Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 02:33:02 +0200, "Brian" <zhil at online.no> wrote:
>> >"Bob" <bbruner at uclink4.berkeley.edu> skrev i melding
> >news:3bd334e9.18829718 at agate.berkeley.edu...> >> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:56:23 +1000, Michael Jameson
> >> <m.jameson at hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> >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).
> >>
> >> Ok, I have looked at that paper. It is rather vague, but intriguing.
> >> Those who want to consider the questions the poster raised should read
> >> it.
> >>
> >> The basic idea they suggest is that memory storage may involve somatic
> >> recombination, as with immunoglobulin genes. They provide evidence,
> >> both from the known literature and from their new work, that somatic
> >> recombination is "possible" or even "likely" in the nervous system.
> >>
> >> The proposal does lead to some predictions that are presumably open to
> >> testing, so it does seem like a constructive proposal. One could
> >> rephrase the proposal... what is the role of enzymes of somatic
> >> recombination in the nervous system?
>From this I take it that enzymes of somatic recombination are known to exist,
but what role (if any) they play in the nervous system is unknown? I'll look
these terms up on the web and repeat for clarification that I have only the
vaguest notions about this stuff. It really helps to read that it isn't an
almost-certain dead-end, though. I couldn't have sorted that out quickly for
myself, so thank you.
> >> Some of the objections raised in this thread are irrelevant. For
> >> example, is reverse transcription (RT) a problem. No, nothing in
> >> their proposal requires RT (and if it did, I'm sure the cell could
> >> come up with some). Discussions of roles for junk DNA are essentially
> >> irrelevant, since there is no clear need for any particular amount of
> >> DNA.
> >>
> >> bob
> >
> >Thank you Bob,
> >That cleared things somewhat.
> >So, basically the long term meories are stored as molecules in the cytoplasm
> >?
>> It is not clear. They really do not propose _how_ it all occurs. (or
> if they do, it exceeds my understanding of the neuro issues, which is
> not hard :-) ).
>> Their key point is the proposed role for somatic recombination (of the
> general type used for immunoglobulin gene rearrangements). The hints
> for this relate to findings that some of the required gene products
> are found in the nervous system, and that knockout mice for these
> genes show specific neuro defects.
These are the two main substantiating points?
> That leaves a big gap between what is known and their proposal that
> DNA, via somatic recomb, may "store memories". But it does open up
> some questions for experimental study. Example... Turn off one of
> these enzymes (using your favorite turn-off-gene technology, such as
> RNA(i)). Does that affect memory acquisition, or any other
> identifiable process?
>> Their "big idea" is certainly speculative. But it does have something
> behind it, and leads to expts. So it may be a useful idea, even if the
> answer isn't exactly what they suggested. There are tantalizing hints
> that somatic recomb is doing _something_ in neuro system.
Okay, that's interesting in itself. Even if it isn't about memory it might be
doing something else.
> (Brian... Did you get my private note?)
>> bob
Mick.
--
"You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS Eliot).