Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, June 9, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

by Science Daily

Thanks to GP for the link.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080608131209.htm

Complex Synapses Drove Brain Evolution

ScienceDaily (Jun. 9, 2008) — One of the great scientific challenges is to understand the design principles and origins of the human brain. New research has shed light on the evolutionary origins of the brain and how it evolved into the remarkably complex structure found in humans.

he research suggests that it is not size alone that gives more brain power, but that, during evolution, increasingly sophisticated molecular processing of nerve impulses allowed development of animals with more complex behaviours.

The study shows that two waves of increased sophistication in the structure of nerve junctions could have been the force that allowed complex brains - including our own - to evolve. The big building blocks evolved before big brains.

Current thinking suggests that the protein components of nerve connections - called synapses - are similar in most animals from humble worms to humans and that it is increase in the number of synapses in larger animals that allows more sophisticated thought.

"Our simple view that 'more nerves' is sufficient to explain 'more brain power' is simply not supported by our study," explained Professor Seth Grant, Head of the Genes to Cognition Programme at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and leader of the project. "Although many studies have looked at the number of neurons, none has looked at the molecular composition of neuron connections. We found dramatic differences in the numbers of proteins in the neuron connections between different species".

"We studied around 600 proteins that are found in mammalian synapses and were surprised to find that only 50 percent of these are also found in invertebrate synapses, and about 25 percent are in single-cell animals, which obviously don't have a brain."

Synapses are the junctions between nerves where electrical signals from one cell are transferred through a series of biochemical switches to the next. However, synapses are not simply soldered joints, but mini-processors that give the nervous systems the property of learning and memory.

Remarkably, the study shows that some of the proteins involved in synapse signalling and learning and memory are found in yeast, where they act to respond to signals from their environment, such as stress due to limited food or temperature change.

"The set of proteins found in single-cell animals represents the ancient or 'protosynapse' involved with simple behaviours," continues Professor Grant. "This set of proteins was embellished by addition of new proteins with the evolution of invertebrates and vertebrates and this has contributed to the more complex behaviours of these animals.

"The number and complexity of proteins in the synapse first exploded when muticellular animals emerged, some billion years ago. A second wave occurred with the appearance of vertebrates, perhaps 500 million years ago."

One of the team's major achievements was to isolate, for the first time, the synapse proteins from brains of flies, which confirmed that invertebrates have a simpler set of proteins than vertebrates.

Most important for understanding of human thought, they found the expansion in proteins that occurred in vertebrates provided a pool of proteins that were used for making different parts of the brain into the specialised regions such as cortex, cerebellum and spinal cord.

Since the evolution of molecularly complex, 'big' synapses occurred before the emergence of large brains, it may be that these molecular evolutionary events were necessary to allow evolution of big brains found in humans, primates and other vertebrates.

Behavioural studies in animals in which mutations have disrupted synapse genes support the conclusion that the synapse proteins that evolved in vertebrates give rise to a wider range of behaviours including those involved with the highest mental functions. For example, one of the 'vertebrate innovation' genes called SAP102 is necessary for a mouse to use the correct learning strategy when solving mazes, and when this gene is defective in human it results in a form of mental disability.

"The molecular evolution of the synapse is like the evolution of computer chips - the increasing complexity has given them more power and those animals with the most powerful chips can do the most," continues Professor Grant.

Simple invertebrate species have a set of simple forms of learning powered by molecularly simple synapses, and the complex mammalian species show a wider range of types of learning powered by molecularly very complex synapses.

"It is amazing how a process of Darwinian evolution by tinkering and improvement has generated, from a collection of sensory proteins in yeast, the complex synapse of mammals associated with learning and cognition," said Dr Richard Emes, Lecturer in Bioinformatics at Keele University, and joint first author on the paper.

The new findings will be important in understanding normal functioning of the human brain and will be directly relevant to disease studies. Professor Grant's team have identified recently evolved genes involved in impaired human cognition and modelled those deficits in the mouse.

"This work leads to a new and simple model for understanding the origins and diversity of brains and behaviour in all species" says Professor Grant, adding that "we are one step closer to understanding the logic behind the complexity of human brains"

This research was a collaboration between scientists in the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Edinburgh University and Keele University.

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, GSK, Edinburgh University and the e-Science Institute, and the European Molecular Biology Organization.

Journal reference:

1. Emes RD, Pocklington AJ, Anderson CNG, Bayes A, Collins MO, Vickers CA, Croning MDR, Malik BR, Choudhary JS, Armstrong JD and Grant SGN. Evolutionary expansion and anatomical specialization of synapse proteome complexity. Nature Neuroscience, 8 June 2008

Comments 1 - 29 of 29 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #190456 by sciatheist on June 9, 2008 at 6:21 am

Quality is better than quantity. That's what I get from this article. I think it is interesting that people often use quantity in arguments as a support (ex. Because there are so many more people that believe in god than those who don't, therefore, believing in god is the smarter thing to do). Although this study is purely biological I think I can extend it to conclude that the first point in general is often right.

Other Comments by sciatheist

2. Comment #190490 by rod-the-farmer on June 9, 2008 at 7:41 am

 avatarOK, NOW what we need is to have this same group analyse the brains of the higher apes. Dollars to donuts that they have very similar building blocks. If so, we can use this info to beat off the fundies who claim we are 'special' and not related to them. I wonder if spreading that investigation further down (?) the mammalian tree of life, that we will find that the differences become wider, just as the DNA differences do.....

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

3. Comment #190491 by DamnDirtyApe on June 9, 2008 at 7:41 am

 avatarOur brains are insane, complex things. Each Neuron wired to up to 10,000 others. I kind of picture it like the old notions of computers, a mass of wires bundled up in a vast demented looking array.

There's an awful lot that goes wrong with our brains. I'll bet good money it doesn't take much misfiring for that crazy subset of mental disorders we rather feebly label 'schizophrenia' to kick in.

That's evolution for you - It works, but it'll create one a hell of a mountain of useless junk in the process. But hey, I consider that in itself evidence of evolution. Imperfection.

"We studied around 600 proteins that are found in mammalian synapses and were surprised to find that only 50 percent of these are also found in invertebrate synapses, and about 25 percent are in single-cell animals, which obviously don't have a brain."

- I'm going to go out on a limb and guess we probably don't even need all 600. There must be loads we just produce that probably sit there. I'm not a biologist - can anyone back my assumption up?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

4. Comment #190494 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 7:46 am

 avatarComment #190491 by DamnDirtyApe
Our brains are insane, complex things.


Probably not initially. They end up that way as we learn.

There can't be that much initial complexity in the brain, as there are only around 20-30,000 genes in our genome. Not enough for much software :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

5. Comment #190510 by irate_atheist on June 9, 2008 at 8:08 am

 avatar4. Comment #190494 by Steve Zara -

It's been amazing over the last ten months watching our son develop. The capacity for learning is astonishing and it is wonderful to watch. Learning to stand up is one thing - learning how to get back down without falling over is another(!). Absolutely fascinating to watch how progress is made and (trying) to help the process of learning along.

I wish that you could have had the same direct experience of this with children of your own, I really do. Nieces nephews etc. just aren't the same because of the reduced 'contact time'.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

6. Comment #190514 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 9, 2008 at 8:13 am

 avatar
There can't be that much initial complexity in the brain, as there are only around 20-30,000 genes in our genome. Not enough for much software :)
That seems like plenty enough considering their complex interactions. Am I wrong?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

7. Comment #190515 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 8:13 am

The big building blocks evolved before big brains


No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.

This fits.

To all you scientists - how controversial does this seem to you? See any holes?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #190519 by stephenray on June 9, 2008 at 8:18 am

RodTheFarmer:

Might be more useful to do the same research on fundamentalists. It'll probably show that they have less synapse proteins than normal people, but a few more than worms. Then finally we'll have a scientific explanation for why they are so DUMB.

Experiments on the great apes are pretty much a foregone conclusion, so I would do them afterward.

Other Comments by stephenray

9. Comment #190520 by Steve13 on June 9, 2008 at 8:19 am

Hi this is my first post

In my cognitive pyschology course we were just looking at some of the theories for the evolution of big brains. This research doesn't clear up what enviromental pressures drove the evolution of big brains but i wonder what effect it will have on theorizing in this area

Other Comments by Steve13

10. Comment #190553 by mordacious1 on June 9, 2008 at 8:51 am

Steve13

Welcome.

Irate

Have you taught your son your catch word? When he is a teenager he'll be using it on you. Ha ha

Article

The brain.......The Last Frontier (sorry Star Trek fans)

Other Comments by mordacious1

11. Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

 avatarComment #190510 by irate_atheist

It was amazing enough watching nephews and neices. I can remember the strong desire to learn, not just the capacity. The attempts to stand, to walk, to talk...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #190770 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #190568 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

Yes.

I think that Irate did not mean this to sound as exclusive and condescending as it did...?

You don't need to be a mum or a dad to really appreciate the joy of kids close to you, and to experience vicariously all their happiness and pain.

I suspect Irate is vaunting something far more solipsistic here. Proud of his spunk, for example?

We know how difficult it is to produce that.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

13. Comment #190772 by Steve Crawley on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.




The following synthesized information that I am sharing with you appeared in one of the TV documentaries recently. It was so interesting that I made these notes in order to remember it. It also gives a few points about how we talk and think with our big brains.

About 2.4 million years ago, a member of the Homo erectus family experienced a mutation in the muscle fabric of the lower jaw. The effect of the mutation was that the muscle fabric cells became much smaller and therefore much weaker. This smaller size as compared to mammals with large bites can be seen in microscopes today. Ordinarily, the combined lower jaw muscle attachments nearly wrap around the sides of the head to ensure a solid footing for a strong bite. The new smaller muscle has a much smaller footprint that did not constrain the growth of the skull, which allowed it to expand to accommodate a larger brain needed to survive. With the loss of the "big bite", this new member had to fight his battles using his brain instead of his brawn. He survived and so did the rest of his progeny who are now known as Homo sapiens.

About 200 to 300 hundred thousand year ago, another mutation occurred in gene FOXP2. The change resulted in the tongue, mouth, and vocal cords being able to synchronize in speech. This set the stage for Homo sapiens to begin communicating on a massive scale. Once in a while, the FOXP2 doesn't get passed. For example, 16 members of a family in England cannot speak intelligibly because they are missing the mutated FOXP2 gene.

Human genes are 98.6 percent the same as our closest relative in the animal world. We do a lot of the same things, and sometimes they do them better such as short terms memory test. The most significant difference boils down to the way we learn as compared to them. Our larger brain facilitates a different learning style. We are susceptible to teaching and once we learn, we remember and will repeat the full sequence of actions even though it may be apparent to us that not all the steps are necessary. On the other hand, our closest relatives will immediately neglect the learned steps and go for the final result. They learn from watching instead of being taught. Our ritualistic style of learning ultimately allows us to do much more complex tasks. In this case, we, like our gene, possess the power of being a replicator. The next most important thing is that we ask: Why? Chimpanzees do not. Additional distinguishing features include a much superior reasoning skill because of our larger brain, an ability to impute intentions to others, and the possession of a genetically based cooperative spirit.

Other Comments by Steve Crawley

14. Comment #190782 by Styrer- on June 9, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Comment #190772 by Steve Crawley on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm


Not sure that what you're adding here is entirely apposite to the article and the stated findings it presents, but thank you nonetheless for an interesting lesson.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

15. Comment #190814 by NakedCelt on June 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Comment #190515 by Styrer-:
No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.

This fits.

To all you scientists - how controversial does this seem to you? See any holes?
I'm not a scientist, but isn't the article talking about an increase in complexity somewhere between the first vertebrate and the first mammal?

I would think a number of different factors would have to have come together to prompt the evolution of the human brain. One of the great facilitating factors would have been the discovery of fire around when our ancestors were Homo ergaster: the brain is a metabolically hungry organ, yet we don't eat more for our size than our fellow apes. Most of the extra energy has been redirected from the digestive system, which would only have been possible when we (a) started eating more meat (perhaps) and (b) started cooking our food.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

16. Comment #190929 by Obecalp on June 9, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Steve Zara: "Probably not initially. They end up that way as we learn.

There can't be that much initial complexity in the brain, as there are only around 20-30,000 genes in our genome. Not enough for much software :) "

That's hardly an argument. For an instance there are only very few genes responsible for making antibodies (the tiny protein fragments which, among other functions, can neutralize a pathogen), but still a human being is able to generate a staggering diversity of 10^18 different (!) antibodies!

And with regard to the number of genes: To the best of my knowledge, that argument has not been settled.

By the way, are you implying that a newborns brain is NOT extremely complex???

Other Comments by Obecalp

17. Comment #190944 by Buddha on June 10, 2008 at 1:23 am

 avatarThose 20-30,000 genes in the genome can encode a staggering number of proteins because they can be expressed in a multitude of combinations. Proteins themselves then introduce another staggering layer of complexity by their subtle folding structures and interactions with each other. Also, some studies have indicated that the 98% of so called "junk DNA" may not be wholly useless after all.

The Human genome needs to be viewed as a computer Operating System rather than a recipe book. A computer programming language may have only a few dozen instructions, but it's the combination and interaction of those instructions that provide the infinite variety of software applications.

Other Comments by Buddha

18. Comment #190968 by irate_atheist on June 10, 2008 at 2:35 am

 avatar12. Comment #190770 by Styrer-

Actually, I was expressing a desire that another decent human being could have had an experience that, from all I know of him, he would have found wonderful. I am genuinely pleased he has not missed out - as it were.

*cough* Normal service now resumed.

7. Comment #190515 by Styrer -
No scientist, I had often wondered what sparked the huge increase in size of human brains.

This fits.
It rings a bell with me that someone (Dawkins) once said that each step of an evolutionary process merely builds on what is already there and doesn't really 'invent' things (Creotards - please don't misunderstand this idea - thank you). Interesting to see how that the different paths taken by vertebrates/invertebrates evolution has impacted on the basic building blocks for intelligence.

This is the sort of research that blows holes in theist claims for separate brain/mind/soul non-sense. Their god needs to find another, smaller, gap to fit in...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

19. Comment #190974 by Laurie Fraser on June 10, 2008 at 3:02 am

 avatarHey Irate, I'll play oneupmanship with you. Wait until you have a grandchild! Then, you really watch the development carefully; unburdened, as you are, with the day-to-day chore of just keeping them alive.:)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

20. Comment #191020 by Mozglubov on June 10, 2008 at 5:53 am

I just wanted to quickly point out before I head off to work that the infant brain is, in many ways, more complex than the adult brain (I guess it depends on your definition of complexity). A large portion of the learning we do in our early lives depends on synaptic pruning. Basically, we start off with more connexions between neurons than are necessary, and then gradually trim them down to isolate correct and appropriate synergies.

Also, at #190782, having an appropriate jaw for speech is not the only ingredient necessary. We have extremely specialized speech areas for verbal reasoning and generation (which is the main reason non-human animals taught signing still never learn complex vocabulary). It is difficult to say which came first, but I would guess that we developed the symbolic manipulation abilities of our brain before our smaller and weaker jaw, just to make the smaller and weaker jaw evolutionarily viable.

Other Comments by Mozglubov

21. Comment #191112 by irate_atheist on June 10, 2008 at 8:35 am

 avatar19. Comment #190974 by Laurie Fraser -
Then, you really watch the development carefully; unburdened, as you are, with the day-to-day chore of just keeping them alive.:)
Pah! Who says I try to keep him alive?! I'm one of those morality-free atheists, don't you know? Someone who can't be good because there's no god.

hmm..

Other Comments by irate_atheist

22. Comment #191116 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 8:49 am

 avatar(Bother. I am addicted. I admit it)

Comment #190929 by Obecalp

That's hardly an argument. For an instance there are only very few genes responsible for making antibodies (the tiny protein fragments which, among other functions, can neutralize a pathogen), but still a human being is able to generate a staggering diversity of 10^18 different (!) antibodies!


But those don't form complex structures. Variety is not complexity.

By the way, are you implying that a newborns brain is NOT extremely complex???


Yes, that is just what I am saying. Brains develop as a result of learing and nerve stimulation.

A potential way to look at a very, very young brain is like a huge disk drive. Vast amounts of the same structures (neurones/magnetic domains), ready to store information, and as a result, contain complexity.

Comment #190944 by Buddha
The Human genome needs to be viewed as a computer Operating System rather than a recipe book. A computer programming language may have only a few dozen instructions, but it's the combination and interaction of those instructions that provide the infinite variety of software applications.


One thing we can be pretty sure that the genome is NOT like is an operating system. Just about all software systems we know are very fragile - change a single character and it is possible to bring the whole thing down. Living systems (including the brain) are robust. Major parts can be damaged and changed, and they carry on.

Comment #191020 by Mozglubov

I just wanted to quickly point out before I head off to work that the infant brain is, in many ways, more complex than the adult brain (I guess it depends on your definition of complexity)


Indeed. What you are describing is simplicity, not complexity. The pruning is one mechanism for introducing complexity, of sculpting the brain.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #191124 by Buddha on June 10, 2008 at 9:02 am

 avatar@ Steve Zara:
One thing we can be pretty sure that the genome is NOT like is an operating system. Just about all software systems we know are very fragile - change a single character and it is possible to bring the whole thing down. Living systems (including the brain) are robust. Major parts can be damaged and changed, and they carry on.


It was an analogy rather than a literal comparison I was making, though there are some point mutations in genomes that are extremely deleterious to the organism. The main advantage that DNA/RNA has over Windows Vista is it's ability to repair damage and errors in it's coding. Computer scientists have started using similar biological techniques to develop resilient software for mission critical apps.

Other Comments by Buddha

24. Comment #191130 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:16 am

 avatar
It was an analogy rather than a literal comparison I was making, though there are some point mutations in genomes that are extremely deleterious to the organism. The main advantage that DNA/RNA has over Windows Vista is it's ability to repair damage and errors in it's coding. Computer scientists have started using similar biological techniques to develop resilient software for mission critical apps.


I didn't mean to be too critical, but I don't believe that genome can be anything like the same kind of thing as software. I say this as a programmer with 40 years experience (!). It is far more like a robust recipe.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #191136 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

 avatar
Yes, that is just what I am saying. Brains develop as a result of learing and nerve stimulation.

A potential way to look at a very, very young brain is like a huge disk drive. Vast amounts of the same structures (neurones/magnetic domains), ready to store information, and as a result, contain complexity.

A Blank Slate?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

26. Comment #191145 by Steve Zara on June 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

 avatarComment #191136 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

A Blank Slate?


Close to it, yes.

However, during development, various parts of the brain will have been stimulated by the various nerves that attach to it, and in the womb the fetus will have experienced warmth, touch, and sound, so not quite blank.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #191216 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 10, 2008 at 11:54 am

 avatar
Close to it, yes.

However, during development, various parts of the brain will have been stimulated by the various nerves that attach to it, and in the womb the fetus will have experienced warmth, touch, and sound, so not quite blank.
How do you explain things like differences in intelligence and physical ability etc with this model. How do you explain the existence of specific areas of the brain common to all humans that always perform the same types of processing?

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

28. Comment #191243 by Steve13 on June 10, 2008 at 1:03 pm

I think i can clear up what my fellow Steve is saying if i may be so bold, by drawing on his analogy to sculpting the brain. Genetic predispositions can be seen as potentials much like a piece of clay without the environmental stimulus nothing happens. With clay you are limited by the quality and how much clay you have this is analogous to gentic predispositions limit intelligence,personality and other things. I think Blank Slate is a bad word for it its more like a scaffolding where the building being built plans are constantly being change by the environment stimulus but its always gonna be affected by the postions of the scaffolding. Or at least thats how I've come to understand it

Other Comments by Steve13

29. Comment #191275 by Buddha on June 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm

 avatar
I didn't mean to be too critical, but I don't believe that genome can be anything like the same kind of thing as software. I say this as a programmer with 40 years experience (!). It is far more like a robust recipe.


There's a growing trend of opinion that genetics/genomics is a discipline of computer science rather than of wet biology. David Deutsch, in his book "Fabric of Reality", explores the argument that evolution itself is an emergent property of a Quantum Theory of Computation - an extension of Turing's original theory.

Other Comments by Buddha
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: