Article View: sci.skeptic
Article #5986Re: You Must Remember This
From: Brian
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:22
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:22
77 lines
5554 bytes
5554 bytes
"Michael Jameson" <m.jameson@hunterlink.net.au> skrev i melding news:3BC9B655.E545C259@hunterlink.net.au... > There was an article in the New Scientist of Sept 15 titled "You Must > Remember This", about the possiblility of DNA having a role in memory. I > can't summarise the three pages well - and there are dissenting opinions > quoted - but I will quote sentences which seem to demonstrate the > essential thesis: > > "To lock a memory in place, most researchers say you need to shore up > its synaptic connections... But building permanent, stable connections > is no simple process. Nearly all of the brain's molecules, including > those that form the neural connections, are replaced every week or two. > How long-lasting memories can be stored with such distinctly impermanent > media has confounded theorists for years. The problem, says > neurobiologist Sandra Pena de Ortiz... is that molecular turnover would > eventually degrade these structural proteins... Electron microscopes > have also shown how far from stable neuroins are. Their outstretched > branches move from day to day... you could keep rebuilding the same > structures, but how would you know what to rebuild and where?... what's > needed is some sort of archived blueprint for each acquired > experience... "We believe that permanent memories are stored in altered > genes," says Pena. In the same way that DNA provides a blueprint for the > proteins that make up living cells, Pena and her colleague Yuri > Arshavsky... believe that new 'memory molecules' are born when altered > gene sequences are translated into proteins. They're not suggesting that > we make a new protein in the split second it takes to recall a memory. > "What I call molecules of memory," explains Pena, "are used to stabilise > networks of memory neurons." When a specific network is stabilised, so > is a particular memory." > > I'd appreciate hearing any comment on this article or the general idea. > > The paper that is the main focus of the article is "DNA recombination as > a possible mechanism in declarative memory" by Sandra Pena de Ortiz and > Yuri Arshavsky, Journal of Neuroscience Research, vol 63, p 72 (2001). A > second paper is also suggested as further reading, for which I found the > reference and abstract - > > Journal of Theoretical Biology 2001 Jan 21;208(2):145-9 > "Memory and DNA." > Dietrich A, Been W. > Institute of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical > Centre, Meibergdreef 15, NL 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. > a.dietrich@amc.uva.nl > > A model is presented for the storage of long-term memory. In our model > consolidation takes place by specific DNA sequences. These DNA sequences > are obtained by the recombination of DNA in a similar way to that during > meiosis and the production of immunological antibodies. DNA has the > potential of the production of large numbers of specific DNA sequences. > These sequences can be attached to images of neural networks.The > following considerations lead to the theory: (1)Most of the DNA is not > used: approximately 3% of our DNA is used. (2)There are no cell > divisions in the brain after adulthood is reached. Structural DNA > arrangements will not be altered nor disrupted as a consequence of cell > division and mitosis. (3)Chromosomal pairing is demonstrated in the > brain, which could indicate the exchange of DNA. In addition, in our > first survey experiments we found a positive reaction of components of > the synaptonemal complex (SC) in the nuclei of brain cells. The SC is > highly meiosis specific and plays a major role in genetic recombination. > > Copyright 2001 Academic Press. > > Mick. > -- > "You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS > Eliot). So, you're basically saying that the gene-transcriptions are reversed ? Only a retro-virus like the HIV are capable of that, unless you have some data that indicate otherwise. And no, more that 3% of the data are used. That would say that only 3% of the DNA were used to create a human during developement. It seems more data are required Brian
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Ntmy7.2080$wF1.70176@news1.oke.nextra.no>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<3BC9B655.E545C259@hunterlink.net.au>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 111b20,124f11105ed3be41 X-Google-Attributes: gid111b20,public X-Google-Thread: 10065c,124f11105ed3be41 X-Google-Attributes: gid10065c,public X-Google-Thread: 106165,124f11105ed3be41 X-Google-Attributes: gid106165,public X-Google-Thread: f44bc,124f11105ed3be41 X-Google-Attributes: gidf44bc,public X-Google-Thread: 1045ed,124f11105ed3be41 X-Google-Attributes: gid1045ed,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-14 13:22:07 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!148.122.208.68!news2.oke.nextra.no!nextra.com!news1.oke.nextra.no.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Brian" <zhil@online.no> Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.memetics,sci.bio.misc,bionet.neuroscience,sci.psychology.theory References: <3BC9B655.E545C259@hunterlink.net.au> Subject: Re: You Must Remember This Lines: 79 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <Ntmy7.2080$wF1.70176@news1.oke.nextra.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: 146.172.108.208 X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:22:05 MET DST Organization: Nextra Public Access X-Trace: readme.online.no 1003090925 146.172.108.208 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:22:46 +0200