Arnica and a scientist’s frustrations

angry-1372523 - CopyWhen you’re the only scientist in the family you get asked the weirdest things. Actually, I’m not the only one, but the other one is a chemist and he’s mostly asked about astrophysics stuff, so he doesn’t really count, because I am the one who gets asked about rare diseases and medication side-effects and food advice. Never mind that I am a neuroscientist and I have professed repeatedly and quite loudly my minimum knowledge of everything from the neck down, all eyes turn to me when the new arthritis medication or the unexpected side-effects of that heart drug are being brought up. But, curiously, if I dare speak about brain stuff I get the looks that a thing the cat just dragged in gets. I guess everybody is an expert on how the brain works on account of having and using one, apparently. Everybody, but the actual neuroscience expert whose input on brain and behavior is to be tolerated and taken with a grain of salt at best, but whose opinion on stomach distress is of the utmost importance and must be listened to reverentially in utter silence [eyes roll].

So this is the background on which the following question was sprung on me: “Is arnica good for eczema?”. As always, being caught unawares by the sheer diversity of interests and afflictions my family and friends can have, I mumbled something about I don’t know what arnica is and said I will look it up.

This is an account of how I looked it up and what conclusions I arrived to or how a scientist tries to figure something out completely out of his or her field. First thing I did was to go on Wikipedia. Hold your horses, it was not about scientific information but for a first clarification step: is it a chemical, a drug, an insect, a plant maybe? I used to encourage my students to also use Wikipedia when they don’t have a clue what a word/concept/thing is. Kind of like a dictionary or a paper encyclopedia, if you will. To have a starting point. As a matter of fact Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, right? Anyway, I found out that Arnica is a plant genus out of which one species, Arnica Montana, seems to be popular.

Then I went to the library. Luckily for me, the library can be accessed online from the comfort of my home and in my favorite pajamas in the incarnation of PubMed or Medline as it used to be affectionately called. It is the US National Library of Medicine maintained by the National Institutes of Health, a wonderful repository of scholarly papers (yeah, Google Scholar to PubMed is like the babbling of a two-year old to the Shakespearian sonnets; Google also has an agenda, which you won’t find on PubMed). Useful tip: when you look for a paper that is behind a paywall in Nature or Elsevier Journals or elsewhere, check the PubMed too because very few people seem to know that there is an obscure and incredibly helpful law saying that research paid by the US taxpayers should be available to the US taxpayer. A very sensible law passed only a few years ago that has the delightful effect of having FREE full text access to papers after a certain amount of months from publishing (look for the PMC icon in the upper right corner).

I searched for “arnica” and got almost 400 results. I sorted by “most recent”. The third hit was a review. I skimmed it and seemed to talk a lot about healing in homeopathy, at which point, naturally, I got a gloomy foreboding. But I persevered because one data point does not a trend make. Meaning that you need more than a paper – or a handful – to form an informed opinion. This line of thinking has been rewarded by the hit No. 14 in the search which had an interesting title in the sense that it was the first to hint to a mechanism through which this plant was having some effects. Mechanisms are important, they allow you to differentiate speculation from findings, so I always prefer papers that try to answer a “How?” question as opposed to the other kinds; whys are almost always speculative as they have a whiff of post factum rationalizations, whats are curious observations but, more often than not, a myriad factors can account for them, whens are an interesting hybrid between the whats and the hows – all interesting reads but for different purposes. Here is a hint: you want to publish in Nature or Science? Design an experiment that answers all the questions. Gone are the days when answering one question was enough to publish…

Digressions aside, the paper I am covering today sounds like a mechanism paper. Marzotto et al. (2016) cultured a particular line of human cells in a Petri dish destined to test the healing powers of Arnica montana. The experimental design seems simple enough: the control culture gets nothing and the experimental culture gets Arnica montana. Then, the authors check to see if there are differences in gene expressions between the two groups.

The authors applied different doses of Arnica montana to the cultures to see if the effects are dose-dependant. The doses used were… wait, bear with me, I’m not familiar with the system, it’s not metric. In the Methods, the authors say

Arnica m. was produced by Boiron Laboratoires (Lyon, France) according to the French Homeopathic pharmacopoeia and provided as a first centesimal dilution (Arnica m. 1c) of the hydroalcoholic extract (Mother Tincture, MT) in 30% ethanol/distilled water”.

Wait, what?! Centesimal… centesimal… wasn’t that the nothing-in-it scale from the pseudoscientific bull called homeopathy? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there are some other uses for it and becomes clear later:

Arnica m. 1c was used to prepare the second centesimal dilution (Arnica m. 2c) by adding 50μl of 1c solution to 4.95ml of distilled ultra-pure water. Therefore, 2c corresponds to 10−4 of the MT”.

Holy Mother of God, this is worse than gibberish; this is voluntary misdirection, crap wrapped up in glitter, medieval tinkering sold as state-of-the-art 21st century science. Speaking of state-of-the-art, the authors submit their “doses” to a liquid chromatograph, a thin layer chromatograph, a double-beam spectrophotometer, a nanoparticle tracking analysis (?!) for what purposes I cannot fathom. On, no, I can: to sound science-y. To give credibility for the incredulous. To make money.

At which point I stopped reading the ridiculous nonsense and took a closer look at the authors and got hit with this:

“Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. This study was funded by Boiron Laboratoires Lyon with a research agreement in partnership with University of Verona. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.”

No competing interests?? The biggest manufacturer of homeopathic crap in the world pays you to see if their product works and you have no competing interest? Maybe no other competing interests. There were some comments and replies to this paper after that, but it is all inconsequential because once you have faulty methods your results are irrelevant. Besides, the comments are from the same University, could be some internal feuding.

PLoS One, what have you done? You’re a peer-reviewed open access journal! What “peers” reviewed this paper and gave their ok for publication? Since when is homeopathy science?! What am I going to find that you publish next? Astrology? For shame… Give me that editor’s job because I am certain I can do better.

To wrap it up and tell you why I am so mad. The homeopathic scale system, that centesimal gibberish, is just that: gibberish. It is impossible to replicate this experiment without the product marketed by Boiron because nobody knows how much of the plant is in the dose, which parts of the plant, what kind of extract, or what concentration. So it’s like me handing you my special potion and telling you it makes warts disappear because it has parsley in it. But I don’t tell you my recipe, how much, if there anything else besides parsley in it, if I used the roots or only the leaves or anything. Now that, my friends, it’s not science, because science is REPLICABLE. Make no mistake: homeopathy is not science. Just like the rest of alternative medicine, homeopathy is a ruthless and dangerous business that is in sore need of lawmakers’ attention, like FDA or USDA. And for those who think this is a small paper, totally harmless, no impact, let me tell you that this paper had over 20,000 views.

I would have oh so much more to rant on. But enough. Rant over.

Oh, not yet. Lastly, I checked a few other papers about arnica and my answer to the eczema question is: “It’s possible but no, I don’t think so. I don’t know really, I couldn’t find any serious study about it and I gave up looking after I found a lot of homeopathic red flags”. The answer I will give my family member? “Not the product you have, no. Go to the doctors, the ones with MDs after their name and do what they tell you. In addition, I, the one with a PhD after my name, will tell you this for free because you’re family: rub the contents of this bottle only once a day – no more! – on the affected area and you will start seeing improvements in three days. Do not use elsewhere, it’s quite potent!” Because placebo works and at least my water vial is poison free.

117 - Copy

Reference: Marzotto M, Bonafini C, Olioso D, Baruzzi A, Bettinetti L, Di Leva F, Galbiati E, & Bellavite P (10 Nov 2016). Arnica montana Stimulates Extracellular Matrix Gene Expression in a Macrophage Cell Line Differentiated to Wound-Healing Phenotype. PLoS One, 11(11):e0166340. PMID: 27832158, PMCID: PMC5104438, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166340. ABSTRACT | FREE FULLTEXT PDF 

By Neuronicus, 10 June 2017

Save

Advertisements

Who invented optogenetics?

Wayne State University. Ever heard of it? Probably not. How about Zhuo-Hua Pan? No? No bell ringing? Let’s try a different approach: ever heard of Stanford University? Why, yes, it’s one of the most prestigious and famous universities in the world. And now the last question: do you know who Karl Deisseroth is? If you’re not a neuroscientist, probably not. But if you are, then you would know him as the father of optogenetics.

Optogenetics is the newest tool in the biology kit that allows you to control the way a cell behaves by shining a light on it (that’s the opto part). Prior to that, the cell in question must be made to express a protein that is sensitive to light (i.e. rhodopsin) either by injecting a virus or breeding genetically modified animals that express that protein (that’s the genetics part).

If you’re watching the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, then you would also be familiar with Deisseroth’s name as he may be awarded the Nobel soon for inventing optogenetics. Only that, strictly speaking, he did not. Or, to be fair and precise at the same time, he did, but he was not the first one. Dr. Pan from Wayne State University was. And he got scooped.98.png

The story is at length imparted to us by Anna Vlasits in STAT and republished in Scientific American. In short, Dr. Pan, an obscure name in an obscure university from an ill-famed city (Detroit), does research for years in an unglamorous field of retina and blindness. He figured, quite reasonably, that restoring the proteins which sense light in the human eye (i.e. photoreceptor proteins) could restore vision in the congenitally blind. The problem is that human photoreceptor proteins are very complicated and efforts to introduce them into retinas of blind people have proven unsuccessful. But, in 2003, a paper was published showing how an algae protein that senses light, called channelrhodopsin (ChR), can be expressed into mammalian cells without loss of function.

So, in 2004, Pan got a colleague from Salus University (if Wayne State University is a medium-sized research university, then Salus is a really tiny, tiny little place) to engineer a ChR into a virus which Pan then injected in rodent retinal neurons, in vivo. After 3-4 weeks he obtained the expression of the protein and the expression was stable for at least 1 year, showing that the virus works nicely. Then his group did a bunch of electrophysiological recordings (whole cell patch-clamp and voltage clamp) to see if shining light on those neurons makes them fire. It did. Then, they wanted to see if ChR is for sure responsible for this firing and not some other proteins so they increased the intensity of the blue light that the ChR is known to sense and observed that the cell responded with increased firing. Now that they saw the ChR works in normal rodents, next they expressed the ChR by virally infecting mice who were congenitally blind and repeated their experiments. The electrophysiological experiments showed that it worked. But you see with your brain, not with your retina, so the researchers looked to see if these cells that express ChR project from the retina to the brain and they found their axons in lateral geniculate and superior colliculus, two major brain areas important for vision. Then, they recorded from these areas and the brain responded when blue light, but not yellow or other colors, was shone on the retina. The brain of congenitally blind mice without ChR does not respond regardless of the type of light shone on their retinas. But does that mean the mouse was able to see? That remains to be seen (har har) in future experiments. But the Pan group did demonstrate – without question or doubt – that they can control neurons by light.

All in all, a groundbreaking paper. So the Pan group was not off the mark when they submitted it to Nature on November 25, 2004. As Anna Vlasits reports in the Exclusive, Nature told Pan to submit to a more specialized journal, like Nature Neuroscience, which then rejected it. Pan submitted then to the Journal of Neuroscience, which also rejected it. He submitted it then to Neuron on November 29, 2005, which finally accepted it. Got published on April 6, 2006. Deisseroth’s paper was submitted to Nature Neuroscience on May 12, 2005, accepted on July, and published on August 14, 2005… His group infected rat hippocampal neurons cultured in a Petri dish with a virus carrying the ChR and then they did some electrophysiological recordings on those neurons while shining lights of different wavelengths on them, showing that these cells can be controlled by light.

There’s more on the saga with patent filings and a conference where Pan showed the ChR data in May 2005 and so on, you can read all about it in Scientific American. The magazine is just hinting to what I will say outright, loud and clear: Pan didn’t get published because of his and his institution’s lack of fame. Deisseroth did because of the opposite. That’s all. This is not about squabbles about whose work is more elegant, who presented his work as a scientific discovery or a technical report or whose title is more catchy, whose language is more boisterous or native English-speaker or luck or anything like that. It is about bias and, why not?, let’s call a spade a spade, discrimination. Nature and Journal of Neuroscience are not caught doing this for the first time. Not by a long shot. The problem is that they are still doing it, that is: discriminating against scientific work presented to them based on the name of the authors and their institutions. Personally, so I don’t get comments along the lines of the fox and the grapes, I have worked at both high profile and low profile institutions. And I have seen the difference not in the work, but in the reception.

Personally, so I don’t get comments along the lines of the fox and the grapes, I have worked at both high profile and low profile institutions. And I have seen the difference not in the work, but in the reception.

That’s my piece for today.

Source:  STAT, Scientific American.

References:

1) Bi A, Cui J, Ma YP, Olshevskaya E, Pu M, Dizhoor AM, & Pan ZH (6 April 2006). Ectopic expression of a microbial-type rhodopsin restores visual responses in mice with photoreceptor degeneration. Neuron, 50(1): 23-33. PMID: 16600853. PMCID: PMC1459045. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.02.026. ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF

2) Boyden ES, Zhang F, Bamberg E, Nagel G, & Deisseroth K. (Sep 2005, Epub 2005 Aug 14). Millisecond-timescale, genetically targeted optical control of neural activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(9):1263-1268. PMID: 16116447. DOI: 10.1038/nn1525. doi:10.1038/nn1525. ARTICLE 

By Neuronicus, 11 September 2016

Save

Save

Save

Save

Transcranial direct current stimulation & cognitive enhancement

There’s so much research out there… So much that some time ago I learned that in science, as probably in other fields too, one has only to choose a side of an argument and then, provided that s/he has some good academic search engines skills and institutional access to journals, get the articles that support that side. Granted, that works for relatively small questions restricted to narrow domains, like “is that brain structure involved in x” or something like that; I doubt you would be able to find any paper that invalidates theories like gravity or central dogma of molecular biology (DNA to RNA to protein).

If you’re a scientist trying to answer a question, you’ll probably comb through some dozens papers and form an opinion of your own after weeding out the papers with small sample sizes, the ones with shoddy methodology or simply the bad ones (yes, they do exists, even scientists are people and hence prone to mistakes). And if you’re not a scientist or the question you’re trying to find an answer for is not from your field, then you’ll probably go for reviews or meta-analyses.

Meta-analyses are studies that look at several papers (dozens or hundreds), pool their data together and then apply some complicated statistics to see the overall results. One such meta-analysis concerns the benefits, if any, of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on working memory (WM) in healthy people.

tDCS is a method of applying electrical current through some electrodes to your neurons to change how they work and thus changing some brain functions. It is similar with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMs), only in the latter case the change in neuronal activity is due to the application of a magnetic field.

Some people look at these methods not only as possible treatment for a variety of disorders, but also as cognitive enhancement tools. And not only by researchers, but also by various companies who sell the relatively inexpensive equipment to gamers and others. But does tDCS work in the first place?

92 conf - Copy (2)

Mancuso et al. (2016) say that there have been 3 recent meta-analyses done on this issue and they found that “the effects [of tDCS on working memory in healthy volunteers] are reliable though small (Hill et al., 2016), partial (Brunoni & Vanderhasselt, 2014), or nonexistent (Horvath et al., 2015)” (p. 2). But they say these studies are somewhat flawed and that’s why they conducted their own meta-analysis, which concludes that “the true enhancement potential of tDCS for WM remains somewhat uncertain” (p.19). Maybe it works a little bit if used during the training phase of a working memory task, like n-back, and even then that’s a maybe…

Boring, you may say. I’ll grant you that. So… all that work and it revealed virtually nothing new! I’ll grant you that too. But what this meta-analysis brings new, besides adding some interesting statistics, like controlling for publication bias, is a nice discussion as to why they didn’t find nothing much, exploring possible causes, like the small sample and effects sizes, which seem to plague many behavioral studies. Another explanation which, to tell you the truth, the authors do not seem to be too enamored with is that, maybe, just maybe, simply, tDCS doesn’t have any effect on working memory, period.

Besides, papers with seemingly boring findings do not catch the media eye, so I had to give it a little attention, didn’t I 😉 ?

Reference: Mancuso LE, Ilieva IP, Hamilton RH, & Farah MJ. (Epub 7 Apr 2016, Aug 2016) Does Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Improve Healthy Working Memory?: A Meta-analytic Review. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 28(8):1063-89. PMID: 27054400, DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00956. ARTICLE

 By Neuronicus, 2 August 2016

Mu suppression and the mirror neurons

A few decades ago, Italian researchers from the University of Parma discovered some neurons in monkey which were active not only when the monkey is performing an action, but also when watching the same action performed by someone else. This kind of neuron, or rather this particular neuronal behavior, had been subsequently identified in humans scattered mainly within the frontal and parietal cortices (front and top of your head) and called the mirror neuron system (MNS). Its role is to understand the intentions of others and thus facilitate learning. Mind you, there are, as it should be in any healthy vigorous scientific endeavor, those who challenge this role and even the existence of MNS.

Hobson & Bishop (2016) do not question the existence of the mirror neurons or their roles, but something else. You see, proper understanding of intentions, actions and emotions of others is severely impaired in autism or some schizophrenias. Correspondingly, there have been reports saying that the MNS function is abnormal in these disorders. So if we can manipulate the neurons that help us understanding others, then we may be able to study the neurons better, and – who knows? – maybe even ‘switch them on’ and ‘off’ when needed (Ha! That’s a scary thought!).

EEG WIKI
Human EEG waves (from Wikipedia, under CC BY-SA 3.0 license)

Anyway, previous work said that recording a weak Mu frequency in the brain regions with mirror neurons show that these neurons are active. This frequency (between 8-13 Hz) is recorded through electroencephalography (EEG). The assumption is as follows: when resting, neurons fire synchronously; when busy, they fire each to its own, so they desynchronize, which leads to a reduction in the Mu intensity.

All well and good, but there is a problem. There is another frequency that overlaps with the Mu frequency and that is the Alpha band. Alpha activity is highest when a person is awake with eyes closed, but diminishes when the person is drowsy or, importantly, when making a mental effort, like paying great attention to something. So, if I see a weak Mu/Alpha frequency when the subject is watching someone grabbing a pencil, is that because the mirror neurons are active or because he’s sleepy? There are a few gimmicks to disentangle between the two, from the setup of the experiment in such a way that it requires same attention demand over tasks to the careful localization of the origin of the two waves (Mu is said to arise from sensoriomotor regions, whereas Alpha comes from more posterior regions).

But Hobson & Bishop (2016) argue that this disentangling is more difficult than previously thought by carrying out a series of experiments where they varied the baseline, in such a way that some were more attentionally demanding than others. After carefully analyzing various EEG waves and electrodes positions in these conditions, they conclude that “mu suppression can be used to index the human MNS, but the effect is weak and unreliable and easily confounded with alpha suppression“.

87mu - Copy

What makes this paper interesting to me, besides its empirical findings, is the way the experiment was conducted and published. This is a true hypothesis driven study, following the scientific method step by step, a credit to us all scientists. In other words, a rare gem.  A lot of other papers are trying to make a pretty story from crappy data or weave some story about the results as if that’s what they went for all along when in fact they did a bunch of stuff and chose what looked good on paper.

Let me explain. As a consequence of the incredible pressure put on researchers to publish or perish (which, believe me, is more than just a metaphor, your livelihood and career depend on it), there is an alarming increase in bad papers, which means

  • papers with inappropriate statistical analyses (p threshold curse, lack of multiple comparisons corrections, like the one brilliantly exposed here),
  • papers with huge databases in which some correlations are bound to appear by chance alone and are presented as meaningful (p-hacking or data fishing),
  • papers without enough data to make a meaningful conclusion (lack of statistical power),
  • papers that report only good-looking results (only positive results required by journals),
  • papers that seek only to provide data to reinforce previously held beliefs (confirmation bias)
  • and so on.

For these reasons (and more), there is a high rate of rejection of papers submitted to journals (about 90%), which means more than just a lack of publication in a good journal; it means wasted time, money and resources, shattered career prospects for the grad students who did the experiments and threatened job security for everybody involved, not to mention a promotion of distrust of science and a disservice to the scientific endeavor in general. So some journals, like Cortex, are moving toward a system called Registered Report, which asks for the rationale and the plan of the experiment before this is conducted, which should protect against many of the above-mentioned plagues. If the plan is approved, the chances to get the results published in that journal are 90%.

This is one of those Registered Report papers. Good for you, Hobson & Bishop!

Reference: Hobson HM & Bishop DVM (Epub April 2016). Mu suppression – A good measure of the human mirror neuron system?. Cortex, doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.03.019 ARTICLE | FREE FULLTEXT PDF | RAW DATA

By Neuronicus, 14 July 2016

Now, isn’t that sweet?

80sugar - Copy

When I opened one of my social media pages today, I saw a message from a friend of mine which was urging people to not believe everything they read, particularly when it comes to issues like safety and health. Instead, one should go directly at the original research articles on a particular issue. In case the reader is not familiar with the scientific jargon, the message was accompanied by one of the many very useful links to blogs that teach a non-scientist how to cleverly read a scientific paper without any specific science training.

Needless to say, I had to spread the message, as I believe in it wholeheartedly. All good and well, but what happens when you encounter two research papers with drastically opposite views on the same topic? What do you do then? Who do you believe?

So I thought pertinent to tell you my short experience with one of these issues and see if we can find a way out of this conundrum. A few days ago, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (the rough equivalent of a Secretary of the Treasury or Minister of Finance in other countries) announced the introduction of a new tax on sugary drinks: the more sugar a company puts in its drinks, the more taxes it would pay. In his speech announcing the law, Mr. George Osborne was saying that the reason for this law is that there is a positive association between sugar consumption and obesity, meaning the more sugar you eat, the fatter you get. Naturally, he did not cite any studies (he would be a really odd politician if he did so).

Therefore, I started looking for these studies. As a scientist, but not a specialist in nutrition, the first thing I did was searching for reviews on the association between sugar consumption and obesity on peer-reviewed databases (like the Nature journals, the US NIH Library of Medicine, and the Stanford Search Engine). My next step would have been skimming a handful of reviews and then look at their references and select some dozens or so of research papers and read those. But I didn’t get that far and here is why.

At first glance (that is, skimming about a hundred abstracts or so), it seems there are overwhelmingly more papers out there that say there is a positive correlation between sugar intake and obesity in both children and adults. But, when looking at reviews, there are plenty of reviews on both sides of the issue! Usually, the reviews tend to reflect the compounded data, that’s what they are for and that’s why is a good idea to start with a review on a subject, if one knows nothing about it. So this dissociation between research data and reviews seemed suspicious. Among the reviews in question, the ones that seemed more systematic than others are this one and this one, with obvious opposite conclusions.

And then, instead of going for the original research and leave the reviews alone, I did something I am trying like hell not to do: I looked the authors and their affiliations up. Those who follow my blog might have noticed that very rarely do I mention where the research has taken place and, except in the Reference section, I almost never mention the name of the journal where the research was published in the main body of the text. And I do this quite intentionally as I am trying – and urge the readers to do the same thing – to not judge the book by the cover. That is, not forming a priori expectations based on the fame/prestige (or lack thereof) of the institution or journal in which the research was conducted and published, respectively. Judge the work by its value, not by its authors; and this paid off many times during my career, as I have seen crappy-crappity-crap papers published in Nature or Science, bloopers of cosmic proportions coming from NASA (see arsenic-DNA incorporation), or really big names screwing up big time. On the other hand, I have seen some quite interesting work, admittedly rare, done in Thailand, Morocco or other countries not known for their expensive research facilities.

But even in research the old dictum “follow the money” is, unfortunately, valid. Because a quick search showed that most of the nay-sayers (i.e. sugar does not cause weight gain) were 1) from USA and 2) had been funded by the food and beverage industry. Luckily for everybody, enter the scene: Canada. Leave it for the Canadians to set things straight. In other words, a true rara avis poked its head amidst this controversy: a meta-review. Lo and behold – a review of reviews! Massougbodji et al. (2014) found all sorts of things, from the lack of consensus on the strength of the evidence on causality to the quality of these reviews. But the one finding that was interesting to me was:

“reviews funded by the industry were less likely to conclude that there was a strong association between sugar-sweetened beverages consumption and obesity/weight gain” (p. 1103).

In conclusion, I would add a morsel of advice to my friend’s message: in addition to looking up the original research on a topic, also look where the money funding that research is coming from. Money with no strings attached usually comes only from governments. Usually is the word, there may be exceptions, I am sure I am not well-versed in the behind-the-scenes money politics. But if you see Marlboro paying for “research” that says smoking is not causing lung cancer or the American Beverage Association funding studies to establish daily intake limits for high-fructose corn syrup, for sure you should cock an eyebrow before reading further.

Reference: Massougbodji J, Le Bodo Y, Fratu R, & De Wals P (2014). Reviews examining sugar-sweetened beverages and body weight: correlates of their quality and conclusions. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99:1096–1104. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.063776. Article | FREE PDF

By Neuronicus, 20 March 2016

CCL11 found in aged but not young blood inhibits adult neurogenesis

vil - Copy
Portion of Fig. 1 from Villeda et al. (2011, doi: 10.1038/nature10357) describing the parabiosis procedure. Basically, under complete anesthesia, the peritoneal membranes and the skins of the two mice were sutured together. The young mice were 3–4 months (yellow) and old mice were 18–20 months old (grey).

My last post was about parabiosis and its sparse revival as a technique in physiology experiments. Parabiosis is the surgical procedure that joins two living animals allowing them to share their circulatory systems. Here is an interesting paper that used the method to tackle blood’s contribution to neurogenesis.

Adult neurogenesis, that is the birth of new neurons in the adult brain, declines with age. This neurogenesis has been observed in some, but not all brain regions, called neurogenic niches.

Because these niches occur in blood-rich areas of the brain, Villeda et al. (2011) wondered if, in addition with the traditional factors required for neurogenesis like enrichment or running, blood factors may also have something to do with neurogenesis. The authors made a young and an old mouse to share their blood via parabiosis (see pic.).

Five weeks after the parabiosis procedure, the young mouse had decreased neurogenesis and the old mouse had increased neurogenesis compared to age-matched controls. To make sure their results are due to something in the blood, they injected plasma from an old mouse into a young mouse and that also resulted in reduced neurogenesis. Moreover, the reduced neurogenesis was correlated with impaired learning as shown by electrophysiological recordings from the hippocampus and from behavioral fear conditioning.

So what in the blood does it? The authors looked at 66 proteins found in the blood (I don’t know the blood make-up, so I can’t tell if 66 is a lot or not ) and noticed that 6 of these had increased levels in the blood of ageing mice whether linked by parabiosis or not. Out of these six, the authors focus on CCL11 (unclear to me why that one, my bet is that they tried the others too but didn’t have enough data). CCLL11 is a small signaling protein involved in allergies. So the authors injected it into young mice and Lo and Behold! there was decreased neurogenesis in their hippocampus. Maybe the vampires were onto something, whadda ya know? Just kidding… don’t go around sucking young people’s blood!

This paper covers a lot of work and, correspondingly, has no less than 23 authors and almost 20 Mb of supplemental documents! The story it tells is very interesting and as complete as it gets, covering many aspects of the problems investigated and many techniques to address those problems. Good read.

Reference: Villeda SA, Luo J, Mosher KI, Zou B, Britschgi M, Bieri G, Stan TM, Fainberg N, Ding Z, Eggel A, Lucin KM, Czirr E, Park JS, Couillard-Després S, Aigner L, Li G, Peskind ER, Kaye JA, Quinn JF, Galasko DR, Xie XS, Rando TA, Wyss-Coray T. (31 Aug 2011). The ageing systemic milieu negatively regulates neurogenesis and cognitive function. Nature. 477(7362):90-94. doi: 10.1038/nature10357. Article | FREE Fulltext PDF

By Neuronicus, 6 January 2016

Wireless mice, batteries not included (optrodes and electrodes in one wireless contraption)

A neuron is expressing the light-gated cation channel channelrhodopsin-2 (small green shapes), and is being illuminated by a focused beam of blue light (coming from the top). The opsins have opened, depolarizing or electrically activating the cell. The pulse of electricity spreads throughout the inside of the cell (white highlights), triggering the release of neurotransmitters to downstream cells. Credit: Ed Boyden and Massachusetts Institute of Technology McGovern Institute Courtesy: National Science Foundation
A neuron is expressing the light-gated cation channel channelrhodopsin-2 (small green shapes), and is being illuminated by a focused beam of blue light (coming from the top). The opsins have opened, depolarizing or electrically activating the cell. The pulse of electricity spreads throughout the inside of the cell (white highlights), triggering the release of neurotransmitters to downstream cells. Credit: Ed Boyden and Massachusetts Institute of Technology McGovern Institute. Courtesy: National Science Foundation

Optogenetics is the new (and very popular) kid on the block of neurotechniques arsenal. Before optogenetics, in order to manipulate how the neurons behave in a particular brain region, one had to do so electrically or chemically by inserting into that region an electrode or a tube, respectively. The trouble with that is that you never know exactly which neurons you are manipulating, given that any brain regions has many kinds of cells that project to many other regions and they are not nicely arranged in clumps but interspersed in a messy mesh. But with optogenetics, you can select exactly which neurons you want to manipulate. You take a mouse and you genetically engineer it to express in your favorite neurons a particular protein that is sensitive to a certain light wavelength (like a rhodopsin). Then, you shine the light in the mouse’s brain, turning on and off the neurons of your interest. The technique, besides having tremendous success in fundamental research, also shows promise for neuroprosthetics for some diseases, like Parkinson’s.

Despite rapid improvements of the technique due to increasing demand form the neuroscience community, it is still difficult to record from the freely-moving animal, mainly because the animal is attached to the fiber optic that delivers the light pulses. There have been some wireless attempts (some successful), but because the resultant contraption was too big and heavy for the animal, they have reduced options as compared to the wired devices. Gagnon-Turcotte et al. (2015) describe here a way to build a wireless headtsage that can deliver light pulses AND record the electrophysiological activity of the neurons. And, equally important, is cheap and can be build with off-the-shelf components.

Reference: Gagnon-Turcotte, G., Kisomi, A. A., Ameli, R., Camaro, C.-O. D., LeChasseur, Y., Néron, J.-L., , Bareil, P. B., Fortier, P., Bories, C., de Koninck, Y., & Gosselin, B. (9 September 2015). A Wireless Optogenetic Headstage with Multichannel Electrophysiological Recording Capability. Sensors, 15(9): 22776-22797; doi:10.3390/s150922776. Article + FREE PDF

By Neuronicus, 22 September 2015

Update (27 September 2015). The author Gabriel Gagnon-Turcotte wins the Mitacs 2015 prize for exceptional innovation for the development of a wireless system to study the brain