As another year comes to a close we’d like to look back at the fascinating research breakthroughs and inspiring patient stories from 2011. ScienceLife ran 168 posts this year, and while we wish we could highlight all of them, here are a handful of our favorites from each month.

January

Patrick Wilson found out that the H1N1 virus could end up helping us fight all types of flu. Stephen Pruett-Jones studied how some male birds mimic the sounds of predators to pick up the ladies (with an audio clip). We interviewed David Gozal about his study on the link between childhood obesity and lack of sleep, and took a look at NCAA regulations mandating sickle cell testing for athletes.

February

Harold Pollack gave a lecture on why violent crime in urban, minority communities should be considered a public health epidemic. Siri Atma Greeley studied the actual medical benefit of widespread genetic testing. Stacy Lindau wanted to know why so few women get help for sexual problems after surviving cancer. We talked to Bana Jabri about the causes of celiac disease, and Sliman Bensmaïa showed us how the brain processes the basic elements of touch very much like it handles visual information.

March

Sola Olopade educated women in Nigeria about using clean-burning stoves to prevent indoor pollution. Stefano Allesina and Jonathan Levine looked at how rock-paper-scissors helps explain evolution. Joshua Miller went to Yellowstone Park to see what stories the ghostly bones of animals can tell, and Scott Eggener questioned the wisdom of indiscriminate prostate cancer screening.

Photo by Gerald Waddell

Andrea King studied the wide range of responses to drinking alcohol, and why it can be fun for some people and a bummer for others. Cheryl Reed took a ride in a helicopter with our UCAN nurses. Kamal Sharma looked at the genes that control animals’ gait, and Ningqi Hou studied how urban environments can dictate how much exercise people get.

May

Daniel McGehee looked at the long-term effects of nicotine on the brain. Habibul Ahsan went to Bangladesh to study the health impacts of accidental exposure to arsenic in drinking water. The brain’s overlooked supporting cells got their due at a conference on neuroscience, and we remembered a landmark discovery about a once popular drug taken during pregnancy that we now know can cause cancer.

June

As we headed into summer, Diana Lauderdale used Google to track MRSA. We learned about an extraordinary transplant where a man received a new heart, liver AND kidney. Daniel Geynisman gave us the rundown on whether or not cell phones are killing us (they’re not, as long as you don’t use them in the car), and some UChicago undergrads studied what happens to gorillas on the birth control pill.

July

We spoke to Donald Jensen and Andrew Aronsohn about the new outlook for patients with hepatitis C. Igor Schneider made a time machine to find the genetic switch for limb development. Farr Curlin led a study about the benefits of addressing spiritual needs alongside medical care, and Adam Cifu looked at the phenomenon of scientific study reversals.

August

Stefano Allesina dug into the long, shady history of nepotism in academia in Italy. John Schneider talked about his work addressing sexual health and stigma in India. Michael Becker discovered a new treatment for the Royal Disease, and we had the rare chance to name check a Spiderman villain in a post.

September

Martha McClintock and Suzanne Conzen studied the connection between social isolation, stress and breast cancer. Gallego Romero traveled to India to search for the origins of lactose intolerance. Stephanie Dulawa developed a mouse model for OCD, and Paul Vezina looked at a different kind of obsession, compulsive gambling.

October

Arshiya Baig started a pilot project to help people learn about life with diabetes through pictures. Manyuan Long found that some of the youngest genes are in the brain. Jens Ludwig and Stacy Lindau published a landmark study about the connection between neighborhood poverty and health, and Issam Awad studied a rare brain disease that soon could be treated with a drug instead of surgery.

November

Cathy Pfister and Tim Wootton figured out how to use seashells to track climate change over the years. Lianne Kurina found a link between loneliness and sleep quality. Shantanu Nundy, Monica Peek and Marshall Chin developed a program to send text message reminders to people with diabetes, and Pan Chen looked at the links between childhood abuse and aggressive behavior in adults.

December

Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal, Jean Decety and Peggy Mason discovered that rats can show empathy for their fellow rats in distress. Maciej Lesniak performed a scary but amazing brain surgery on a patient who was awake. Cathryn Nagler searched for the source of food allergies within our bodies, while Stafano Guandalini uncovered the challenges in educating doctors about one of those allergies, celiac disease.

Whew. Hope you were able to click through at least a few of those. We look forward to another great year of research in 2012. We’re taking a break next week, but we’ll be back on January 5. Happy holidays!

By Matt Wood

Each day people make decisions about how much effort they’re willing to put into various tasks. The decision about how much effort to invest in an activity is influenced by the reward for doing something and the probability of actually getting it. You might be willing to work hard at your job because the reward—a paycheck—is both valuable and fairly certain. But you might not be willing to try a complicated new recipe for dinner, even though it sounds delicious, because of the chance that it won’t turn out well.

Animal studies suggest that the neurotransmitter dopamine plays an important role in this type of decision-making, especially the decision to expend effort. In rats, dopamine levels influence tolerance for effort and probability costs. Rats with higher levels of dopamine are more willing to press levers and climb over barriers to reach better food, whereas those with lower levels will settle for food that’s less tasty but within easy reach.

Little is known about how dopamine affects effort-based decision-making processes in humans. But a new study published in The Journal of Neuroscience by Margaret Wardle, a post doctoral researcher in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience at the University of Chicago, her mentor Harriet de Wit, Professor and Director of the Human Behavioral Pharmacology Laboratory, and colleagues at Vanderbilt University shows for the first time that people behave in much the same way. Their research, sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, not only sheds light on how dopamine influences decision-making in humans, but also points toward possible treatment for psychiatric disorders like depression.

read more

By Rob Mitchum

A surgical procedure is a daunting experience for any patient, though thanks to general anesthesia, it’s not typically a memorable one. That’s not the case for patients who go through an awake craniotomy — a unique procedure that allows surgeons to react based on feedback from the patient during removal of a brain tumor.

“I remember them waking me up using a flashlight and talking to me,” Anna Litchfield, a 49-year-old patient who was operated on by Maciej Lesniak, MD, Professor of Surgery and Neurology, said in August. “I remember Dr. Lesniak saying ‘Anna, are you OK?’ and I remember saying ‘Great, Dr. L!’ out of nowhere. I never thought I’d call him Dr. L! In retrospect, I feel like my brain was thrilled that he was there operating.”

Awake craniotomies are unique, complex procedures typically used to remove tumors nestled close to functional areas of the brain. Though the macabre nature of the surgery might induce shudders, the benefits for the patient are great. As the tumor is carefully removed by the surgeon, a neurologist can continuously monitor the patient’s language, motor and sensory function to make sure critical parts of the brain suffer minimal damage.

“When tumors are in what we call eloquent, functional areas, the margin of error is a millimeter,” Lesniak said. “You have to ask yourself whether you feel comfortable with a patient being asleep, potentially missing that millimeter while taking out the tumor and having them wake up devastated, or minimizing that risk.”

Lesniak and his team at the University of Chicago Medical Center perform more awake craniotomies than any other group in the Chicago area — more than 30 each year. Each surgery utilizes a truly interdisciplinary and experienced team of neurosurgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists and operating room nurses who must collaborate to ensure the unusual surgery’s success. Often, craniotomy candidates are referred to Lesniak from hospitals around the area and country, as the surgery can be performed only by individuals with significant expertise and experience.

read more

If you called someone a rat, they probably wouldn’t take it as a compliment. But in a clever new study published today in Science, a team of University of Chicago neurobiologists show that rodents could serve as role models for how humans should behave. Rats were given a difficult choice between heart and stomach: either open a container of chocolate chips and enjoy the feast, or free a companion and share the chocolate chip bounty. The results argue that humans aren’t the only species to feel empathy for the distress of another and act upon it, suggesting a deep evolutionary basis for helping your fellow creature.

When Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal was a master’s student in Israel researching immunosuppression after surgery, she noticed a strange phenomenon in her laboratory rats. When rats were brought to the room where she regularly conducted surgical procedures, they grew extremely agitated.

“It was very obvious that rats could sense what was going on with other rats,” Bartal said. “They freaked out and were affected by the emotional state of the other rats once they were removed from the cages.”

Other researchers had previously noticed this phenomenon in both humans and animals and gave it the name “emotional contagion,” describing when the distress or pain of one individual spreads to others. In 2006, Jeffrey Mogil of McGill University found evidence of this effect in mice, observing that when one mouse is given a mildly painful stimulus, a second mouse viewing the first mouse’s pain will exhibit increased sensitivity to pain. When that paper was published, it was considered by some to be the first evidence for empathy in a rodent. But Bartal, having started as a graduate student advised by Jean Decety, Irving B. Harris Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Chicago, wanted to find more definite proof of rat compassion.

Collaborating with the laboratory of Peggy Mason, professor of neurobiology, Bartal designed a test to see whether emotional contagion could actually drive a rat to take action. Two rats who live together in the same cage were placed in a special arena, with one held in a transparent, tube-shaped restrainer and one allowed to roam free. The restrainer’s door could be opened by a nudge from the outside, though the free rat - at least initially - didn’t know that. But after several sessions where the free rat was visibly agitated by his trapped companion’s distress, he figured out how to pop open the restrainer. As you can see in this video from Science, once the free rat learned this trick, he would take action almost immediately upon being placed in the arena during subsequent sessions.

“We are not training these rats in any way,” Bartal said. “These rats are learning because they are motivated by something internal. We’re not showing them how to open the door, they don’t get any previous exposure on opening the door, and it’s hard to open the door. But they keep trying and trying, and it eventually works.”

Proving that the free rat’s actions were motivated by empathy required more experimental conditions. When the restrainer was left empty, or when researchers put a stuffed toy rat in the tube, the free rat showed no interest in opening the restrainer door. He did, however, when the arena was rigged so that opening the restrainer released the trapped rat into a separate compartment from the free rat, showing that the free rat was not motivated by the “reward” of social interaction. The experiments left behavior motivated by empathy as the simplest explanation for the rats’ behavior.

read more

Have you ever cheated on a test by glancing over at someone else’s work? Or relied on a fellow student to carry the load on a group project while you coast along with minimal effort? While few will admit to these forms of cheating, they have long been fixtures of the classroom. However, a lazy individual benefiting from the hard work of a colleague is not a trick exclusive to humans. In a recent study of bacterial infections in plants, the laboratory of evolutionary biologist Joy Bergelson demonstrated that these unsavory practices can also be found in pathogens - and that may be a good thing for us.

In the bacterial world, the goal is survival. What we perceive as an infection is merely colonization for the bacterial population, who are establishing a new home where they can happily feed off the host’s nutrients and reproduce. Bacteria build and release virulence factors to achieve this settlement and evade immune system defenses. But because these factors spread out, benefiting an individual bacterium’s neighbors as well as itself, a sneaky bacterium can get by without producing its own virulence factors. In laboratory dish experiments, scientists observed that bacteria engineered without the ability to release factors can still thrive so long as they are paired with normal, pathogenic partners.

Though scientists described this “cooperator-cheater model” in the artificial environment of the dish, nobody had yet observed it in a natural setting. For a study published in September by the journal Ecology Letters, a team led by postdoctoral fellow Luke Barrett discovered the model in action within the cells of the popular genetic model plant Arabidopsis thaliana.

“We’re showing that cheating actually happens in nature, and that the cheaters persist,” Bergelson said. “You can make cheaters that do well in the lab, and you can show that these systems may be stable in theory, but to show that it is actually happening in nature is novel.”

Recently, researchers discovered that Arabidopsis carried two strains of the bacteria Pseudomonas syringae, a common plant pathogen. While one strain had all the normal pathogenic activity, another was a kind of bacterial pacifist, with a broken system for secreting virulence factors. Surprisingly, these two strains appear with almost equal frequency in Arabidopsis, suggesting that the non-pathogenic strains are far more successful in nature than previously thought.

To test the nature of this relationship, researchers took the two natural strains and experimentally infected plants with only one or the other. When grown alone, the “cheater” strain was not nearly as successful without its more aggressive partner around to unwittingly “donate” virulence factors. Additional modeling suggested that the more aggressive the virulent strain, the more likely it was that cheaters would be found nearby eager to exploit the hard work of their pathogenic peers. The cheater strains are also harder for the host immune system to spot, since the machinery that produces and releases virulence factors is a frequent target of those defenses.

“When you go into the field, it’s kind of a curiosity: why would non-pathogenic cheaters be almost as common as pathogens inside the host?” Bergelson said. “It turns out that the cheaters can do really well as long as they’re with the pathogenic variety, and they don’t pay the price of having to actually make a secretion system or effectors. They also don’t run any risk of being recognized because it is the presence of secreted effectors that causes the recognition events in the first place. So, these non-pathogens have some good things going for them.”

read more

Brain surgery remains one of the more complex procedures in the clinical arsenal, an intervention any doctor would like to avoid if possible. But many conditions - a growing brain tumor, a bleeding hemorrhage - require the surgeon to go in, opening the skull, dodging blood vessels, and preserving healthy tissue to correct the problem. If these maladies were somehow preventable or treatable with a medication, it could cut down on the complications and cost of neurosurgery. Even so, you might be surprised to find a surgeon doing the research that could someday reduce his own workload.

That’s the case with Issam Awad, professor of surgery at the University of Chicago Medical Center, and the latest paper in his project studying an abnormality of the brain’s blood vessels. Cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM), alternatively known as cavernous angioma, occurs when the small blood vessels of the brain grow abnormally large. These malformations can occasionally form a dangerous lesion, leading to headaches, bleeding in the brain, or stroke. But it wasn’t until the routine use of MRI technology until clinicians discovered just how commonly CCM can be found - 1 in 500 people - even though it is often non-symptomatic.

The presence of non-symptomatic CCM complicates the matter further for neurosurgeons, who must decide whether to perform surgery to correct the lesion or wait to see if it worsens. This dilemma is especially difficult in patients with a family history of CCM, which makes up about one-third of the cases. Waiting to see if the angioma is going to become problematic enough to require surgery can be a frustrating experience.

“There is currently no treatment in clinical use to either prevent the formation or the maturation of these lesions,” Awad said. “The way we deal with them now is we wait until a lesion gets bad or does something bad, and then we take it out.”

Awad and colleagues Douglas Marchuk from Duke University and Mark Ginsberg at the University of California, San Diego have used those familial CCM cases to find the cause of the condition, focusing on a gene called KRIT1 (or CCM1 for its clinical significance). By knocking down KRIT1, they could create a mouse model that formed CCM lesions, and study the cellular signals that accompany the condition. It turned out that reducing the activity of KRIT1 increased the activity of a signal called ROCK, which made CCM lesions leakier and more severe. CCM lesions removed surgically from human subjects by Awad also tested for high levels of ROCK, suggesting that the mechanism was the same across species.

So the obvious hypothesis to test was whether an inhibitor of ROCK could block the formation of CCM lesions. For a paper published yesterday in Stroke, researchers from the three laboratories performed the experiments in their mouse model of CCM, treating the mice for four months with a ROCK inhibitor drug called fasudil. When they compared the brains of these drug-treated animals to the brains of animals treated with a placebo, they found fewer lesions, smaller lesions, and a reduction in inflammation and hemorrhage after fasudil.

“This animal model and humans have lesions that are aggressive and symptomatic: They leak blood, they show inflammatory properties, and endothelial cells multiply or proliferate,” Awad said. “None of these features were present in the fasudil-treated mice. It was like the lesion was chilled down and shrunk.”

Though promising, this early experiment was performed in only a small number of mice. More extensive testing in animals - and if everything goes well, in human clinical trials - will be required before the drug can be deployed in the neurology practice. Fasudil is also not yet approved for use in the United States, though it is used in Japan for a different neurological condition and has been “clinically well tolerated” there, Awad said.

read more

Finding the cause and the cure for a deadly disease is a little bit like investigating a murder. Clinicians collect clues from their patients, bring them back to the lab, and try to reconstruct the crime and identify the killer. For amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease), this investigation has lasted over a hundred years - since neurologist Jean-Marie Charcot first described the disease in 1874. But it’s only in the last two decades that ALS researchers have started to find major breaks in the case, revealing genetic clues to the origin of this deadly neurodegenerative disease. At a special ALS gathering at the University of Chicago, Medical Center neurologist Raymond Roos told nearly 200 patients and caregivers that the case may finally be cracked soon.

“I think the field is on fire now,” said Roos, the Marjorie and Robert E. Straus Professor of Neurology. “I think it’s astounding and exciting what’s going on with respect to neurodegenerative diseases and absolutely ALS. We have all these things piling up now and we are continuing [to look]. Should we be optimistic about the future? Yes.”

Wednesday’s gathering, put together by the Greater Chicago Chapter of the ALS Assocation, was a unique two-part event featuring both a symposium for researchers of the disease and a luncheon/health expo for the patients and their families. In one room of historic Ida Noyes Hall, 14 Chicago scientists studying the origins of ALS and developing new treatments for what is currently an incurable disease shared their latest results. Meanwhile, patients and their families learned about medical devices and advocacy opportunities, and shared stories of how they cope with their disorder.

The day’s scientific component demonstrated both why the ALS investigation has taken so long, and why Roos thinks there is cause for optimism. The central mystery of ALS is why it selectively targets the motor neurons of the nervous system, the extremely long cells that deliver instructions from the brain to the muscles of the body. As the motor neurons die off, the patient experiences a progressive paralysis, losing the ability to maintain balance, walk, and eventually, breathe. Figuring out what causes this specific population of neurons to perish will point the way to treatments that slow or even reverse the progression of the disease.

For suspects, scientists have looked to genes. Roughly 10 percent of ALS cases are inherited through generations of families, indicating a genetic cause. While this population might be only a small minority of cases compared to the more common “sporadic” cases, they could be a foothold along the path to understanding both types of ALS.

“Those are very important even though they make up this small group, because they open a window,” Roos said. “If we can identify the gene that’s mutated, we can figure out what the function of that gene is. The hope and assumption and, I think, the reality, is that information will guide us into understanding the non-inherited, sporadic form.”

In 1993, scientists discovered the first ALS-associated gene/suspect, called SOD1. Though mutations of this gene explain only 20 percent of the familial 10 percent, they have been an important clue into exactly what goes wrong inside a motor neuron during the disease’s tragic march. The morning’s sessions zoomed in on these details, describing how a faulty SOD1 can kill off a cell through to the aggregation of cellular proteins, the interruption of the cell’s highway-like transport system (presented by UIC’s Gerardo Morfini and Scott Brady), and the creation of a “toxic channel” (as told by UCMC’s Michael Allen). The damage caused by SOD1 mutants might not even be limited to the motor neurons themselves, as Roos presented research demonstrating its toxic activity in the cells surrounding those neuronal types.

The path from what goes wrong to the creation of new potential therapies for ALS was explained by Richard Silverman, a chemist from Northwestern University. By screening for compounds that prevent the type of protein aggregations observed in the motor neurons of ALS patients, chemists hope to design new drugs that will slow the damage and hopefully, the physical symptoms they produce. Silverman detailed the incremental design of two new compounds in his laboratory that, in animal studies, produce an extension of life that is two to three times longer than seen with the only drug currently approved for use in ALS, riluzole.

read more

What made the human brain? According to Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, it was a giant obsidian monolith inspiring primates to use tools and weapons. Scientists have taken a more nuanced approach, looking for the biology behind the complex structures and enhanced function of the human brain. But merely comparing the genes expressed in adult human brains to those of other animals yielded few promising differences, leading scientists to focus on changes in the regulation of old genes rather than the arrival of new genes. After all, the construction of a structure as important as the brain cannot rely on unpredictable, novel genes with new functions, right?

However, those young genes are recently taking on a higher profile. In a 2010 paper, the University of Chicago laboratory of Manyuan Long demonstrated that new genes exclusive to a given species can be just as critical to an organism’s survival as the old, conserved genes it shares with other species. The implication at the time was that what makes us uniquely human could lie in those “young” genes that only appeared in our genome relatively recently.

“Animal models have proven to be very useful and important for dissecting human disease,” said Sidi Chen in 2010 about that study. “But if our intuition is correct, some important health information for humans will reside in the unique parts of the human genome.”

A new study from Long’s lab appearing yesterday in PLoS Biology identifies one important place where those new genes may play role: the human brain. By merging a database of gene age with gene transcription data from humans and mice, researchers looked for where young genes specific to each species were expressed.They found that a higher percentage of primate-specific young genes were expressed in the brain compared to mouse-specific young genes. Human-specific young genes also were more likely to be expressed in uniquely human brain structures, such as the neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

“Newer genes are found in newer parts of the human brain,” said Yong Zhang, PhD, postdoctoral researcher and first author on the study. “We know the brain is the most remarkable difference between humans and other mammals and primates. These new genes are a candidate for future studies, as they are more likely to underlie this difference.”

Another intriguing finding in the gene age data was inspired by Zhang’s visit to the obstetrician with his pregnant wife. While viewing an ultrasound of his unborn child, Zhang said he realized that much of human development takes place during fetal stages - suggesting those early months should be a critical time for gene expression. As predicted, young human-specific genes in the brain were more likely to be turned on during fetal or infant development.The early activity of these genes suggests scientists should be looking at earlier developmental stages for genetic activity that ultimately shapes the complexity of the human brain.

“What’s really surprising is that the evolutionary newest genes on the block act early,” said co-author Patrick Landback, a graduate student in Long’s laboratory. “The primate-specific genes act before birth, even when a human embryo doesn’t look very different from a mouse embryo. But the actual differences are laid out early.”

read more

Biology used to be the scientific discipline where data was at a premium, a rare resource painstakingly collected in the field or the laboratory. But today’s biologists are confronted with a flood of data, a fire-hose torrent of genetic and clinical information that only builds with the spread of fast sequencing and electronic medical records. But as these databases fill terabyte after terabyte of computer storage, the successful transformation of that data into practical information about human biology and disease has lagged behind. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have  explained only a small percentage of disease heritability, clinical records remain largely unstudied on a large scale, and the complications created by environmental influences and multi-gene disorders have frustrated scientists.

Into this impasse comes a new multi-institutional project based at the University of Chicago: the Silvio O. Conte Center, funded by a nearly $14 million combination of grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Chicago Biomedical Consortium. Led by Andrey Rzhetsky, professor of medicine and human genetics at the Medical Center, the collaboration of 15 scientists from 7 institutions will apply the power of advanced computation and data-mining to the growing tide of data collected about neuropsychiatric disorders. The trick will be to not just focus on one database, be it genetics or environmental factors or clinical outcomes, but all of them at once, creating a higher-resolution image of what goes awry in the brain to cause mental disease.

“A great deal of data already exists, yet nobody is already looking at it the way we plan to do and we have very smart people on this team,” said Rzhetsky, who is also a senior fellow of the Computation Institute at the University of Chicago and Institute for Genomics and Systems Biology. “When you have multiple communities that partially study the same subject you can get a kind of three-dimensional picture of a phenomenon.”

Rzhetsky has previously demonstrated the promise of data-mining - the discovery of patterns and information in large pools of data - using clinical records and scientific literature. In a 2007 study, his team examined 1.5 million patient records and found significant overlap between mental disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism, suggesting a similar overlap of the genetic factors that cause these conditions. Two years later, Rzhetsky and colleagues applied text-mining computation to the scientific literature database PubMed, creating a network of genes and biological interactions associated with cerebellar conditions such as ataxia and degeneration.

Beyond demonstrating the potential of data-mining, those studies also shed light on the hazy borders separating different psychiatric disorders. While the overlaps could complicate psychiatric diagnosis in the clinic, they might also make the disorders susceptible to the multi-faceted approach proposed by the Conte Center.

“Most studies are done one disorder at a time, and that’s like studying the trunk or the hoof or the tail of an elephant; you might miss the big picture,” said Benjamin Lahey, Irving B. Harris Professor of epidemiology at the University of Chicago and a co-investigator at the Conte Center. “This project will enable us to look at things in a way that has never been done before, at a scale that dwarfs anything that’s ever been done.”

read more

A visit to any casino will quickly demonstrate how vices clump together. At any hour of the day or night, many of the customers sitting intently in front of a slot machine will also be smoking cigarettes or drinking a cocktail. Sadly, addictions to these pursuits also tend to go hand in hand, with higher rates of compulsive gambling observed in people addicted to drugs such as cocaine and alcohol. Furthermore, when people perform gambling-like tasks while their brain is scanned by an MRI machine, the games activate areas of the brain also stimulated by drugs of abuse - perhaps accounting for the addiction-like behavior of gamblers.

“If you’ve ever been to a casino, and you watch people using slot machines, you’ll surely have noticed the sense of compulsion to put the next coin in, even though you get no money back most of the time,” said Paul Vezina, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago.

But does one bad habit truly lead to the other? In a recent paper for the journal Behavioural Brain Research, a team from Vezina’s laboratory offers evidence that the unpredictability crucial to gambling’s appeal can cross over to enhance the effects of abused drugs. By adapting self-administration, a common tool used to model drug-taking in animal research, to partially replicate the random pay-off of a slot machine, graduate student Bryan Singer was able to test whether gambling-like behavior influences a rat’s subsequent response to the drug amphetamine. The result suggests that gambling may have properties similar to a “gateway drug,” as an activity that can increase the abusive potential of drugs.

First of all, how do you simulate the casino experience for a rat? Self-administration - where the animal presses a lever to receive a food or drug reward - is fairly similar to a slot machine to begin with. In a self-administration protocol, the researcher sets the number of lever presses required before the reward is given. A “fixed ratio” of 5 means that the rat would have to hit the lever five times before receiving a food pellet or rewarding hit of cocaine. But with a “variable ratio” setup, unpredictability is introduced into the process. If the variable ratio is set to an average of 5, anywhere from 1 to 10 presses might be required to produce reward, a figure that changes every time like the random number generator of a slot machine. So while the rat does not have anything at stake other than the physical work it takes to hit the lever, it never knows when it will hit the “jackpot.”

“One of the main differences is that for a slot machine there’s a good chance you’re going to lose money, but here there’s little negative aspect,” Singer said. “It’s like a very loose slot machine.”

In this experiment, Singer and co-author John Scott-Railton used the non-caloric sweetener saccharine as a reward - a sweet treat that rats will work to acquire without ever getting full or intoxicated. For 55 days, half of the rats worked for saccharine under fixed ratio conditions and half worked under the variable ratio setup. Then, after a two week break, each rat was given a small dose of amphetamine, and researchers measured their activity as the dosed rats ran around their cage.

Even though the rats in each group received the same amount of saccharine and did the same amount of work during their lever-pressing careers, those exposed to the random rules of the variable ratio exhibited a stronger response to amphetamine. The result suggests that unpredictable rewards may prime the same brain areas hijacked by drugs of abuse, producing a stronger behavioral response - known in the field as sensitization - even upon first exposure to a stimulant drug.

“What this paper is showing is that unpredictable conditions may cause sensitization,” Vezina said. “There are activities that may play just as important a gateway role as drugs, and gambling may be one of them.”

read more

How do you know an animal model of a disease is really working? Researchers can create diseases such as cancer in a rat or mouse, but a tumor in a rodent may not behave the same way as a tumor in a human being. The challenge is even more difficult when scientists try to model psychiatric conditions, which in humans rely upon interviews and nuanced diagnosis. It’s hard to get a rat to stay on a therapist’s couch, much less ask whether they are feeling depressed or anxious.

So psychiatrists interested in using an animal model to probe the underlying biology of a mental condition are forced to be careful, clever and realistic. For a new model of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) published last week by a team of scientists from the University of Chicago, the validity of the model was based on both the symptoms they observed in their animals and how those symptoms were treated.

More than 2 million people in the United States have been diagnosed with OCD, a condition marked by severe anxiety, repetitive behaviors, and intrusive thoughts. Yet only one drug has been found to help alleviate these symptoms - fluoxetine, a serotonin reuptake inhibitor originally developed for the treatment of depression - and the drug is only effective in roughly half of all OCD patients. Finding and testing better treatments for OCD will require animal models of the disease.

“Treatment for these people is greatly needed, and there really are very few highly valid animal models of the disorder,” said Nancy Shanahan, a postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study in the journal Biological Psychiatry. “Having one that seems to mimic the disorder so well, especially in terms of the time course of treatments that work in humans, is potentially very useful for researching novel therapeutics.”

That’s easier said than done. The compulsive hand-washing, switch-flicking, or counting habits of human OCD sufferers would seem to be impossible symptoms to replicate in a rat, but some characteristics such as perseveration (repetitive movements or actions) and movement in an open field (a marker of a rodent’s comfort or anxiety in a strange environment) have been used by scientists as proxies for the debilitating effects of OCD. Some groups have created these behaviors by deleting genes, but for the new OCD model the UChicago team started with the unusual side effect of a migraine medication.

When the drug sumatriptan is given to people with OCD, it amplifies their symptoms, producing more intrusive thoughts and rituals. Shanahan gave her mice a similar drug that, like sumatriptan, activates a sub-class of receptors for the neurotransmitter serotonin called 1b receptors. In response, the mice showed behaviors that could be interpreted as OCD-like. Instead of exploring the entirety of their cage, they stayed close to the walls (as seen in the paths above) - a marker of high anxiety. Another test called prepulse inhibition that tests the animals’ startle response (thought to measure the brain’s ability to filter out intrusive thoughts), also revealed OCD-like behavior after the serotonin 1b drug was given.

Yet it’s still subjective to say that a mouse that paces around the walls of its cage is suffering from the same underlying biological issues as a human whose anxiety keeps them from leaving the house. More evidence was needed to prove the model’s “predictive validity” - how closely it resembles the human disease.

“A model should be evaluated on its ability to predict, not based on how much it looks like OCD,” explained Stephanie Dulawa, assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience and senior author of the study. “The best way to do that is to evaluate manipulations with known effects in OCD.”

read more

Writing about science means looking up a lot of numbers. Trying to find a figure for the number of cells in the body or the protein-encoding genes in human DNA or patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer from 1980 through 1995 can eat up a lot of time and internet bandwidth. For some of these oft-cited numbers, there’s a mutually agreed upon estimate that science writers can drop into the articles, such as the 23,000 usually tossed around for the number of human genes. But it’s worth remembering that these figures are subject to change - after all, it was thought as recently as 10 years ago that there were 100,000 genes in human DNA.

A new counting kerfuffle broke out this week for yet another oft-cited scientific figure: the number of species on Earth. Last year, zoologist Robert May proposed in Science that the human race would be “embarrassed” should aliens show up tomorrow and ask how many different types of organisms live on our planet. Depending on the model used, one could argue for a number anywhere between 3 and 100 million eukaryotes, May wrote - and that doesn’t even count viruses and bacteria, which far outnumber the larger species.

But as the authors of the PLoS Biology article “How Many Species Are There on Earth and in the Ocean?” found out this week, picking a number within that range is hazardous territory. Using a mathematical model based on the roughly 1.2 million species we currently know about, the research team calculated a new estimate: approximately 8.7 million species from land and sea. Of those, only 14% of land species and 9% of sea species have so far been cataloged by humans, the authors concluded, and describing those remaining could take over 1,000 years and $364 billion. “Our results also suggest that this slow advance in the description of species will lead to species becoming extinct before we know they even existed,” they wrote.

Dramatic stuff, but what about the math? In Carl Zimmer’s article on the study for the New York Times, the first bubbles of discontent can be felt around the biology world, from fungi experts to entomologists who argue that the 8.7 million number is far too low. Scientists who study microbes were even less pleased with the mathematical model, which they said dramatically under-counted their favorite species. On his blog, Phylogenomics, microbiologist Jonathan Eisen pish-poshed the paper’s estimates of 10,000 prokaryote species: “I think without a doubt the number of bacterial and archaeal species on the planet is in the range of millions upon millions upon millions.  10,000 is clearly not even close.” Two other microbiologists wrote a letter to the Washington Post, pointing out that “a teaspoon of soil contains more than 10,000 species of bacteria.” For the time being, it looks like our alien visitors will have to be satisfied with the answer, “Lots.”

Elsewhere…

Speaking of the importance of bacteria and microbes, consider the discovery of antibiotic-resistance genes in 30,000-year-old bacteria from the Yukon Territory. Though these bacteria lived approximately 29,930 years before the discovery of penicillin, they possessed defenses against the naturally-occurring weapons scientists have seized upon to develop infection-fighting drugs. That long history means outsmarting drug-resistant bacteria may be even harder than scientists thought, and makes the case for even more selective use of antibiotics. “Bacteria share these genes like baseball cards with each other,” Stuart Levy at Tufts University told Nicholas Wade of the New York Times.

Has an important culprit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease, been discovered? The Medical Center’s Raymond Roos comments on a recent Northwestern University study.

On the blog, we’ve covered the link between sleep loss and testosterone, weight gain, and blood sugar. A new study from UCSD and Harvard now finds a connection between sleep quality and blood pressure. Our sleep research guru Eve Van Cauter commented on the research for TIME.

Just another reminder to check out the Medical Center’s new Facebook page, where this week you can find articles from the blog, information on the DNA Discovery Lab at the Field Museum, and President Sharon O’Keefe’s letter to the editor on hospital charity care. If you like it, please hit that “like” button!

Students might sometimes think that their textbook appeared out of thin air, the accumulated knowledge of a field spontaneously forming into a heavy slab of facts and figures. But textbooks are like any other type of book, with flesh-and-blood authors who labor over the words within and make a million tiny decisions to shape the final product. If you try to include everything, the book will likely be too heavy for even the most determined or muscular students to carry. Cut too much out, and your definitive textbook might be scorned as incomplete and elementary.

In writing her new textbook, professor of neurobiology Peggy Mason helped find the happy middle by starting with a very specific audience in mind: the medical students that she has spent 15 years teaching at the Pritzker School of Medicine. Her completed product, simply named “Medical Neurobiology,” is the first designed with aspiring physicians in mind, teaching med students about the broad influence of the central nervous system. Picking a specific target audience helped Mason make the hard choices about what to include and what to leave out, she said - even if the final 660 pages is heavier than she intended.

“I think it’s actually the only textbook completely aimed at the medical students,” Mason said. “I did a few things because of that that no other textbook does.”

For starters, Mason chose not to interpret “medical neurobiology” as simply “neurology.” Only a small percentage of medical students will eventually choose to train as neurologists, but the other 97 percent also need to be familiar with the central nervous system, she said. Knowing the anatomy and function of the brain, spinal cord, and nerve pathways can help everyone from future neonatologists measuring infants’ reflexes to future pulmonologists treating asthma to future geriatricians looking for the warning signs of dementia or motor deficits.

Another important decision came to Mason after a dinner with four medical students who gave her insight into the overwhelming workload of an aspiring doctor.

“All of a sudden I just realized that the immensity of the knowledge base that they need to acquire in two years,” Mason said. “It made me think anew about what we were teaching them, and I decided that as entertaining as it may be for us to talk about the newest, greatest research, it’s a disservice to them. They don’t have the time; they need the body of information that they need clinically and not the extraneous stuff. So I tried to cut out as much as I could.”

Mason kept the page count down by restricting the coverage wherever possible to topics of clinical relevance, leaving out popular neuroscience textbook subjects such as the fundamentals of smell and leech swimming (a common model for the neurobiology of locomotion). Instead, she focused on the anatomical regions where patients are most likely to suffer lesions that cause symptoms, and the neurotransmitter imbalances that cause behavioral changes. Pop-out boxes describe the clinical manifestations physicians are likely to see, such as the pupil constriction and droopy eyelid of Horner syndrome, which indicates damage to a specific pathway from the brain to the eye.

But to really help important neurobiology topics take up permanent residence in the minds of medical students, Mason deployed an armory of inventive examples and metaphors to make the text both enjoyable to read and memorable.

read more

The 2009 H1N1 pandemic, better known as the season of swine flu, was not like other flu seasons of recent vintage. A typical seasonal strain of influenza is most deadly at the extremities of age, with the highest mortality rates in the very young and very old. One of the reasons why experts were concerned about the 2009 flu was that it went off-script, killing mostly people in their twenties and thirties. Influenza researchers speculated on why the normally vulnerable elderly appeared to have the advantage against this particular pandemic. But it wasn’t until a recent study by University of Chicago and Stanford scientists looking at the failure of flu vaccines in older adults that the source of this advantage revealed itself.

In a typical season, senior citizens are among the priority groups for receiving the flu vaccine, due to their increased risk of severe symptoms. Yet the success rate of the standard influenza vaccine is reduced in those above 65 years of age, falling from 90 percent efficacy to as low as 17 percent. Most have attributed this decline to a general principle called “immunosenescence,” the weakening of a person’s immune system as they grow older. Since vaccines work by stimulating the production of antibodies against an inactivated flu strain to protect against the real virus, is the deficiency in the aged a matter of antibody quantity, quality, or both?

A multi-institutional team led by co-first authors Meghan Sullivan of UChicago and Sanae Sasaki of Stanford developed a new assay to test this question for a recent article in The Journal of Clinical Investigation. Two groups of volunteers - one aged 18-30, one aged 70-100 - received the seasonal flu vaccine in the winter of 2007-08, and researchers took blood samples from them seven days later, when vaccine-induced antibody production is at its peak. Scientists could then measure the number of antibody-secreting cells, called plasmablasts, and antibodies circulating in the blood of the volunteers. They could also run experiments testing how well those immune defenses bind different strains of influenza, the first step in fighting off a virus.

Their first experiments replicated the clinical data - even in a test tube, younger volunteers (or at least their antibodies) are much more likely to respond to the influenza strains included in the vaccine than samples from older subjects. Subsequent experiments revealed that the immune systems of elderly subjects were at a numerical disadvantage, with significantly fewer plasmablasts observed in serum compared to the samples from their younger counterparts.

“It had been appreciated before that there are fewer immune cells in older people, but this is the first time showing that fewer antibody secreting cells are raised in response to vaccination,” said Sullivan, a graduate student in the laboratory of Patrick Wilson (and a contributor to ScienceLife).

But surprisingly, that was where the immune deficits in older patients started and ended. Though there were fewer plasmablasts in older subjects, each produced the same number of antibodies as those of the young. What’s more, when the antibodies from young and old were compared for their ability to bind the viral strains targeted by the vaccine, they were nearly identical. So the failure rate of vaccines in elderly can be explained by the lower quantity of antibody “factories,” rather than a defect in the quality of the antibodies themselves.

“We would think that antibody activity would be decreased in older people, but in fact the ability to bind is basically identical,” Sullivan said. “The antibody secreting cells are the weak point; elderly people are just not making enough.”

Amid the media storm surrounding the rapid spread of swine flu in 2009, the research team used the same samples to test another idea. One theory for why senior citizens were protected against that particular H1N1 strain was that they may have been exposed to a similar influenza that circulated before 1950. With their blood samples, the researchers could compare how the antibodies of their old and young subjects responded to the 2009 H1N1, which neither group had been vaccinated against two years prior. In this competition, the senior citizens were the surprise winners - antibodies from older subjects (especially those older than 78) were more responsive to the H1N1 virus than those from younger volunteers.

The result suggests something off an immune system trade-off in the elderly. Though they may have a harder time producing sufficient antibodies to fight off the flu, the antibodies they do produce are able to attack a more diverse range of influenza strains.

read more

By John Easton

Let’s start with a statistic: almost 2,000 citations a year. One paper by Paul Meier, the Ralph and Mary Otis Isham Distinguished Service Professor emeritus of statistics, pharmacological and physiological sciences, medicine, and the college, has been cited more often, by a wide margin, than any other paper in the field. At last count it was the fifth most cited research paper of all time, in any field. With about 34,000 citations to date, Kaplan, E. L., and Meier, P. (1958), “Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations,” has been cited by another scientific publication about once, on average, for every day of Meier’s long life—he was born in 1924—and still counting.

Sadly, however, that ratio can only increase. Citation counting will continue, but the numbering of days stopped on Sunday, August 7th, when Professor Meier, a world-class statistician who made “extraordinary contributions to statistics and to society,” according to Columbia University - and everyone else - passed away peacefully at his Manhattan home.

The Kaplan-Meier estimator is used ubiquitously in medical studies to estimate and depict the fraction of patients living for a certain amount of time after treatment. This is not as simple as it sounds. Survival curves are complicated by the uncooperative way in which research subjects often behave. Some leave a study part of the way through. Others elect not to die before the study ends. These are known as “censored observations.” The Kaplan-Meier estimate is a simple way to compute the survival curve despite such troublesome behavior.

There was almost a Kaplan estimator and a Meier estimator. Each had submitted a separate manuscript to the Journal of the American Statistical Association, but the editor recommended that their papers be combined into one. It took them four years. “At one place he solved a problem that I couldn’t solve,” Meier later recalled in an interview [pdf]. “Other places I solved problems he couldn’t.” Finally published in 1958, it was only cited 25 times over the next ten years. Then, boosted by statisticians’ increased computing power, it caught on. It has since been applied to data from clinical trials of therapies for every disease from cancer to cardiology to concussion.

Friends and colleagues point out that this was only one of Meier’s fundamental contributions. He published many more studies, was a persistent and outspoken advocate for randomization in clinical studies, helped design some of the 20th Century’s most important clinical trials and trained many of the leaders in the field.

“Paul was a friend and colleague as well as one of the most influential statisticians of an important era,” recalled Stephen Stigler, the current chair of statistics at the University of Chicago. “He left an indelible mark on us, and through his research on the world’s clinic analytical practice. He will be missed and cannot be replaced.”

“I have been so fortunate and privileged to know this truly great, wonderful, helpful, kind man who was always so generous with his skills and wise advice,” said toxoplasmosis expert Rima McLeod, professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University. “He is one of the founding fathers and giants of statistics in the past century. He was at the same time simply a modest, helpful, supportive and warm colleague who only let you know how special he was by the quality and content of what he said and wrote.”

read more