Part II: Speed Article2
Lost sleep could mean lost neurons
Time2
Most of us wish we got more sleep. Every night, something — whether it’s children, work or the Internet — seems to keep us up late. Sometimes it keeps us up all night. Often we comfort ourselves with the thought that if all else fails, we can make it up with a few solid nights of sleep on the weekend.
But new research shows that the brain may not be as forgiving as we hoped. While a few extra hours on the Internet may be absolved, all-nighters like those associated with shift work (not to mention parenting) may end up killing off neurons.
There is no question that sleep is important. It cleans our brain cells and helps consolidate our memories. Lack of sleep is blunts our ability to focus, makes us dangerousdrivers and can make us eat too much. Jing Zhang and her
colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia were interested in the effects of sleep loss on the brain. “Many of us have pulled long nights and/or all-nighters, and we think we’re OK,” says Sigrid Veasey, a neurobiologist at Penn and coauthor on the study. “But what is the effect? Is there a compensatory mechanism? Or does the brain pay a price for repeated sleep loss?”
The researchers were particularly interested in the locus ceruleus, an area of neurons deep in the brain stem. The locus ceruleus plays an important role in attention, “fight or flight” and our sleep-wake cycles. But the locus ceruleus is also very sensitive to stress. And late nights can make those cells very frazzled indeed.
To examine how the brain might respond to decreased sleep, Zhang and colleagues put mice in new, interesting environments with other mice to play with and plenty of things to explore. With this mouse playground, the researchers could keep the animals up far past their bedtimes. The scientists looked at mice with normal sleep schedules, mice that stayed up three hours later than normal and mice with a night-shift schedule kept awake during the day for three days straight. In all cases, the mice could get as much sleep as they wanted during the night, their normal active period.
In a paper published March 19 in the Journal of Neuroscience, Zhang and her group showed that three hours of lost sleep in the mouse playground produced an increase in Sirtuin3, or SIRT3, a protein in a cell’s mitochondria. SIRT3 has a lot of functions, and one of them is reducing chemicals called reactive oxygen species. These molecules are capable of binding to and disrupting all sorts of cellular processes. ROS are a natural by-product of a cell’s daily life, but too many accumulating in the cell can get dangerous as the molecules bind to normal proteins, causing damage and eventually cell death.[484]
Time3
By increasing SIRT3 protein when mice stay up late, the brain cells in the locus ceruleus are ready to deal with the ROS. But when the mice partied all night long, the situation reversed. SIRT3RNA levels went down, while ROS levels continued to increase. With three days of eight-hour sleep deprivation, the neurons in the locus ceruleus actually began to die. Napping didn’t make up for the sleep lost.
SIRT3 appears to be a key protein for protecting neurons from damage from ROS molecules during late nights. In mice lacking the gene for the SIRT3 protein, even three hours of sleep deprivation resulted in neuron injury from ROS.
“We didn’t think the brain got injured from sleep loss,” Veasey says. “Now we know it does.” She explains that the next step will be to see if there is similar damage in humans who have done large amounts of shift work, perhaps by examining post-mortem brains. Veasey also plans to see if increasing SIRT3 can protect against the effects of all-nighters.
While it is interesting to see a new role for SIRT3 in sleep, Matthew Hirschey, a cell biologist at Duke University, says that it’s not necessarily surprising. “SIRT3 is a mitochondrial protein, he says, “and mitochondrial function touches so much of biology.” In addition, because every cell in the body has SIRT3 in its mitochondria, increasing SIRT3 might have more effects than protecting your neurons from a late night. “Generally,” Hirschey says, “it appears to be a good thing, but some cancer cells have high SIRT3 as well.”
It will also be important to see if the locus ceruleus can recover from neuron loss, and if it even matters. Zhang’s group did not run behavioral studies to see if the sleep-deprived mice had deficits in attention or memory, or if these reversed with recovery sleep. They also don’t know if neuron loss continues over long-term shift work, or if the brain can adjust. But Veasey says the current findings are scary enough: “All of us in the lab take sleep a lot more seriously than we used to!”[371]
Source:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/lost-sleep-could-mean-lost-neurons
Article 3
The Human Nose Can Distinguish Between One Trillion Different Smells
New research says our olfactory system is far more sensitive than we thought
Time4
You may have heard this one before: Humans, especially compared to animals such as dogs, have a remarkably weak sense of smell. Over and over again, it's reported that we can only distinguish between about 10,000 different scents—a large number, but one that's easily dwarfed by that of dogs, estimated to have a sense of smell that's 1,000 to 10,000 times more sensitive than ours.
It may be indisputable that dogs do have a superior sense of smell, but new research suggests that our own isn't too shabby either. And it turns out that the "10,000 different scents" figure, concocted in the 1920s, was a theoretical estimate, not based on any hard data.
When a group of researchers from the Rockefeller University sought to rigorously figure out for the first time how many scents we can distinguish, they showed the 1920s figure to be a dramatic underestimate. In a study published today in Science, they show that—at least among the 26 participants in their study—the human nose is actually capable of distinguishing between something on the order of a trillion different scents.
"The message here is that we have more sensitivity in our sense of smell than for which we give ourselves credit," Andreas Keller, an olfactory researcher at Rockefeller and lead author of the study, said in a press statement. "We just don't pay attention to it and don't use it in everyday life."
A big part of the reason it took so long to accurately gauge our scent sensitivity is that it's much more difficult to do so than, say, test the range of wavelengths of light the human eye can perceive, or the range of soundwaves the human ear can hear. But the researchers had a hunch that the real number was far greater than 10,000, because it was previously documented that humans have upwards of 400 different smell receptors which work in concert. For comparison, the three light receptors in the human eye allow us to see an estimated 10 million colors. [342]
Time5
Noting that the vast majority of real-world scents are the result of many molecules mixed together—the smell of a rose, for instance, is the result of 275 unique molecules in combination—the researchers developed a method to test their hunch. They worked with a diverse set of 128 different molecules that act as odorants, mixing them in unique combinations. Although many familiar scents—such as orange, anise and spearmint—are the results of molecules used in the study, the odorants were deliberately mixed to produce unfamiliar smells (combinations that were often, the researchers note, rather "nasty and weird").
By mixing either 10, 20 or 30 different types of molecules together in varying concentrations, the researchers could theoretically produce trillions of different scents to test on the participants. Of course, given the impracticality of asking people to stand around and sniff trillions of small glass tubes, the researchers had to come up with an expedited method.
They did so by using the same principles that political pollsters use when they call a representative sample of voters and use their responses to extrapolate to the general population. In this case, the researchers sought to determine how different two vials had to be—in terms of the percentage of different odorant molecules between them—for participants to generally tell them apart at levels greater than chance.
Then the work began: For each test, a volunteer was given three vials—two with identical substances, and one with a different mixture—and asked to identify the outlier. Each participant was exposed to about 500 different odorant combinations, and in total, a few thousand scents were sniffed.
After analyzing the test subjects' success rates in picking the odd ones out, the authors determined that, on average, two vials had to contain at least 49 percent different odorant molecules for them to be reliably distinguished. To put this in more impressive words, two vials could be 51 percent identical, and the participants were still able to tell them apart.
Extrapolating this to the total amount of combinations possible, merely given the 128 molecules used in the experiment, indicated that the participants were able to distinguish between at least a trillion different scent combinations. The real total is probably much higher, the researchers say, because of the many more molecules that exist in the real world.
For a team of scientists that have devoted their careers to the oft-overlooked power of olfaction, this finding smells like sweet vindication. As co-author Leslie Vosshall put it, "I hope our paper will overturn this terrible reputation that humans have for not being good smellers." [442]
Source:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/
Article 4
When stressed, the brain goes ‘cheap’
Time6
When we’re not under pressure, we have time to reflect on the best course before making a decision. In times of stress, however, we fall back on quick and dirty decision making. A new study attempts to clarify how stress changes the way we perform working memory tasks.
Say you are thinking of getting a new car. You have a car but it’s getting old, and it’s time to move on. You might examine different models, check out the miles per gallon in hybrids, save up money and look at different financing methods.
Then your car breathes its last. You can’t get to work. You can hitch a ride for a few days, but you have to do something. Screw miles per gallon and financing. You run out and buy the car you can get the quickest, just like you did the last time this happened. It’s barely within your budget and it’s not as ecofriendly as you’d hoped. It’s probably not what you would have picked when you had ample time to consider. Is it the best decision?
That example shows two different kinds of decision making. Model-based decision making takes all the options into account. You examine the potential consequences of actions, look around at the environment and study all the possibilities. Model-free decision making is more “primitive” in style. Instead of carefully evaluating all the possible choices and outcomes, you just go with what worked best last time. Model-based decision making takes more focus and thought, while model-free decision making takes less. [273]
Source: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/when-stressed-brain-goes
|