PDA

View Full Version : The Doogie Mouse (Long and possibly very boring)


Rduke55
02-23-2006, 03:29 PM
With all the talk going on in the intelligence and race threads I thought I’d move this little gem up a few spots. I started my career in a Learning and Memory lab studying NMDA receptors. That seems like a lifetime ago but I’ll give it a shot.

Disclaimer: As I said in the other threads, genetics is only one component of what determines a person’s intelligence.

You may have read about the supermouse within the past couple of years called the Doogie mouse. This mouse was genetically engineered to be smarter than other, normal mice. It was in the popular media after Tsien’s Nature paper from 1999. To understand what he was talking about we have to do a little background on the neurobiology of learning and memory.

So, the brain can be thought of being made up of a whole crapload of neurons (nerve cells) talking to each other in circuits. In many ways, circuits in the brain are like muscles. The more you use a particular connection the stronger it gets, the less you use it the weaker it gets. But I’m already getting ahead of myself.

OK, neurons conduct information using electrical and chemical means. When a neuron is activated, it sends a brief electrical signal down its length to the synapse (a space between two neurons). Now the electrical signal can’t jump this gap so it needs to be transformed into something that can. The change in voltage due to the electrical signal causes the release of chemicals from the activated neuron that influences the neuron on the other side of the synapse, for our purposes we’ll just deal with the chemicals that excite the next neuron. These chemicals cause a small change in voltage in the next neuron. If enough of the chemical is released onto the next neuron its change in voltage passes a certain threshold and that neuron gets activated and sends an electrical signal down its length to its synapse with another neuron and so forth. Now, the key part here is that you need a certain amount of voltage change in the 2nd neuron for it to be activated. After all, you don’t want all of your neurons firing all willy-nilly at the slightest provocation. For the most part, you want circuits that are more important and used regularly to be easier to activate.

Basically, the more input a neuron gets from other neurons (either from multiple neurons dumping chemical on it simultaneously or a single neuron rapidly dunping chemical on it), the stronger those connections get. Hebb postulated in the late 1940’s that neurons have a “coincidence detector” that allows them to tell when they are being stimulated by more than one neuron (or rapidly by a single neuron). How does it do this? Well since Hebb’s day it’s been thought that the main coincidence detector on neurons is the n-methy-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor. Basically this is a receptor that is activated by the neurotransmitter glutamate (our excitatory chemical). Once activated it increases the amount calcium in the cell which causes a whole bunch of changes making it easier for the neuron the get excited in the future. Looks like a great mechanism for “muscling up” our neurons.
But why doesn’t any signal cause strengthening of these connections? Because I said it’s a coincidence detector – that’s why! The coincidence detection comes in because glutamate alone can’t activate the receptor. The neuron already needs to have a certain voltage change. You dump glutamate on NMDA receptors while the neuron is not excited and you’ll get no response. Dump it on when the neuron is somewhat excited and they’ll activate.

So how does the nervous system know how much stimulation a neuron or circuit should be activated by? It has a learning mechanism built right in! It happens at the synapse. Let’s say I take, oh say, HLMencken and want to train him. I want him to crap his pants everytime I flash a light. So I take him and flash that light and he doesn’t care because he is a big tough guy and he’s not afraid of lights. But I give him an electric shock and he craps his pants. As anyone who has taken a general psych course, etc. knows I may be able to have him associate the light with the shock and eventually crap his pants to the light only (no shock). How does this work?

Let’s think of HL as only a few neurons (insert joke about his intelligence here). One neuron gets excited to a light flash. One neuron gets excited by the shock. Both synapse on a neuron that, when activated, trigger his bowel-releasing (we’ll call this neuron the BR neuron). Now normally when I give the shock, the shock neuron releases enough exciting chemical on the bowel-releasing neuron to activate it and pants are crapped. The light neuron alone does not release enough chemical on the BR neuron to activate it, therefore no pants are crapped to presentation of the light only.

However, if I pair the presentation of the light and the shock then every time the light neuron is giving its weak excitation to the BR neuron the shock neuron is giving it’s strong one. Therefore the glutamate that the light neuron is dumping on the synapse can activate the NMDA receptors (because the neuron is excited), calcium can increase in that cell and make changes so that the synapse between the light neuron and BR neuron is more sensitive (the “connection is stronger”) to the light neuron’s input. Eventually after repeating this process, the connection will be so strong that light alone will cause HLMencken to crap his pants.

This coincidence detection is how we learn at the cellular level. In this way, neurons that give their input on another neuron at about the same time get those connections strengthened.

OK, so what does all this have to do with smart mice? Well, all NMDA receptors aren’t the same. They vary in how easily they are activated, how long they stay activated, etc.
One type, we’ll call in NMDA receptor A only stays activated for a short time. Another type, we’ll call it NMDA receptor B, stays activated for a long time. That longer activation results in more a greater time window for coincidence detection and its “easier” to get LTP (because neurons that don’t normally coincide now do and also neurons may send more signals that coincide because of the longer window).

Typically during early development we have mostly Type B receptors because we’re wiring things up and want these changes to be easy and robust. After about 6 months of age we switch to mostly Type A receptors (presumably because we want most of what we changed to stay that way). What Tsien’s group did was use genetic engineering in mice (he called them the Doogie mouse, after Doogie Howser) to increase the amount of Type B receptors in certain areas of the brain.

These altered mice performed better at certain tasks (maze running, classical conditioning, object recognition, etc.) than normal mice suggesting that they learn better because of the high levels of Type B receptors.

Combine this information with what we know about how different promoters can influence expression of receptors (see The Monogamy Gene post) and you have a mechanism for genetics influencing intelligence through subtle manipulation of NMDA receptor levels.

Man, this may be rough to comprehend without figures, but I typed it so I’m posting it.

AvivaSimplex
02-23-2006, 05:16 PM
Cliff notes at the bottom.
[ QUOTE ]
These altered mice performed better at certain tasks (maze running, classical conditioning, object recognition, etc.) than normal mice suggesting that they learn better because of the high levels of Type B receptors.

[/ QUOTE ]One interesting thing about that experiment is that the genetic manipulation was not particularly exotic. The effect of an increased ratio of Type B receptors could very easily occur in nature. In fact, through evolution, wild mice have probably achieved the optimal ratio of Type A to B receptors.

So if increasing type B makes the mouse smarter, why haven't they evolved to have more type B or all type B? I would suggest that it's because the tasks that they used are not reflective of what we think of as intelligence.

In each of these tasks, mice were considered to be "smarter" if they could learn specific single associations or retain experiences well. Using that scale, the best performer would be a mouse that would permanently learn all associations after a single exposure.

In the real world, that's not optimal. Mice can't simply learn once that there is food in the garbage can and not in the alley, because that may change over time. They need for associations not to be permanent or absolute, but flexible and updatable with new information. I suspect that if you let the doogie mice free, they would be prone to repetitive, non-adaptive behavior, and would be less reproductively fit than wild-type mice.

Genetically engineering a human would have similar mixed effects. That person might do very well academically, because they could memorize items very well. However, they would be prone to drawing incorrect conclusions based on single experiences. For example, if they crossed their fingers while playing roulette and won, they might "learn" that crossing their fingers would ensure that they would win, and they would be insensitive to subsequent evidence against that idea.

Similar inappropriate associations happen in people with schizophrenia. A friend of mine works with people with schizophrenia. She told me about one man who made coffee on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Somehow his brain linked the two events, and he thought that his coffee had caused the attacks. Afterwards he become very anxious whenever he drank coffee.

Cliff notes version: the ways the Tsien group measured learning and memory performance are not very comprehensive. People and animals are likely already optimized for the application of learning to the real world. To be successful, genetic engineering will have to either radically change our genes (e.g. by inserting genes from other species) or very subtly manipulate our genes to optimize us for modern life as compared to life 10,000 years ago.

Rduke55
02-23-2006, 05:20 PM
Yeah, I tried to qualify my statement on that. Of course ther are very good, adaptive reasons Type A increases and Type B decreases in development such as those you posted.

Obviously this is extreme but I was speculating on subtle differences in mechanisms like these could account for gentic influences on "intelligence".

Borodog
02-24-2006, 12:05 AM
Very nice post and very nice response. Scooby Snacks for you both.

hmkpoker
02-24-2006, 02:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Genetically engineering a human would have similar mixed effects. That person might do very well academically, because they could memorize items very well. However, they would be prone to drawing incorrect conclusions based on single experiences. For example, if they crossed their fingers while playing roulette and won, they might "learn" that crossing their fingers would ensure that they would win, and they would be insensitive to subsequent evidence against that idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean, but I'm not sure that it would work like this; conditioned behavior naturally extinguishes itself when unreinforced. It depends on the mechanisms behind behavioral extinction, which will lead me to ask a question of our resident nueroscientist:

Rduke: Is behavioral extinction (like when Pavlov's dog stopped salivating to the bell after repeatedly not getting his meat) the result of a new NMDA bond (pairing the bell with no meat), or the loss of the old bond (bell and meat)?

I figure if extinction is the result of new NMDA bonds, the behavior of the decieved gambler would extinguish just as quickly as it set on. For example, if a fellow crossed his fingers three times on three roulette throws and developed the superstitious belief that crossing fingers makes you win, doesn't it also follow that if he crosses his fingers three times on the next three throws and loses each time, he will have a new belief that crossing fingers doesn't work anymore. (Maybe he'll even believe that it makes you lose!)

In theory, the complete lack of correlation between finger-crossing and roulette results should send so many mixed and unpredictable results to a NMDA-enhanced person that he'll eventually be conditioned to believe that it can't be predictable. (As for chronic gamblers, I don't know what makes them keep engaging in -EV bets; my guess is that the sense of satisfaction from a win overwhelms the sense of disappointment from a loss even if the loss is mathematically greater)

If extinction is based completely on the loss of a strengthened NMDA bond, then yes, our NMDA-enhanced gambler is in a lot of trouble, but I really don't think this is the case. Losing roulette while crossing one's fingers has to create some kind of competitive NMDA bond, right?

Rduke55
02-24-2006, 11:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Rduke: Is behavioral extinction (like when Pavlov's dog stopped salivating to the bell after repeatedly not getting his meat) the result of a new NMDA bond (pairing the bell with no meat), or the loss of the old bond (bell and meat)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you ask, since my wife published a paper on that very question. For a long time it was thought of as "unlearning" the connection but recent-ish work has demonstrated that it's more likely new learning going on.

Regarding relearning the lack of correlation (instead of saying "unlearning") it isn't necessarily a straight up trade in ease of learning compared to the original crossing-fingers-means-I-win thing. The task and strength and sign of reinforcement and stimulus (does winning value higher in reinforcement? etc.) all influence the ease of changing the connections.

As to the "NMDA-enhanced" person, I agree that maybe they would learn the "correlations" better (Hey, when I limp UTG with KTo I seem to lose more often than I win - I better stop that). But I also can imagine that the larger window of coincidence detection may actually result in more perceived correlations whcih may screw them up.
It would be an interesting study for sure.