john hawks weblog

paleoanthropology, genetics and evolution

brain

  • Brains in a haystack

    Tue, 2013-04-30 09:45 -- John Hawks

    An essay by Gary Marcus, in the new online science magazine, Nautilus: "Where uniqueness lies".

    In short, humans may live very differently than chimpanzees, but the structural plans of our biology necessarily can represent only modest tinkerings to the genetic material that we inherited from our last common ancestors. Language, regardless of how it is instantiated in our brain, represents a comparatively tiny cognitive enhancement relative to the mental machinery we inherited from our last common ancestor. The same is true for the underlying biology of each of our cognitive innovations.

    If it seems like scientists trying to find the basis of human uniqueness in the brain are looking for a neural needle in a haystack, it’s because they are. Whatever makes us different is built on the bedrock of a billion years of common ancestry.

    A lot of what's interesting about humans is because we reuse the ancient systems of our brains in new ways. Technology and culture both help us to exploit systems shared much more broadly among animals. This greatly complicates our attempts to show what is really different about the biology of the human lineage, because shallow differences based on recent behavioral innovations abound.

  • Sahelanthropus brain

    Fri, 2013-04-05 23:13 -- John Hawks

    Kate Wong has been reporting from the Paleoanthropology Society meetings in Honolulu. Today she describes a presentation about the endocast shape of the Toumaï skull, Sahelanthropus tchadensis: "Brain Shape Confirms Controversial Fossil as Oldest Human Ancestor".

    Toumaï has been claimed to be the earliest member of the hominin lineage, although I and some other paleoanthropologists have disagreed with this interpretation.

    The resulting virtual reconstruction of the endocast reveals that Toumaï had a cranial capacity of 378 cubic centimeters—consistent with earlier estimates. This puts it within the range of chimp cranial capacity. In comparison, modern humans have brains around three times larger than that. But though Toumaï’s brain was apelike in its small size, it was apparently homininlike in other ways. In a presentation given on April 2 at the annual meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society, Bienvenu reported that the endocast shows strongly posteriorly projecting occipital lobes, a tilted brainstem, and a laterally expanded prefrontal cortex, among other hominin brain characteristics.

    A "laterally expanded prefrontal cortex" has been a recurring argument for changes in brain organization in hominin endocasts across a range of geological ages. Understanding when and how this area really changed in our evolution will be very useful.

  • Microchimerism and selection

    Sat, 2013-02-09 11:37 -- John Hawks

    A recent article in Scientific American by Robert Martone explains some recent research on how fetal cells become integrated into mothers' brains for the long term: "Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains"

    In this new study, scientists observed that microchimeric cells are not only found circulating in the blood, they are also embedded in the brain. They examined the brains of deceased women for the presence of cells containing the male “Y” chromosome. They found such cells in more than 60 percent of the brains and in multiple brain regions. Since Alzheimer’s disease is more common in women who have had multiple pregnancies, they suspected that the number of fetal cells would be greater in women with AD compared to those who had no evidence for neurological disease. The results were precisely the opposite: there were fewer fetal-derived cells in women with Alzheimer’s. The reasons are unclear.

    Sometimes people wonder what HLA is really for. Once in a while, having someone else's cells inside you isn't quite as harmless as the case discussed here. Being able to recognize your own cells may be your only means of defense.

    The kind of microchimerism described here lasts throughout a woman's postreproductive lifespan. The strength of selection varies across this timeframe. It was logical to hypothesize that the cells might have negative side effects on fitness, such as Alzheimer's risk, that manifest late in life. Mothers must suppress their immune responses to some extent during pregnancy, to avoid health risks to the developing embryo and fetus. That suppression cannot be cost-free; if it were, we would expect everybody to tolerate human foreign bodies as well as expectant mothers. Having roaming stem cells integrate themselves into neural tissue must not be good on average; if it were, we would have cells crawling their way into our brains all the time.

    I bet those cells worm their way into the brain so that your mother will love you better. The only thing wrong with that hypothesis is that it can't explain grandmas.

  • Speaking of Neandertal FOXP2

    Tue, 2013-01-29 00:39 -- John Hawks

    Tomislav Maricic and colleagues from Svante Pääbo's group have reported finding a regulatory change in the gene FOXP2 that may be of relevance to the evolution of human speech [1]. To telegraph the conclusion, the paper does not demonstrate that Neandertals or Denisovans were different from humans in speech or language-relevant phenotypes.

    Most important, a substantial number of living people share the ancestral genotype inferred for Neandertals and Denisovans for the site considered in the study. It is a genetic change within living people that may have been important, but it is an instance where human variation includes the Neandertal genotype.

    I'm going to let the paper's mini-review do the work of describing the background to the study:

    Among humans, sequence variation around exon 7 shows an excess of derived nucleotide variants at high frequencies and of rare nucleotide variants, indicating that the region has been affected by a selective sweep (Enard et al. 2002; Zhang et al. 2002; Yu et al. 2009). It has been estimated that this happened within the last 200,000 years (Enard et al. 2002) or 55,000 years (Coop et al. 2008). Because it was initially assumed that at least one of the two amino acid substitutions were the cause of the sweep, it was expected that at least one of them would not be present in Neandertals, who shared a common ancestor with modern humans 370–450,000 years ago (Green et al. 2010). However, both nucleotide substitutions were found in two Neandertals from Spain (Krause et al. 2007) as well as in Neandertals from Croatia (Green et al. 2010), and in Denisovans, an extinct Asian hominin group related to Neandertals (Reich et al. 2010). Furthermore, it was found that linkage disequilibrium extends across exon 7 in present-day humans, which is not expected if one of the two amino acid changes in exon 7 was the target of selection (Ptak et al. 2009). Hence, although at least one of the two amino acid changes is very likely evolutionarily relevant given the functional data and the conservation of FOXP2, they are not likely to be the cause for the selective sweep. Assuming that a sweep did occur, it must therefore be caused by some other variant in the region, possibly affecting the regulation or splicing of FOXP2.

    It was a big story that humans had a recent sweep in this gene, eliminating most of the variation, and that humans are different from other primates in the coding sequence. But the apparent timing of the sweep did not make sense in combination with the observation that Neandertals share the human coding sequence.

    One resolution of these observations is the hypothesis that the human version of FOXP2 simply came from Neandertals. I wrote about a short paper by Graham Coop and colleagues in 2008 that went along similar lines ("FOXP2 is really recent, it really did introgress (if it's not contamination)"). Coop and colleagues substantiated the hypothesis of a recent selective sweep, but at the same time they did acknowledge that selection on some other linked locus might account for the evidence.

    Maricic and colleagues have found another linked genetic change that could account for the sweep. In their scenario, the sweep was only the most recent of possibly several changes under selection to this gene. This most recent one involved a regulatory change within exon 7 of the gene that did not affect the coding sequence at all.

    The sequence analysis carried out by Maricic and colleagues is very straightforward. They simply resequenced the gene region from Neandertal specimens to get a list of sites where Neandertals and Denisovans do not carry a derived human variant, and then resequenced the gene in 50 humans to see how many of the derived human mutations are high-frequency. The one they identify is both high-frequency and affects a candidate regulatory site. The site is a binding site for the transcription factor POU3F2. The rest of the paper documents their attempts to demonstrate an effect of this site on gene regulation in tissue culture. They conclude:

    The transcription factor POU3F2 is expressed exclusively in the central nervous system (Schreiber et al. 1993), more specifically in postmitotic neurons and glia (Hagino-Yamagishi et al. 1997). Within the central nervous system, FOXP2 is expressed in postmitotic neurons (Ferland et al. 2003). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that POU3F2 regulates expression of FOXP2 in neurons. It is furthermore interesting that position 114076877 is located at the point in intron 8 of the FOXP2 gene where the pattern of allele frequencies among humans indicates that a functional change occurred that could be responsible for a positive selective sweep affecting the FOXP2 gene during the last 50,000 years (Coop et al. 2008). It is noteworthy that this is the only nucleotide variant in that region where the majority of present-day people carry a derived variant that is not present in Neandertals and Denisovans. Thus, it is possible that this change was positively selected recently during the evolution of fully modern humans.

    However, the ancestral allele shared by Neandertals and Denisovans is also fairly common in some human populations today. As Maricic and colleagues conclude, the obvious thing to do is look at homozygote carriers of the allele to see if they're different from noncarriers:

    The ancestral allele occurs at frequencies of ∼10% in some African populations (supplementary table S6, Supplementary Material online). Therefore, individuals homozygous for the ancestral allele can be expected to occur at a frequency of approximately 1% in the population. In such individuals, the phenotype of the ancestral allele should be observable even if is recessive to the derived allele. Further work will explore the phenotypes of such homozygous carriers of the ancestral allele and the consequences of the substitution at position 114076877 on FOXP2 transcription in model systems.

    This all seems logical. We may not be able to say that Neandertals were just like us in FOXP2 -- but that's because we're not all alike. They're just like some of us.

    The only thing I would add is that the number of humans covered by the study is still quite small. The paper examined only 50 individuals from the HGDP set; additionally they considered the 1000 Genomes data. It is interesting that the Neandertal-Denisovan ancestral allele at this site is not present in several of the samples outside Africa in the 1000 Genomes data, but it is present in two of the American samples, and in all the African samples. So although the region looks like it was positively selected at some point during the last 100,000 years or so, we still can't yet say that the ancestral allele carried by Neandertals was disadvantageous within later populations.

    Larger samples would settle that question. In the meantime, this study does point the way toward a wider analysis of differences in gene regulation among archaic human genomes.


    References

    Synopsis: 
    A discovery of gene regulation differences in FOXP2 may explain the variation of the gene in recent and archaic people.
  • Micro-RNA 941

    Sun, 2012-11-25 19:39 -- John Hawks

    John Timmer covers the story of miR-941, a micro-RNA that may influence the expression of genes in human brains, and which appears to have taken on a novel role in our lineage compared to other primates:

    Looking at the region in the human genome that contains miR-941 showed it's an area with a series of repeats of the same sequence, arranged in tandem. Chimps and macaques have similar sequences, but the duplications aren't arranged in a way that allows the production of a hairpin structure. Somewhere after we split off from chimps 6 million years ago, a rearrangement in the area (an event that's common in areas with duplicated sequences) created the human form of miR-941. It was already in place a million years ago, when the Denisovan population branched off.

    But the rearrangements didn't end there, as there have been a series of duplications that created as many as 11 extra copies of miR-941 (the numbers vary in different populations, but average is about six or seven copies in most). The extra copies should help ensure it's expressed at higher levels than it would be otherwise.

    The research was carried out by Hai Yang Hu and colleagues [1] in an open access paper ("Evolution of the human-specific microRNA miR-941". It deserves a bit more attention than I can give it at the moment, as it is one of a series of recent papers demonstrating human-specific duplications that affect gene expression. It is one of the first cases in which RNA structure and function have been investigated in an ancient genome. The number of copies of miR-941 varies substantially both within and among human populations.

    This passage from the paper is provocative:

    Humans display both increased longevity and increased occurrence of certain forms of cancer compared with both chimpanzees and macaques39. It is, therefore, appealing to speculate that emergence of miR-941 enhanced the maintenance of adult stem cell populations, thus supporting longer human lifespan, but rendering human cells more prone to malignant transformation. The role of miR-941 in the regulation of insulin signaling adds support to this notion. The insulin-signaling pathway was consistently implicated in lifespan regulation in many species, including humans. Notably, experimentally verified targets of miR-941 within this pathway include genes directly shown to be involved in lifespan extension in model organisms: IRS1, PPARGC1A and FOXO140 (ref. 40). Furthermore, FOXO1 was linked to extended human longevity.

    Still, I am skeptical of the idea that this molecule had a strong effect on the human phenotype. The greater the network of genes influenced by this micro-RNA, the less likely a massive up-regulation or down-regulation will have a simple phenotypic effect. Most genes that were duplicated or deleted during our evolutionary history probably were free to change because of a lack of fitness effect. Maybe this micro-RNA is an exception -- with a new effect on the human lineage, and extensive variation in copy number within humans. But it seems more likely to me that the variation in miR-941 dosage leads to a minor phenotypic effect across the network of affected genes, not a major directional effect.


    References

  • Einstein and Taung: two brains collide

    Wed, 2012-11-21 13:03 -- John Hawks

    Dean Falk has a new article in the journal Brain, in which she and collaborators uncover the details within historical photographs of Albert Einstein's brain [1]. The brain was sectioned after Einstein's death and samples have been studied by several researchers over the years, including Falk. The research was recently covered by the TV program NOVA ScienceNOW, which is being rebroadcast this week.

    I wanted to point to the article by Falk and colleagues because it includes a brief discussion of the lunate sulcus -- one of the most persistently pernicious topics in paleoneurology.

    The terminology for sulci of the human occipital lobe, in particular, has been influenced by an erroneous historical claim that human brains manifest a so-called lunate sulcus that is homologous to the Affenspalte (‘ape sulcus’) that forms the rostral boundary of the primary visual cortex [Brodmann area (BA) 17] on the lateral surface of the brain in apes and some monkeys (Smith, 1904, 1925). However, BA 17 of humans may, or may not, extend onto the external surface of the occipital lobe. When it does, its rostral border is located far posterior to the normal position for ape brains and is rarely bordered by a sulcus (Allen et al., 2006). Despite the fact that recent gross morphological and cytoarchitectural studies refute the assertion that humans have a lunate sulcus that is homologous with the Affenspalte (Allen et al., 2006; see Falk, 2012 for a discussion of the evolutionary implications), contemporary authors continue to use a variety of criteria to identify different sulci as so-called lunate sulci in humans (Duvernoy et al., 1999; Iaria and Petrides, 2007). The classical terminology used by Connolly (1950) for the occipital lobe is also grounded on the mistaken notion that humans have lunate sulci that are homologous to those of apes. For example, Connolly (1950) identifies a prelunate sulcus, which we identify with its modern name of the lateral occipital sulcus (Table 1). For these reasons, we do not recognize a lunate sulcus in Einstein’s brain.

    The long-running argument over the possible location of the lunate sulcus in the endocast of the Taung fossil hominin was a heated debate for more than 20 years in paleoanthropology. For Falk, the end of the story is that the sulcal patterns in human and other primate brains in this region are not homologous -- making it problematic to recognize either in the fossil endocasts of early hominins. I'm sure it isn't over, but I find it inspiring to see the evolutionary record make an appearance in this consideration of the brain of a very famous scientist.


    References

  • Keep still for your brain picture

    Thu, 2012-11-01 22:52 -- John Hawks

    Ben Deen and Kevin Pelphrey in Nature: "Perspective: Brain scans need a rethink" .

    Recent studies, however, have found that when a person moves their head while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) -- a method that maps how different neuroanatomical structures of the brain interact in real time, its functional connectivity -- it looks like the neural activity observed in autism. That's a sobering discovery: it means that a major source of evidence for a leading hypothesis on autism, and one that several research teams have pursued for years, may arise from an artifact.

    Remember the "dead salmon" study, in which inert tissue placed in the scanner produced results? The statistical methods underlying comparisons of fMRI between cases and controls rely on averaging a multidimensional space across many individuals. A bias doesn't have to be very large to lead to a significant difference between groups:

    [A]s one of the new studies showed, even a difference as small as 0.004 millimetre in average head motion across groups of patients can lead to significant differences in correlation strengths.

    That's four microns! That is, of course, an average across a large sample, each child has his or her own motion. Imagine trying to get them to average out so that the average motto is precisely equal across a few dozen individuals. And then, as the article discusses ways that might correct for linear biases, you are still left with the possibility that head motion has a nonlinear effect on result, so that the bias survives your attempt to correct for it.

    How remarkable, the very complex approaches necessary to deal with a relatively simple phenomenon.

  • Quote: Jerison on animal intelligence

    Thu, 2012-10-04 14:20 -- John Hawks

    Harry Jerison, famous researcher of brain sizes across classes and orders of animals, commented on the relation of "encephalization" to the intelligence of animals by considering the problem one of multidimensional optimization [1]:

    The insight is that comparable amounts of intelligence in different species may not (and normally would not) reflect comparable kinds of intelligence. Many and various intelligences (in the plural) must have evolved in conjunction with evolving environments and with brains and behaviours adapted to those environments.

    That intelligences would be of various kinds is almost an axiom of evolutionary analysis, since adaptations evolve in the contexts of the environments in which they are effective, and species never occupy identical niches. The evolution of neural and sensorimotor adaptations provides many fine examples of uniqueness of species. The visual systems of deer and wolf, for example, may be similar in many ways, for example, in the structure of the sensory cells, neural networks of the retina, and the central nervous pathways and centres. Yet these systems are significantly different: the deer, like most ungulate 'prey' species, probably has panoramic vision whereas the wolf's visual field is more nearly like the primate's proscenium stage. The visual system encumbers significant amounts of nervous tissues and, thus, contributes to brain size and measured encephalization. Neural machinery associated with the sensory systems and motor control systems as a group determines a large fraction of the mass of the whole brain. Equality of encephalization of deer and wolf, thus, implies that the neural control systems for the specialized adaptations, though different in the two species, sum to approximately equal amounts relative to body size.


    References

    1. Jerison HJ. Animal intelligence as encephalization. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1985;308(1135):21-35.
  • Building bigger dolphin brains

    Tue, 2012-09-11 18:14 -- John Hawks

    Ed Yong reports on a new study demonstrating a history of positive selection on the gene ASPM in cetaceans. Bruce Lahn's group previously showed that this gene has been positively selected in primate lineages, including recent humans: "Same gene involved in bigger brains of dolphins and primates".

    Now, Shixia Xu from Nanjing Normal University has found that a gene called ASPM played an important role in the evolution of cetacean brains. The gene shows clear signatures of adaptive change at two points in history, when the brains of some cetaceans ballooned in size. But ASPM has also been linked to the evolution of bigger brains in another branch of the mammal family tree – ours. It went through similar bursts of accelerated evolution in the great apes, and especially in our own ancestors after they split away from chimpanzees.

    It seems likely that both primates and cetaceans—the intellectual heavyweights of the animal world—both owe our bulging brains to changes in the same gene. “It’s a significant result,” says Michael McGowen, who studies the genetic evolution of whales at Wayne State University. “The work on ASPM shows clear evidence of adaptive evolution, and adds to the growing evidence of convergence between primates and cetaceans from a molecular perspective.”

    Molecular mechanisms of convergence have proved to be very common in the evolution of different mammalian orders. Mechanistically, evolution seems to select the same pathways when the same general functional requirements are adaptive. It is interesting that cetaceans and primates have broadly similar social and communication constraints, but very different ecological constraints in other respects, such as diet, thermoregulation navigation and home range.

  • Mouse brain mapping

    Tue, 2012-06-05 12:39 -- John Hawks

    This merits some attention: "Neuroscientists reach major milestone in whole-brain circuit mapping project".

    The data consist of gigapixel images (each close to 1 billion pixels) of whole-brain sections that can be zoomed to show individual neurons and their processes, providing a “virtual microscope.” The images are integrated with other data sources from the web, and are being made fully accessible to neuroscientists as well as interested members of the general public (http://mouse.brainarchitecture.org). The data are being released pre-publication in the spirit of open science initiatives that have become familiar in digital astronomy (e.g., Sloan Digital Sky Survey) but are not yet as widespread in neurobiology.

    It's a press release from Cold Spring Harbor Labs, giving some background on the project and its use of a "shotgun" mapping approach for neuronal connections. For me, the most exciting aspect of the open access data is the potential of running analyses across different datasets, such as the gene expression element of the Allen Brain Atlas. Drawing conclusions may require a sample more representative of different stages of ontogeny than is now available, but these will be the next logical step -- understanding brain structure really requires us to understand how it develops.

Pages

Subscribe to brain

Neandertals

For years, I've worked on their bones. Now I'm working on their genes. Read more about the science studying these ancient people.

Denisova

From a finger bone of an ancient human came the record of a completely unexpected population. My lab is working on the science of the Denisova genome.

Acceleration

The advent of agriculture caused natural selection to speed up greatly in humans. We're uncovering some of the ways that populations have rapidly changed during the last 10,000 years.

Malapa

Just outside Johannesburg, the Malapa site is producing some of the most exciting finds in human evolution. This site is the headquarters of the Malapa Soft Tissue Project.