enlarge or dilate in response to chemical products formed during metabolism. Increased metabolic activity of tissues such as muscles or the intestine, therefore, automatically induces increased blood flow through the dilated vessels. This action, which could result in a fall in blood pressure, is offset by central-reflex controls that constrict arterial branches not dilated as a result of local chemical effects. Certain regions of the skin and the intestines serve as reservoirs for blood that may be diverted to muscles or the brain if necessary. Peripheral control may break down if excessive demands are made upon it in hot weather (heatstroke), during vigorous exercise after meals (muscle cramp), and after extensive loss of blood or tissue damage (shock) or extreme emotion with consequent activation of the autonomic nervous system (emotional shock). A remarkable adaptation occurs in air-breathing vertebratesreptiles, birds, and mammalswhich dive for food or protection. During a dive, the flow of blood to all parts of the body except the brain and the heart is reduced substantially. The energy for muscle contraction is provided by the anaerobic process of glycolysis because the oxygen in the blood goes to the brain and heart, which cannot function without a constant supply of oxygen.

Comparative studies have disclosed two major patterns in circulatory systems. Among vertebrates and a few invertebratesnotably annelid worms and cephalopod mollusksthe blood flows entirely in closed channels or vessels, never coming into direct contact with cells and tissues; blood pressure and the velocity of flow are high and relatively constant, and the volume of blood is small. In many invertebratesespecially arthropods and mollusks other than cephalopodsthe blood flows for part of its course in large sinuses or lacunae and comes directly into contact with the tissues. Blood pressure and the velocity of flow are low and variable in these invertebrates, and the large volume of blood is comparable to the total volume of all body fluids in vertebrates.

Consideration of the blood as a transport system has centred especially on the transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The colour of blood changes as it passes through the lungs: venous blood is dark purple and arterial blood is bright red because of the properties of a blood pigment called hemoglobin. Knowledge of the complete structure of hemoglobin has enabled scientists to study fundamental questions of heredity at the molecular level. The development of blood banks and the techniques involved in blood transfusion depend on knowledge of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of blood. These properties include a remarkable diversity of hemoglobin, both among individuals and species and also within an individual during development. In many instances variations in protein composition better adapt a species to its circumstances.

Studies of membrane transport at the cellular level are an important part of general physiology. Although quantitative theories of diffusion and osmosis that developed around 1900 were applied to cell physiology, a number of phenomena (e.g., movement through membranes of certain ions and other compounds of biological importance) did not behave according to established physical principles. As a result of studies of osmotic and ionic regulation in freshwater animals, the concept of active transport was formulated. Crucial to the acceptance of this concept were studies with frog skin, which can transport sodium ions against chemical and electrical forces; the transport, specific for sodium ions, is dependent on a continuing input of metabolic energy. Efforts have been directed toward establishing a molecular mechanism that may involve an enzyme found in surface membranes of cells. This enzyme breaks down ATP and releases the energy in the molecule only if sodium and potassium ions are present.

The physiology of animals differs from that of plants in the rapid response of animals to stimuli. French mathematician and philosopher Ren Descartes, responsible for the concept of the reflex that dominated neurophysiology for most of its history, thought a sensory impulse was reflected from the brain to produce a reaction in muscles. Later studies of the effects of ions on nerves suggested that a nerve must be surrounded by a membrane and that a nerve impulse results from a change in the ability of the membrane to allow passage of potassium ions. When it was shown that nerves are made up of thousands of tiny fibres, which are processes that extend from cells located in the brain or spinal cord, the nerve impulse hypothesis was applied to individual nerve fibres rather than to whole nerves. Electronic technology provided the techniques and giant nerve fibres of squids provided the experimental material that enabled two Nobel prize winners for physiology, Alan Lloyd Hodgkin and Andrew Fielding Huxley, to extend this hypothesis into a theory of the excitation of nerve cells in which sodium ions and potassium ions play principal roles.

The reflex concept, however, was not dependent on understanding the molecular basis of excitation, conduction, and transmission. Early in the 20th century the role of interaction of nervous centres in controlling muscle contractions was established. The reflex now is conceived as a unit in which nerve impulses initiated in sensory neurons or nerve cells are conducted to a centre in the brain or spinal cord. In the centre, impulses initiated in motor neurons are conducted to muscles and induce a reflex response. Two processes can occur in the centre; one is associated with central excitatory states, the other with central inhibitory states. The net effect of any stimulus or group of stimuli, therefore, can be interpreted as an interaction of these opposing states in the centre.

After the demonstration that the effects of the vagus nerve in slowing the heart are mediated by a chemical substance, subsequently identified as acetylcholine, the concept of chemical transmission of nervous impulses was extended to the central nervous system. Typically, transmission of excitation from cell to cell is accomplished by the liberation of a chemical transmitter from a nerve ending.

The reflex concept gave rise to premature attempts to develop a psychology based on reflexes. These attempts (behaviourism) were advanced by Russian scientist Ivan Pavlovs discovery of conditioned responses. Originally known as conditioned reflexes, these responses have been found in most animals with central nervous systems. More complex than simple reflexes, their mechanism has not yet been established with certainty.

The analysis of sensory functions also extends to the cellular level. Sense organs are diverse in structure and sensitivity to specific stimuli. It may be that the common molecular basis for the differences in sensitivity is a change in permeability of a special region of the membrane surrounding a sensory cell. This change in permeability could allow a nerve fibre to become excited and initiate a nerve impulse. Neurophysiology has borrowed from, and contributed to, the information theory used in communications engineering. The function of sense organs is to gather information both from the environment and the organism. The central nervous system integrates this information and translates it into a program of response involving the entire organism. In addition, the brain can store information previously received (memory) and has the ability to initiate actions without obvious external stimulation (spontaneity). Some aspects of memory and integrative function have been modelled in electronic computers; in fact the development of computers was closely connected with the development of ideas about the functions of the central nervous system.

The analytical interpretation of central nervous function remains, however, a complex and difficult field, even though recent progress has brought closer together the study of behaviour in terms of nerve function and behavioral models. Considerable effort has been directed to the localization of brain function. Although specific centres for reception of sensory information and integration of motor programs are known, the integrative functions that tie them together, as well as the functions of memory, are not so well established.

The concept of internal regulations is attributed to Claude Bernard, who thought of blood as an internal environment in which cells function; according to Bernard, maintenance of the internal environment at a constant level was a major responsibility of all body functions. Bernard showed in studies of the formation and breakdown of glycogen in the liver that internal organs can secrete materials into the blood. Other investigators demonstrated such a secretion and used the word hormone to describe the substance. One classical study concerned control of the secretion of digestive fluids by the pancreas; an active substance secretin was purified, as have been a number of similar materials from the digestive tract. The field of endocrinology now is a major part of physiology.

The endocrine system complements the nervous system in control and coordination. Hormones, liberated into blood and other body fluids by endocrine glands and transported throughout the body, usually act either on specific target organs or on certain activities of many organs. Nervous coordination most often is concerned with rapid responses of short duration; endocrine coordination, however, usually is involved in slower responses of longer duration. Stationary-state regulation, or homeostasis, depends on the action of hormones at many points. The hormones insulin and glucagon, both formed in specialized endocrine tissue in the pancreas, control the level of sugar in blood. Vasopressin from the pituitary gland at the base of the brain and aldosterone from the adrenal glands near the kidneys control salt and water balance of the blood. Hormonal regulation, however, is not confined to homeostasis. The cyclic events of the female reproductive cycles in mammals, for example, are determined by a complex sequence of endocrine interactions involving hormones of the pituitary gland and the ovary.

The pervasive regulatory action of hormones is part of a large system of interactions to which the term feedback generally is applied. Hormones involved in homeostatic regulation, for example, influence their own secretion. The secretion of certain steroid hormones, which have a significant action on the conversion of amino acids to glycogen, is controlled by another hormone called the adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), which is formed in the anterior pituitary gland. In turn the secretion of ACTH is controlled by a releasing factor formed in the midbrain and liberated from the stalk of the pituitary gland. ACTH liberation normally is controlled by the concentration of steroids in the blood, so that an increase in steroid concentration inhibits ACTH secretion; this negative feedback, however, may be overcome in certain conditions of intense nervous stimulation.

A similar pattern of releasing factors, by which the nervous system interacts with the endocrine system, also is known for other anterior pituitary hormonese.g., those involved in the reproductive cycle and in responses of the thyroid gland to temperature changes. In addition, neurosecretory cellsnerve cells specialized for endocrine functionliberate hormones (e.g., vasopressin) that act directly on a specific target. Comparative studies show that neurosecretory cells are important in developmental and regulatory functions of most animals. Discrete endocrine glands, however, occur less frequently; in insects and crustaceans, cycles of growth, molting (shedding of the cuticle), and development are controlled by hormones. The identification of insect hormones may be useful in controlling pests through specific interference with processes of growth and development.

See the original post here:
physiology | Definition & Bodily Function | Britannica.com

Neuroscientist Receives Grant to Advance Understanding of Brain Structure – UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Figure: Image from an electron micrograph through a single section plane illustrating spiny dendrites (yellow), nonspiny dendrites (orange), excitatory axons (green), excitatory synapses (red), astroglia (light blue), microglia (dark brown). Kristen Harris

AUSTIN, Texas The National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded Kristen Harris, a professor in the Department of Neuroscience at The University of Texas at Austin, a $9 million grant to explore the brain in microscopic detail and understand the cell biology of the nervous system. Harris plans to image and map synapses, the tiny points of contact between neurons throughout the brain, in detail and to model synapse function and share the data publically for use by colleagues throughout the world.

Harris says that the funding from NSFs Next Generation Networks for Neuroscience (NeuroNex) program allows her to expand her expertise through collaborations with James Carson of the Texas Advanced Computing Center and Terrence Sejnowski of the Salk Institute.

Ive been working to understand synapse structure and function for my whole academic life. We have created accurate three-dimensional reconstructions of all the synapses and their associated structures (dendrites, axons and glia) using sophisticated electron microscopy. We discovered, for example, that in brain volumes as tiny as a single red blood cell, there are more than 500 synapses, says Harris. With this grant, we will collect new images more quickly from a variety of brain regions and taxa from mice to humans and share them more easily with the scientific community.

Part of the funding is to design a new electron microscope capable of imaging at a greater volume while simultaneously peeking inside the tiniest substructure of individual synapses using a new tomographic approach. As the images are collected, they will be shared with collaborators at the Salk Institute to expand existing and build new computational modeling tools for understanding how synapse ultrastructure supports brain function.

Our team at the Salk Institute will build a computational microscopeto animate the electron microscope data from the NeuroNex projectand probe the function of synapses at the molecular level, says Sejnowski, laboratory head of Salks Computational Neurobiology Laboratory and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator.

The images and tools will be shared with the scientific community through a portal being developed at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC).

Electron microscopy is a powerful tool for understanding the tiny details of the brain that are critical to how advanced organisms learn and remember, said Carson, a co-primary investigator with Harris and Research Associate in Life Sciences Computing at TACC. Yetthe amount of data collected is not currentlylimited by the microscope itself, but insteadthe ability to process the data and interpret it. By leveraging TACC'shigh-performance computing, we intend to greatly speed up the rate of knowledge discovery in this field. By creating a public portal for other researchers, we provide the foundation for collaboration and sharing of data and analysis methods, thusfurther accelerating our ability to learn about how our brains work.

Students in an undergraduate course Harris is teaching on synapses will help to test the new modeling and reconstruction tools as well as produce some of the data that will be shared in the portal. The educational element also features workshops that will help bring top neuroscience students to UT Austin.

The award to Harris is part of a major public-private joint endeavor, the Brain Initiative, which is pursuing one of sciences grandest challenges: understanding the brain. The NSF states that the overall goal of the NeuroNex program within the Brian Initiative is to establish a coherent national infrastructure to enhance understanding of brain function across organizational levels and a diversity of species. The initiative focuses on interdisciplinary approaches and new technologies, with the promise of ushering in new ways of conducting neuroscience research.

Through the development of advanced instrumentation to observe and model the brain, were closer to our goal of building a more complete knowledge base about how neural activity produces behavior, says Jim Olds, the NSFs assistant director for biological sciences. NeuroNex seeks to take that progress forward by creating an ecosystem of new tools, resources and theories. Most importantly, NeuroNex aims to ensure their broad dissemination to the neuroscience community. With these awards, NSF is building a foundation for the next generation of research into the brain.

Follow this link:
Neuroscientist Receives Grant to Advance Understanding of Brain Structure - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

Two-headed bat baffles scientists – Bundaberg News Mail

THEY say two heads are better than one

Scientists have been left "completely astonished" after finding the perfectly preserved remains of dead conjoined twin bats under a tree in Brazil, reportsThe Sun.

It is only the third recorded case of conjoined bats and experts are now examining their remains to find out more about the phenomena.

The bats are believed to have been stillborn and still had the placenta attached when they were discovered under a mango tree in the southeast of the country.

Marcelo Nogueira, from the State University of Northern Rio de Janeiro, said: "We believe the mother of these twins was roosting in this tree when she gave birth.

"It is our hope that cases like this will encourage more studies on bat embryology, an open and fascinating field of research that can largely benefit from material already available in scientific collections."

Little is known about conjoined animals. Just one in around 200,000 human births involved conjoined twins.

Survival rates are around 15 per cent in humans but are thought to be much lower in the animal world.

An X-ray shows the male bats have separate heads and necks but their spines eventually merge into one.

They also have two separate but similar size hearts.

The total breadth of the twins, including wingspan, measures around 13cm.

Based on their physical characteristics the scientists determined they were most likely 'Artibeus' bats.

Little is known about conjoined animals. Just one in around 200,000 human births involved conjoined twins.

Survival rates are around 15 per cent in humans but are thought to be much lower in the animal world.

An X-ray shows the male bats have separate heads and necks but their spines eventually merge into one.

Go here to read the rest:
Two-headed bat baffles scientists - Bundaberg News Mail