Toxoplasma’s Dark Side: The Link Between Parasite and Suicide

We human beings are very attached to our brains. We’re proud of them – of their size and their complexity. We think our brains set us apart, make us special. We scare our children with tales of monsters that eat them, and obsessively study how they work, even when these efforts are often fruitless. So, of course, we are downright offended that a simple, single-celled organism can manipulate our favorite organ, influencing the way we think and act.

Toxoplasma gondii is arguably the most interesting parasite on the planet. In the guts of cats, this single-celled protozoan lives and breeds, producing egg-like cells which pass with the cats bowel movements. These find their way into other animals that come in contact with cat crap. Once in this new host, the parasite changes and migrates, eventually settling as cysts in various tissues including the host’s brain, where the real fun begins. Toxoplasma can only continue its life cycle and end up a happy adult in a cat’s gut if it can find its way into a cat’s gut, and the fastest way to a cat’s gut, of course, is to be eaten by a cat. Incredibly, the parasite has evolved to help ensure that this occurs. For example, Toxoplasma infection alters rat behavior with surgical precision, making them lose their fear of (and even become sexually aroused by!) the smell of cats by hijacking neurochemical pathways in the rat’s brain.

Of course, rats aren’t the only animals that Toxoplasma ends up in. Around 1/3 of people on Earth carry these parasites in their heads. Since Toxoplasma has no trouble affecting rats, whose brains are similar in many ways to our own, scientists wonder how much the parasite affects the big, complex brains we love so much. For over a decade, researchers have investigated how this single-celled creature affects the way we think, finding that indeed, Toxoplasma alters our behavior and may even play a role in cultural differences beween nations.

The idea that this tiny protozoan parasite can influence our minds is old news. Some of the greatest science writers of our time have waxed poetic about how it sneaks its way into our brains and affects our personalities. Overall, though, the side effects of infection are thought to be minor and relatively harmless. Recently, however, evidence has been mounting that suggests the psychological consequences of infection are much darker than we once thought.

In 2003, E. Fuller Torrey of the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland his colleagues noted a link between Toxoplasma and schizophrenia – specifically, that women with high levels of the parasite were more likely to give birth to schizophrenics-to-be. The hypothesis given for this phenomenon is that while for most people who are infected, Toxoplasma has minor effects, for some, the changes are much more pronounced. The idea has gained traction – a later paper found, for example, that anti-psychotics worked just as well as parasite-killing drugs in restoring normal behaviors in infected rats, affirming the similarities between psychological disorders and Toxoplasma infection.

Continuing to work with mental patients, scientists later discovered a link between suicide and parasite infection. But, of course, this link was in people who already have mental illness. Similarly, a study found that countries with high Toxoplasma infection rates also had high suicide rates – but the connection between the two was weak, and there was no direct evidence that the women who committed suicide were infected.

What scientists really wanted to understand is whether Toxoplasma affects people with no prior disposition to psychological problems. They were in luck: in Denmark, serum antibody levels for Toxoplasma gondii were taken from the children of over 45,000 women as a part of a neonatal screening study to better understand how the parasite is transmitted from mother to child. Since children do not form their own antibodies until three months after birth, the antibody levels reflect the mother’s immune response. Thus the scientists were both able to passively screen women not only for infection status, but degree of infection, as high levels of antibodies are indicative of worse infections. They were then able to use the Danish Cause of Death Register, the Danish National Hospital Register and the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register to investigate the correlation between infection and self-directed violence, including suicide.

The results were clear. Women with Toxoplasma infections were 54% more likely to attempt suicide – and twice as likely to succeed. In particular, these women were more likely to attempt violent suicides (using a knife or gun, for example, instead of overdosing on pills). But even more disturbing: suicide attempt risk was positively correlated with the level of infection. Those with the highest levels of antibodies were 91% more likely to attempt suicide than uninfected women. The connection between parasite and suicide held even for women who had no history of mental illness: among them, infected women were 56% more likely to commit self-directed violence.

While these results might seem frightening, they make sense when you think about how Toxoplasma is known to affect our personalities. In 2006, researchers linked Toxoplasma infection to neuroticism in both men and women. Neuroticism – as defined by psychology – is the “an enduring tendency to experience negative emotional states,” including depression, guilt and insecurity. The link between neuroticism and suicide is well established, thus if the parasite does make people more neurotic, it’s not surprising that it influences rates of self-violence.

How does a parasite affect how we think? The authors suggest that our immune system may actually be to blame. When we are infected with a parasite like Toxoplasma gondii, our immune system goes on the offensive, producing a group of molecules called cytokines that activate various immune cell types. The trouble is, recent research has connected high levels of cytokines to depression and violent suicide attempts. The exact mechanism by which cytokines cause depression and other mental illnesses is poorly understood, but we do know they are able to pass the blood-brain barrier and alter neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine in the brain.

But the authors caution that even with the evidence, correlation is not causation. “Is the suicide attempt a direct effect of the parasite on the function of the brain or an exaggerated immune response induced by the parasite affecting the brain? We do not know,” said Teodor T. Postolache, the senior author and an associate professor of psychiatry and director of the Mood and Anxiety Program at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, in a press release. “We can’t say with certainty that T. gondii caused the women to try to kill themselves.”

“In fact, we have not excluded reverse causality as there might be risk factors for suicidal behavior that also make people more susceptible to infection with T. gondii,” Postolache explained. But given the strong link between the two, there is real potential for therapeutic intervention. “If we can identify a causal relationship, we may be able to predict those at increased risk for attempting suicide and find ways to intervene and offer treatment.” The next step will be for scientists to affirm if and how these parasites cause negative thoughts. Not only could such research help target at-risk individuals, it may help scientists understand the dark neurological pathways that lead to depression and suicide that the sinister protozoan has tapped into. But even more disconcerting is that scientists predict that Toxoplasma prevalence is on the rise, both due to how we live and climate change. The increase and spread of this parasitic puppeteer cannot be good for the mental health of generations to come.

 

Citation: Pedersen, M.G., Mortensen, P.B., Norgaard-Pedersen, B. & Postolache, T.T. Toxoplasma gondii Infection and Self-directed Violence in Mothers, Archives of General Psychiatry, DOI: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2012.668

Photos: Toxoplasma gondii parasites in rat ascitic fluid from the CDC’s Public Health Image Library; Brain MRI Scan in Patient with Toxoplasma Encephalitis from the University of Washington’s HIV Web Study

Social Media for Scientists Part 6: The Wiki

I just returned from a wonderful week in Washington DC, where I gave workshops on social networking to scientists at the Fourth Biennial National IDeA Symposium of Biomedical Research Excellence (NISBRE). I was delightfully surprised that so many of the scientists there came to my workshop not only to learn, but to support the use of social networking in science – what a good sign!

Anyhow, as a part of the workshop, I created a wiki jam-packed with just every resource I could find on social networking for researchers and educators. I shared it with the NISBRE folks, and now I want to share it with you.

The wiki is broken down into sub-categories, with pages for each of the major networks as well as general resources on the topic. I hope it will become not only a resource, but a place of discussion – somewhere scientists from all backgrounds share their experiences and discuss how to use Web 2.0 tools effectively.

But, like any wiki, it needs input. What links have I missed? What other specific topics should I include? Whether you’re a scientist who is contemplating jumping into the social media world, or an online guru with advice for beginners, your opinions are valued and desired. So head over to the wiki, become a member, and add your thoughts/links!

More Social Media for Scientists:

Prettier tits (the bird!) get more help from their partners

After a long, cold winter, nothing says spring like the hopeful songs and dances of horny male birds looking for mates. Throughout Europe and western Asia, the blue tit is one of the most colorful birds to engage in this annual hormone-driven spectacle. The males bring their A game, flitting about, singing beautiful songs, and offering gifts, trying everything in their power to convince their potential mates they are the best man around. One thing is for certain when it comes to blue tit love: it’s ladies’ choice. But, as a new study published today in Frontiers in Zoology found, the guys do have minds of their own: they’re better dads when they’ve landed an attractive mate.

While blue tit males will do their best to impress females, the females still rely heavily on looks when making their decisions. Male blue tits are ornamented with brilliant blue feathers that shine brightly in the UV range, while the girls’ feathers are much duller. This difference isn’t meaningless; female tits strongly prefer males with the brightest UV crests. But not only does the guy’s looks matter in courtship: previous research has shown that if you dampen a male tit’s UV coloration after his chicks are born, his lovely mate will be derelict in her motherly duties, leading to weaker offspring.

Why should looks matter after the kids have been born? Well, from an evolutionary perspective, animals are attracted to individuals that make the best mates. Thus, in turn, attractiveness is a basic assessment of mate quality (though, certainly, other factors carry weight, too). Over a female tit’s life, she may mate with a number of different males that vary in their attractiveness. If the most attractive one she ever mates with is the healthiest, or the one with best genes, or in whatever way produces the best kids, it’s worth her while to make sure that any babies she makes with him are given the best odds of surviving – which would mean putting more effort in to caring for her young when her partner is sexy, and less when he’s just so-so. This change in effort based on mate quality is known as the Differential Allocation Hypothesis (DAH).

blue tit feeding youngSince the female tits are making the decisions, you might think their looks aren’t as important. But once the babies are born, both parents shoulder the burden of caring for their young – and there’s reason to believe the guy’s parental care efforts may contribute more toward baby bird survival. While the female tits spend more time tidying their nest, evidence suggests that when it comes to bringing home the bacon, male blue tits bring in more food – and specifically more high quality food – than their mates. Furthermore, hungry baby tits beg dad for more instead of mom, suggesting that the young instinctively trust their father to feed them when times get rough. Which begs the question: do males slack on their fatherly duties if their mate isn’t pretty? That is exactly what Katharina Mahr and her colleagues at the Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology wanted to know.

To test the Differential Allocation Hypothesis, the research team took female blue tits and used UV-blocking chemicals in duck gland oil to dull their pretty color. On others, they placed the same oil, but no blocking chemicals, so their plumage still shone brightly. The UV-blocking chemicals didn’t alter the females behavior in any way, only made them look less ornate to their mates. So how did the males react?

While all males protected their mate and chicks with equal fervor, the males with the less attractive mates made significantly less foraging trips to feed their chicks. Less food means the young are not as strong, healthy and competitive as others, lessening their chance of surviving and reproducing themselves. “The UV reflectance of the crown plumage of female blue tits significantly affected male investment in feeding nestlings,” explain the authors. This decreased parental investment wasn’t compensated for by the female, and thus the chicks are directly and negatively affected.

“This is the first study to show that male blue tit behavior depends on female ornamentation,” said Matteo Griggio, co-author of this study, in the press release. The male tits are likely using attractiveness as a measure of the health of their mate. “Females in bad condition might not be able to provide sufficient parental care, which in turn affects nestling body mass and growth [of the young],” explain the authors. Since getting food for chicks costs the male both food and energy, the male can’t afford to waste his time feeding chicks that might not make it. Instead, he cuts his losses without completely sacrificing his young, and keeps himself healthy and strong for the next set of chicks that will hopefully be with more suitable mate.

Of course, it’s hard to resist the temptation to draw human parallels. After all, blue tits are considered monogamous, though they cheat on their partners and divorce bad matches like we do. However, no evidence for DAH in people has ever been presented, and designing such an experiment would be extremely difficult. Unlike many animals, though, humans are remarkable parents even in extreme biological circumstances. Adopted children and stepchildren receive a lot of parental care from their non-biological parents, for example. It’s unlikely that this kind of differential allocation plays a large role in human parenting. That said, this study of tits does make you wonder…

 

Citation: Katharina Mahr, Matteo Griggio, Michela Granatiero and Herbert Hoi. Female attractiveness affects paternal investment: experimental evidence for male differential allocation in blue tits. Frontiers in Zoology (in press)Photo of blut tits ‘kissing’ from Wikimedia commons.

Photo of an adult blue tit feeding its young by David Friel via Flikr.

Mythbusting 101: bulking up with bull shark testosterone

This week, the startling image of a 1,000 pound bull shark has been circulating the internets. But what really caught my eye was the quote from the lead researcher. He told news outlets that bull sharks “have the most testosterone of any animal on the planet, so that should tell you a little something.” Tsk tsk. No matter what those websites tell you, it’s simply not true.

This isn’t the first time I have heard this whole bull sharks and testosterone bit. Indeed, all over the internet, you see claims that bull sharks are so aggressive because of their insane testosterone levels. But it was the character Bruce Kibbutz in Grand Theft Auto IV that really got people talking about bull shark testosterone. During the game, the roid-raging fitness freak explains how he juices on testosterone taken from Chilean bull sharks. Suddenly, extreme body builders and skeptics wanted to know if you could really bulk up on bull shark blood.

The rumor, as I’d heard it in college, is that the fierce attitudes of these large and aggressive sharks is due to unfathomably high circulating levels of testosterone. Specifically, these menacing monsters supposedly have higher serum testosterone levels than any species on the planet, land or sea, and that even a female bull shark has higher levels than a testosterone-raged male elephant in musth. I know I’m as much to blame as anyone, as I’ve repeated that line myself. But when I was asked about it, I realized that I didn’t know if it’s true. How do the circulating testosterone levels compare between bull sharks and other species? Could you procure enough testosterone by catching and eating bull sharks to beef up your body?

Let’s start with that elephant. In the red corner, standing up to 11.5 feet tall and weighing in at up to 20,000 lbs, we have the African Bush Elephant (Loxodonta africana). What’s the testosterone level in this whomping beast? During much of the year, not much. Male elephants, on average, have less than 2 ng/ml ciculating in their plasma. But wait! Big boy wants to get his groove on, and he is getting ready for a season of fighting and fornicating. So what’s the male elephant in musth’s testosterone level? As high as 64.4 ng/ml! About a 60 fold increase in average circulating testosterone1. Ai! That’s a lot of anger-pumping hormone.

How about his opponent, the every day female bull shark (Carcharhinus leucas)? In the blue corner, weighing in at around 505 lbs and stretching almost 12 feet long, is our large and in charge girl. She’s bigger than her man, no doubt, but she still has to keep her femininity about her. After all, as a girl, if her testosterone levels are too high, she might have reproductive issues. Surely her circulating levels are lower than the male elephant’s?

According to the only, extremely obscure published reference with testosterone levels in a female bull shark, actually, yes, they are2. Her circulating testosterone level is right around 0.1 ng/ml, a whole lot lower than that angry elephant. Sorry to burst bubbles, but she ain’t gonna give anyone roid rage. Her man, though… My oh my. One of the two male adult bull sharks in that study had a circulating testosterone level of 358 ng/ml. Yeah, that’s one roided out shark. Problem is, the other male bull shark in that study only had 2.7 ng/ml of testosterone in his serum – which is probably less than you male readers out there have pumping in your blood right now. So not all male bull sharks are running around roided out of their minds. To be fair, these were just single sharks, caught once and tested once. Without a more complete study of the average hormone levels in bull sharks, by size, season, etc, we can’t really say that bull sharks have abnormally high or low testosterone levels.

Of course, there is a more complete study. Not a super detailed one, but a study none the less. Rasmussen & Murru3 studied androgen levels in a number of captive sharks over time. They found testosterone levels of 10 ng/ml to 20 ng/ml in two captive bull sharks when they measured every June for three years, just after the sharks’ normal breeding season. Not too impressive, boys – not too impressive, but of course, that is in captivity, and it’s unknown how captivity may affect their hormone levels.

In wild bull sharks caught right before the breeding season, the serum levels were much higher: 185 ng/ml on average – which was 4 to 10 times higher than the levels they found in two other shark species, and is pretty impressive compared to the elephant. But, it turns out, it’s not that hard to find high testosterone levels in fish. Other sharks have high levels, too – like the bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo, whose highest levels have been recorded at 303 ng/ml4. And in that species, even the girls have higher levels than our elephant – a whopping 74 ng/ml at max5. Believe me, I’d rather go hunting bonnethead than bull sharks any day. Other fish, too, have been found to have high testosterone. Male rainbow trout have levels around the same as those of the bonnetheads6, and heck, they sound a whole lot tastier to me than the other options. Just sayin’. Sorry folks, but according to the best, albeit limited scientific information we have, the idea that bull sharks are super juiced-up compared to other animals just isn’t true.

Yet in the news and even on the Discovery Channel’s infamous Shark Week, the highest-testosterone-in-the-world bull shark is the norm. How did the data end up so skewed towards this single result? As I see it, it is the scientific community that is to blame for the impression that bull sharks are testosterone-pumped. Every other paper I read about shark hormones since the two with bull sharks cites them, specifically mentioning 358 ng/ml and that bull sharks have much higher levels than other sharks.

Now that I read the papers, I see it’s not the media’s fault. It’s the original authors that claim that bull sharks have higher testosterone than other sharks, even without presenting evidence to back it up. It started with how Rasmussen & Gruber were quick to point out how high that 358 ng/ml value is, saying it’s “among the highest recorded in vertebrate serum,” but didn’t talk at all about why the other mature male bull shark (by their own identification) was more than one hundred fold lower. But it’s really Rasmussen & Murru (hmm… that first name sounds familiar), in their discussion, who seem to overinflate their own data. They state that “a species differences in absolute concentrations appears to exist because concentrations of testosterone in both wild and captive bull sharks were about two times higher than those in mature sandbar and lemon sharks” (emphasis mine). Yet their included figure showing the yearly serum concentrations for the two captive bull sharks studied clearly shows the levels between 5 ng/ml and 20 ng/ml, while the levels for the two captive sandbar sharks sampled at the same and different times of year range from 0 ng/ml to over 40 ng/ml! Two to four times higher in bull sharks? Where? When?!

But enough griping about inaccurate inflation of results. Let’s say, for a hypothetical moment, that there is a time of year, size, or whatever where you could go out with a shark hook and some dead fish and guarantee getting a big boy bull shark with upwards of 300 ng/ml in his system. It’s time to address the other part of the myth: Should serious users think about going fishing?

You’ll have one big fish to fry if you’re trying to get a nice dose of testosterone by ingesting sea creatures. First off, I hope you’re feeling vampiric. You want the blood, not the tissues. We don’t know anything about how much testosterone is in bull shark tissues, and besides, that super high amount was in the blood… so, yeah. Cheers. Second off, unless you’re planning on shooting up shark blood, you’re not getting the dose you think. Orally ingested testosterone is rapidly absorbed by the gut, but it’s also converted to inactive metabolites, leaving you with only 1/6th the dose you took remaining in active form. That’s why pills and injections aren’t actually of straight testosterone, they’re of slightly modified chemicals that the body doesn’t metabolize as easily. It also means that to get the same dose from shark as you would from a prescription (or black market) pill, you have to drink six times what you think you have to.

So let’s say you want to replace that 40 mg pill you bought with bull shark blood. Even if you catch that one shark that had 350 ng/ml in his serum, that means you’ll have to drink down three cups of shark plasma to equal one pill. A shark tends to be about 12.3% blood by weight according to previous studies7 – that’s 6.8% blood cells and 5.5% serum, which has a specific gravity (weight per volume) of around 1.03. So say you caught an average bull shark, weighing only 350 lbs instead of the max of 500. He’ll have around 44 cups of blood in him, which is only 44% plasma, so you’ll need to drink 6.8 cups of blood per pill. So at 2-5 pills a day, that shark will only last you one to three days. Hey – I guess it’s legal. Though somehow, I don’t think athletes are going to get away with the old “I was just drinking shark blood” excuse just because of that.

Of course, all of that assumes that the majority of bull sharks are swimming around with high testosterone levels, which as the data reveals, simply isn’t likely. What’s worse, though, is that by perpetuating the idea of roided-out sharks, we’re giving credence to the idea that bull sharks are mindless killing machines with a taste for blood. While bull sharks are certainly dangerous animals, they are far from the angry maneaters they’re portrayed to be. Given that you’re still more likely to die from being struck by lightning that by a shark attack, and that there are probably hundreds of thousands of bull sharks in the Atlantic Ocean alone… I’d say the bull sharks are being pretty restrained.

 

Citations: 1. JAINUDEEN, M., KATONGOLE, C., & SHORT, R. (1972). PLASMA TESTOSTERONE LEVELS IN RELATION TO MUSTH AND SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN THE MALE ASIATIC ELEPHANT, ELEPHAS MAXIMUS Reproduction, 29 (1), 99-103 DOI: 10.1530/jrf.0.0290099

2. Harold L. Pratt, Jr., Samuel H. Gruber, & Toru Taniuchi (editors) (1990). Elasmobranchs as Living Resources: Advances in the Biology, Ecology, Systematics, and the Status of the Fisheries NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90, 143-155

3. Rasmussen, L., & Murru, F. (1992). Long-term studies of Serum Concentrations of reproductively related Steriod Hormones in individual captive Carcharhinids Marine and Freshwater Research, 43 (1) DOI: 10.1071/MF9920273

4. Manire, C. (1997). Serum Concentrations of Steroid Hormones in the Mature Male Bonnethead Shark,Sphyrna tiburo General and Comparative Endocrinology, 107 (3), 414-420 DOI: 10.1006/gcen.1997.6937

5. Manire, C. (1995). Serum Steroid Hormones and the Reproductive Cycle of the Female Bonnethead Shark, Sphyrna tiburo General and Comparative Endocrinology, 97 (3), 366-376 DOI: 10.1006/gcen.1995.1036

6. Scott, A. P., & Baynes, S. M. (1982). Plasma levels of sex steroids in relation to ovulation and spermiation in rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) Proc. Int. Symp. Reprod. Physiol. Fish, 103-106

7. Thorson, T. (1962). Partitioning of Body Fluids in the Lake Nicaragua Shark and Three Marine Sharks Science, 138 (3541), 688-690 DOI: 10.1126/science.138.3541.688

Note: this post is updated from a version posted on Science Blogs in 2010

AI Takes Baby Steps: RoboBaby Learns Words

In 1998, a strange fad swept the nation. Standing a mere 5 inches tall, the gremlin-esque talking robots known as furbies became the season’s must-have toys for kids (much to Hasbro’s delight). The most compelling aspect of furbies wasn’t their strange, half hamster, half owl aesthetic or even their ability to talk; it was that, from the beginning, furbies were advertised as learning robots. A newly purchased furby starts out speaking an entirely made up language called Furbish, but, over time, was said to ‘learn’ English by talking to its owner. As the the instruction manual touted: “The more time you spend with me, the sooner I will be able to speak your language.”

While it was a neat trick, the fact is, furbies didn’t really learn. English phrases were in their memory from the get go – their programming simply dictated that the use of these phrases increased over time. Still, even faked robot learning was cool enough to sell over 40 million furbies in the first three years.

While the furby fad might seem silly in retrospect, their sudden popularity revealed a lot about how people feel about robotic brains. Whether through fear or fascination, we are fixated on the idea of true artificial intelligence (AI). Our obsession with AI is why we applauded when Deep Blue beat chess champion Garry Kasparov in 1997, and why we were transfixed as we watched IBM’s Watson trounce both the biggest all-time money winner and the record holder for the longest championship streak on Jeopardy!.

Now, the Adaptive Systems Research Group at the University of Hertfordshire have created a real-life (and significantly less creepy) furby of sorts. In a new article published today in PLoS ONE, they reveal DeeChee – a robot that, like a small child, can learn words through human interaction.

Most robots outperform people in tasks which require extreme levels of computation. That’s how Deep Blue won at chess – the machine was simply able to calculate possible follow-up moves at alarming speed. The Holy Grail of AI, though, has always been language. When you break it down, language is difficult to learn. Even we, as intelligent beings, have trouble learning other languages. The constant shift of context and structure makes defining language in an algorithmic way near impossible, and thus robots can’t learn to talk simply by being super computers.

A six to fourteen month old child, though, learns to discriminate between words and phrases readily with time. It was this early stage of language learning, when children first turn babble into words, that the research team from Hertfordshire sought to emulate with iCub robot DeeChee.

“Since our work concerns the acquisition of a human language by a robot we are inspired by the process in humans,” explain the authors. “The basis of our experimental work is a real-time interactive situation where a human participant talks to a robot, using his or her own spontaneous words.”

The team told volunteers, who were varied in age, occupation, gender, experience with children and familiarity with computers, to talk to DeeChee exactly how they would if they wanted to teach a real child the words for colors and patterns. This YouTube video shows an example interaction between DeeChee and a volunteer:

DeeChee, in turn, was programmed to hear the teacher’s speech as distinct sounds called phenoemes, not syllables. To DeeChee, the phrase “a red box” might contain any of the following phenoemes: a, ar, re, red, e, ed, bo, box, o, ox. By listening for and responding to praise in response to its babble, DeeChee attempted to piece together what phenoemes correspond to words the teachers were trying to get it to say.

What was interesting about these experiments was not only whether or not DeeChee would succeed at learning words, but also how the volunteers themselves varied in their abilities. “We wanted to explore human-robot interaction and were deliberately not prescriptive,” explain the authors. “However, leaving participants to talk naturally opened up possibilities of a wide range of behaviour, possibilities that were certainly realized.”

Like in a real teaching setting, the teachers – and DeeChee’s learning – varied. “Some participants were better teachers than others: some of the less good produced very sparse utterances, while other talkative participants praised DeeChee whatever it did, which skewed the learning process towards non-words.”

Overall, though, DeeChee learned. As you can see in the video, the robo-baby was able to pick up simple, one-syllable words like red, green, and heart. DeeChee’s success suggests that similar mechanisms may explain how human babies learn to talk.

Modeling children is only the first step in creating truly intelligent robots, of course. There are still a number of hurdles between cooing the names of colors and shapes and being able to learn language to fluency. But DeeChee is non-living proof that computers may be capable of the complex and intricate process of learning language.

“It is known that infants are sensitive to the frequency of sounds in speech, and these experiments show how this sensitivity can be modelled and contribute to the learning of word forms by a robot.”

I, for one, welcome our infant robot overlords.

 

Reference: Lyon C, Nehaniv CL, Saunders J (2012) Interactive Language Learning by Robots: The Transition from Babbling to Word Forms. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38236. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038236

Furby image c/o Wikimedia Commons

Using cannabinoids to overcome fear in the brain

We all know exactly what fear feels like. Without our consent, our hearts begin to beat a little faster. The hairs on the back of our neck prickle. Our palms sweat through clenched fingers. Fear is so much more than an emotion; it is a whole body experience. But it doesn’t start that way – it starts in our brains.

When we sense danger or threat, a signal is sent to the walnut sized structure in our forebrains called the amygdala, which is responsible for alerting the rest of our body to prepare for fight or flight. Once the threat is removed, the signal relaxes, and so do we. But for those who suffer from anxiety disorders, it takes much longer for the brain to sound the all clear.

“We’ve learned a fair amount of the circuitry that’s involved in generating the initial fear response. We really know relatively little about the circuitry that’s involved in turning it off,” explains neuroscientist Richard Davidson. Now, in a study published this week in Molecular Psychiatry, researchers from Duke university have found that marijuana-like compounds and the enzyme that degrades them may be the key to understanding fear’s off switch.

Previous research has connected endocannabinoids – naturally-produced compounds that are structurally similar to the active ingredients in marijuana – to the fear response. In mice, for example, brain-wide deletion of cannabinoid receptor type 1 results in a loss of ability to regulate fear. The brains cannabinoid system, though, has a wide variety of important functions, so clinicians are hesitant to use it as a target for potential anxiety therapies.

Researchers have found, though, that one particular cannabinoid – anandamide – seems to play a large role in modulating fear responses. Since anandamide levels in the brain are regulated by a single enzyme, fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH), researchers wondered if they could boost anandamide levels by turning off this one enzyme without too many negative side effects.

To test this, the team used a highly selective FAAH inhibitor, AM3506, to knock down the activity in a fear-prone mice (a commonly used model for treating anxiety disorders). They found that the drug not only helped the mice recover from fear faster, the research team specifically traced the drug’s effects to the amygdala. When they looked for unwanted side effects, including altered appetite and depression, they found no evidence for them. This is good news for potential clinical uses of AM3506, though the researchers were careful to note that testing across a broad range of assays will be needed to ensure the drug is safe and effective in people.

While their results were promising, they didn’t answer the real question the Duke team was asking: whether regulating FAAH in people could help treat anxiety disorders.

As luck would have it, in 2009 the same team discovered some people have a common variant in the FAAH gene that affects how well it functions. Now, using fMRI scans of people’s brains, the researchers were able to compare how people with each type of gene reacted to threatening images. As predicted, those with lower FAAH activity levels – like the mice who received the inhibitor – were able to overcome their fear more quickly. A survey of 1,000 New Zealanders further supported these results by showing that those with the low-functioning variant were more level-headed and calm in the face of stress.

Bound together, these results strongly suggest that regulating the activity of FAAH may be a novel way to treat difficult anxiety-based disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). “What is most compelling is our ability to translate first from mice to human neurobiology and then all the way out to human behavior,” said Ahmad Hariri, co-author of the study and a neurobiologist at the Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy. “That kind of translation is going to define the future of psychiatry and neuroscience.”

Reference: Gunduz-Cinar, O., et al (2012). Convergent translational evidence of a role for anandamide in amygdala-mediated fear extinction, threat processing and stress-reactivity Molecular Psychiatry DOI: 10.1038/mp.2012.72

Image by Victor Bezrukov c/o Wikimedia Commons

Time to Vote!

Nominations are over, and two of my posts are in the running, included among an impressive list of science blogs. Go peruse the nominees, get a feel for your favorites, then GO VOTE. You have until midnight this Saturday to do so!

Mine are in the S’s under “Science Sushi” if you want to vote for me – which you do, right? 😉

Here are the two posts in the running:

Time – and brain chemistry – heal all wounds

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture

Parasitic flower pirates genes from its host

Rafflesia cantleyi, perhaps better known as the corpse flower for its pungent scent, steals everything from its host. Though each blossom can be in excess of three feet across, the massive buds cannot support themselves, and have no leaves, stalks or true roots. Instead, they rely entirely upon their vine host, Tetrastigma rafflesiae, for survival. Harvard researchers have now discovered that food and water aren’t the only things the corpse flowers steal – over the course of evolutionary history, Rafflesia has also stolen Tetrastigma‘s genes.

The corpse flower and its host have a very intimate relationship. From the start, Rafflesia burrows into the Tetrastigma‘s tissues, growing as thread-like strands in direct contact with the surrounding vine’s cells. They are so dependant on their host that the corpse flowers have even lost the ability to make chlorophyll, a requirement for photosynthesis, and thus defy the very nature of being a plant by being unable to produce food from sunlight. These parasites feed off their host vines, growing and growing until they finally erupt, dramatically if briefly, into large, rubbery flowers that stink like rotting flesh.

Somehow, after generations and generations of intimate contact between parasite and host, Rafflesia has ended up with more than the usual parasitic spoils. As a new study published today in BMC Genomics reveals, the parasite expresses dozens of genes that it has co-opted from its host.

The passage of genes from distant lineages, such as the corpse flower and its vine host, is known as horizontal gene transfer. Though common in bacteria (e.g. the transfer of antibiotic resistance), it is much rarer in plants and animals, and we still don’t fully understand how it occurs.

Scientists were first alerted that something was a little off with Rafflesia several years ago. At that time, they were looking at a much bigger picture – the overall evolution of parasitism in plants – when they noticed something a little odd in their data. For one of the genes, Rafflesia and similarly deeply-embedded parasites didn’t appear to be related to their closest kin, and instead, appeared to be cousins of their hosts. They hypothesized that such a strange evolutionary relationship could only have evolved in one way: if the parasites had stolen that gene.

Now, the Harvard team has sequenced all of the active genes of both the corpse flower and its host to determine how many genes were stolen. Researchers found that 49 of the proteins expressed by Rafflesia – 2% of its transcribed genome – are bootlegged.

“We found that several dozen actively transcribed genes likely originated from the flower’s host,” said Zhenxiang Xi, first author and a graduate student at Harvard University. They also found that most of these genes were incorporated into the parasites own DNA, even replacing similar genes, and another third of Rafflesia‘s own genes have evolved to look more like the vine’s.

The genes that were stolen perform a wide variety of cellular functions, including roles in respiration, metabolism, mitochondrial translation, and protein turnover. Their active expression suggests that they play a key role in the parasite’s survival, but the researchers hope that future research will determine exactly how important these genes are and whether they help the parasite evade detection by the host’s immune system. “These findings might reflect a sort of genomic camouflage, or genomic mimicry for the parasite,” says Charles Davis, co-author and head of the lab at Harvard. A bacterial pathogen of citrus trees, for example, produces a hijacked protein which limits the victim’s ability to detect and remove the intruder.

What’s truly remarkable about this study is that the rate of gene transfer between the vine and its parasitic corpse flower is as high as rates of lateral gene transfer seen in bacteria. Never before have scientists thought that horizontal gene transfer could play such a pivotal role in the evolution of plants and animals, let alone in parasite-host relationships. Given that parasites make up for an astounding 40% of the species on Earth, these findings are bound to transform our understanding of evolutionary processes and how we ended up with the diversity of life we see today.

 

Reference: Xi, Z. & et al, (2012). Horizontal transfer of expressed genes in a parasitic flowering plant, BMC Genomics, 13 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-227

Rafflesia Image provided by BMC Genomics

The 3 Quarks Daily Science Blogging Prize Is Back!

Every year, the amazing crew over at 3 Quarks Daily offers a prize for great science writing online judged by an esteemed scientific mind. This year, the judge is Sean Carroll – previous 3QD winner, incredible science blogger, practicing scientist, and the author of great science books like From Eternity to Here. Any science blog post from May 29th, 2011 until May 29th, 2012 is eligable – all you have to do is nominate it by leaving a comment with a link on this announcement post. You have until June 9th to submit your nominations!

And, on the topic of shameless self promotion, if you wanted to submit one of mine, here are my favorites:

Of course, please submit whatever posts you like the best, from the amazing plethora of science blogs out there.

On a similar note, you can now submit nominations for the AAAS Kavli Awards for science journalism. Science blogs are perfect for the online category – so nominate your favorite science blogs for that prize, too!

The Nose Knows: Telling Age Based On Scent

Our sense of smell is often overlooked. After all, our 20 million smell receptors pale in comparison to the 220 million found in the noses of man’s best friends. We don’t take credit for our ability to distinguish thousands of different smells, even in minute quantities, or how our brains can form strong and lasting memories of scents from a very young age. Yet of all our senses, smell is the first to develop, and before we can feel or see, our noses are hardwired into our brain’s limbic system and amygdala, the parts of the brain where emotions are generated and emotional memories are stored. Since smell detects chemicals in the air, it can warn us of dangers at a distance, even when our eyes and ears are unable to detect them. But more importantly, because it relies on chemicals, smell is one of the most honest ways animals communicate. Human odors, from the smell of tears to underams, have been shown to affect how we think, feel and act, and although we don’t often realize it, our noses play a key role in how we recognize and communicate with one another.

So perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that scientists have discovered we can distinguish a person’s age by scent alone. In a study published today in PLoS ONE, scientists document how our noses are able to distinguish older people from middle-aged and younger ones not based on the scent mothballs or denture cream, but based on the smell of their body odor.

While we tend to think of B.O. as a reason to wear deodorant, the chemical complexity of Eau de Self is remarkable. Our personal scents can convey a biological and social information, and are thought to play a role in who we like, how we recognize others, and even how we tell men from women. Babies know their mother’s smell shortly after birth, and at a young age we can distinguish between family members and non-family based on their scent. Research has even suggested that we really do have ‘chemistry’ with the people we like, as we can smell immune system differences that might factor into attractiveness, and that we might even be able to smell differences in personalities. Yet there is a lot we don’t understand about how our olfactory system works and exactly what information we obtain through our sense of smell. Given that other animals have been shown to distinguish older animals based on smell, Susanna Mitro and her colleagues from Swarthmore College and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden wondered if smells help us distinguish a person’s age.

To find out, the research team placed pads under the armpits of people in three age groups: young (20–30 years old); middle-age (45–55 years old); and old-age (75–95 years old). Young research participants were then told to discriminate between age categories in side-by-side comparisons and to group the smells according to age as well as rate their perceptual properties like how pleasant or strong the smell. The researchers were startled to find that the participants rated the older aged group’s smell as the most pleasant and least intense. “This was surprising given the popular conception of old age odor as disagreeable,” said co-author Johan Lundström. “However, it is possible that other sources of body odors, such as skin or breath, may have different qualities.” Participants also rated the smell of women to be far more pleasant than the smell of men. But what the researcher’s really wanted to know was whether they could tell the difference between age groups in head-to-head comparisons – and they could.

While the participants were unable to distinguish between young and middle-aged scents, the smell of old age was distinctive. “These data suggest that, akin to other animals, humans are able to discriminate old individuals from younger individuals based on body odor,” write the authors in their conclusion. “The modest effects suggest a limited impact on our everyday interactions but does support previous reports of a unique ‘old person odor’.”

Scientists aren’t entirely sure what makes the smell of older adults different from that of younger people. Studies have found that certain chemicals are present in different levels in older body odor, suggesting that these compounds may serve as biomarkers for old age, but the relevance of these chemicals to age determination has yet to be tested explicitly, and it is unknown whether these chemicals can be detected well by our noses. It’s also unclear whether the ability to distinguish age changes over time. This study focused on young participants as the odor-sniffers, yet it’s possible that the ability to tell age is age-dependent. Older people may lose this ability, or people may be more able to tell ages that are strikingly different from their own. It’s also unclear if the ability to distinguish age has any evolutionary relevance, or if it is simply a byproduct of our more-acute-than-we-think sense of smell.

The researchers also expressed that their study was careful to keep the body odors pure, and thus it is unclear how the scents of hygiene products might affect their results. Does wearing Old Spice actually make a guy appear older, for example? Or does a flowery perfume enhance the youthfulness of a woman? While this study did not explore these questions directly, it has created a foundation for future studies, which may lead to a better understanding not only of our innate ability to determine age by smell but also how our hygiene routines and how product choices affect how we are perceived by others. I can’t wait to see scientists build off these results!

 

Reference: Susanna Mitro, Amy R. Gordon, Mats J. Olsson, & Johan N. Lundstrom (2012). The Smell of Age: Perception and Discrimination of Body Odors of Different Ages PLoS ONE : doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038110

Photo of Nose to Nose by XtremeCamera user Lover1969