New Memory Gene

Imagine what would happen if we could ratchet up the volume and quality of our memories, and also our speed and ability to integrate bits of information stored in our noggins.

At McGill University, in Montreal, researchers have isolated a gene in mice that produces a protein that blocks the formulation of memories. Mice with a defective version of this gene were able to remember tasks better than those with the normal variation, according to an article in the Guardian.

"'If a person were reading a page of a textbook, it might take several times to memorize it,' said Mauro Costa-Mattioli, a researcher on the team. 'A human equivalent of these mice would get the information right away.'"

When the team amplified the expression of this gene, memory was further impaired, proving that this stretch of DNA does indeed impact memory. The work is published in Cell.

The next step for the team is to come up with a compound to block the action of the memory-killing protein--which might be a boon for those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other memory-related ailments. The drug won't cure these diseases, but it might halt the loss of memories.

According to Carved in Sand, a new book on memory by my friend Cathryn Jakobson Ramin and a fascinating read, there are roughly 40 cognition-enhancing drugs in human clinical trials. They are designed to augment wakefulness, attention, memory, decision making, and planning. The drugs in this group that make it to FDA approval will be added to an arsenal that already includes Adderall, Provigil, and other drugs approved for various illnesses of the mind but used routinely by the healthy.

Millions of people use these drugs to enhance their focus and performance on tests at school, to prepare the big presentation for the boss, and many other reasons. (Safety tip: some of these drugs have side effects, including addiction.) Most do not work by impacting memory itself, but by increasing focus and stamina so that memories can be more quickly retrieved and organized.

"The idea of cognitive enhancement is a lifestyle choice--I think it's going to change society," says Martha Farah in Cathryn's book. Farah directs the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Pennsylvania.

The arrival of these drugs brings up a host of issues that need to be thought about, ranging from who gets the drugs to what might be lost if we are all juiced up on mind meds all the time. For instance, Cathryn reports that her own use of Adderall and Provigil for memory impairment gives her a boost in terms of focus and energy, but at times it robs her of the impulsiveness and creativity required of a writer--a situation that led her to stop taking Adderall and to limit her use of the less addictive Provigil to challenging days, when she needs to keep up her energy.

The new generation of drugs will be far more targeted and less addictive--and therefore will be snatched up by those who can afford them, while those who can't may be left out.

And who knows what a greatly expanded network of memories will reveal--a whole new conception of life and the universe, or way too many details, like the exact location of every sock I have ever lost and where I left my keys that day I lost them during the summer of 1993?

The Small-Dog Gene

Credit: Technology Review

I have always been a big-dog man--until my girlfriend brought home Brownie, a 12-pound Jack Russell terrier. He thinks he is the size of a horse, and he's as smart and nutty as any of the big Labradors I've had. We have often marveled at how a dog with a head and brain the size of my fist can be a real dog.

Now we know, thanks to Nathan Sutter, a geneticist at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), in Bethesda, MD. Sutter and his colleagues tested thousands of dogs from 143 breeds, ranging from the tiny to the gigantic. They discovered that the smaller dogs have a distinct pattern of DNA in the growth-promoting gene IGF-1; they eventually narrowed down the difference to a single SNP--a single nucleotide polymorphism, which is a single base pair of DNA that differs among individuals of the same species. The SNP occurs in the middle of the gene just in the smaller dogs.

The interesting part is that we humans appear to be responsible. All 400 breeds of dog have been traced to a common gray-wolf ancestor living about 15,000 years ago--which humans domesticated. Our ancestors then became genetic engineers by breeding early pooches for various traits. According to an article about Sutter's study in the current issue of Science,

The variant appears in so many small breeds, many dating back centuries, that it must have arisen early in the history of dogs, the authors argue. It may have become widespread because humans tended to select for more compact animals that were easier to feed, house, and transport, says co-author Robert Wayne from the University of California, Los Angeles. Just how this IGF1 variant controls size remains unclear.

As we contemplate more radical tinkering with genes in a variety of species, let's keep in mind that our long history of manipulating man's best friend has created both cuddly-cute pets and monster dogs bred for war and killing. This makes me wonder if there is an attack-dog SNP yet to be discovered--or a cuddle-up gene.

We humans are a strange species, having created a dog for every mood and attribute of our own species over the past 15 millennia. Perhaps we should keep this in mind as our technological prowess allows us to make ever-greater genetic manipulations.

Pennie, Elizabeth, "Roll over! Fetch! Don't Grow Up!", ScienceNOW Daily News 5 April 2007.

Sutter, Nathan B., et al., "A Single IGF1 Allele Is a Major Determinant of Small Size in Dogs," Science, 6 April 2007, Vol. 316, no. 5821, pp. 112-115.

Using Spit to Search for a Superathlete Gene

For years, geneticists have been poking around in the human genome looking for genes that might contribute to superathletes like road-racing cyclist Lance Armstrong. One geneticist recently told me that Armstrong and other phenomenal athletes are "mutants"--meaning their DNA almost certainly contains supergenes that allow them to, for example, sprint up the Pyrenees at full tilt during the Tour de France or, in the case of baseball players, hit balls traveling at 100 miles per hour.

Scientists at the Taipei Physical Education College have announced that they are developing a gene bank containing DNA from superperforming athletes from Taiwan. Led by researcher Hsu Tai-ke, the team has been collecting gene-laden saliva from top performers, such as last year's 19-game-winning pitcher Wang Chein-Ming, of the New York Yankees, and Olympic tae-kwon-do medalists Chu Mu-yen and Huang Chih-hsiung.

In each case, the researchers found "polymorphisms," special genes or stretches of DNA present in some people and not in others, that numerous studies have associated with athletes' cardio endurance.

Tai-ke suggests that asking big-time athletes for spit rather than blood will increase the number of test subjects and confirm whether or not these genes help superathletes perform.

The Taiwanese scientist also raised the notion that further understanding these genes might lead to testing kids who seem to be developing into great pitchers or karate stars--a Gattaca sort of idea that makes the mind wonder how this information would be used, or if athletes might add their genes to the list of products they endorse.

Apparently, there is already a market for superbeautiful women and supersmart men and women to contribute (in exchange for payment) their eggs and sperm to make beautiful geniuses. What will it cost to buy an actual gene to help you pitch a 19-and-6 season with a 3.63 ERA?

Dolly at 10: Whither the Clones?

Dolly the Sheep

Ten years ago last week, on February 22, the world first heard about the birth of Dolly the sheep, who was born on July 5, 1996, and died on February 14, 2003. In 1997, the announcement that Scottish geneticist Ian Wilmut had created an exact genetic duplicate of an adult ewe caught almost everyone by surprise. Until then, the public thought of clones in terms of science fiction--clone armies in Star Wars and Adolf Hitler redux in The Boys from Brazil.

The appearance of a fuzzy little lamb created a sensation, generating a great deal of talk about when humans--and pet poodles and perhaps saber-toothed tigers--would be cloned. Surely, it was said, if a sheep could be xeroxed, so could, well, Hitler, if there is any of his DNA around. Or my grandmother. Or Mother Teresa. Or Genghis Khan.

Obviously, none of this has happened. A few pets have been cloned, and at least two hoaxes have been perpetuated in which people claimed to have cloned humans: one in South Korea that involved a cloned human embryo, and the weird claim by the Raelians that they created a human clone that was brought to term and was said to be living in Florida. It turns out to be extremely difficult to clone a mammal, and those animals that are cloned tend to develop rare disorders that shorten their lives. This is what happened to Dolly, who suffered from premature aging and a rare form of arthritis before being put down after being afflicted with lung disease.

There is also a powerful moral issue about cloning humans: whether it should be done or not given the health issues of clones and the much larger issue of what it means to be a human being. What legal status would a clone have? Would clones be grown to provide spare organs to "natural-borns"? Would there be a temptation to further bioengineer clones by manipulating their DNA in ways that right now are considered unethical in humans? Geneticists struggling to be allowed to clone embryos for stem-cell research have all sworn that they have no interest in cloning finished humans, and I believe them, but that doesn't mean that a scientist somewhere isn't trying.

Of course we already have millions of clones in the world: identical twins, who share identical DNA. And some thinkers and scientists believe that we should produce clones--and that once the kinks are worked out, it will actually be a safer way to reproduce humans. Read my friend Greg Stock's book Reinventing Humans: Our Inevitable Genetic Future, which argues that cloning humans is inevitable and will one day be about as controversial as heart surgery is today. A century ago, few surgeons would venture into the heart, then considered the repository of the soul.

As of now, the failure of science (as far as we know) to actually clone a human--and the ethical reluctance of most scientists to take this step--means that we haven't had to face the issues. I suspect that by the time another 10 years has gone by, we may be hearing for real about a baby clone being born.

As we watch this human Dolly laughing and crying and spitting up formula like a "natural" baby, how will we feel?