The Other Brain

An interesting new book from R. Douglas Fields: The Other Brain.

"Glia" is a catch-all term for every cell in the nervous system that's not a neuron. We have lots and lots of them: on some estimates, 85% of the cells in the brain are glia. But to most neuroscientists at the moment, they're about as interesting as dirt is to archaeologists. They're the boring stuff that gets in the way. The name is Greek for "glue", which says a lot.

It's telling that most neuroscientists (myself included I confess) use the term "brain cells" to mean neurons, even though they're a minority. Hence the book's title: Douglas Fields argues that glia constitute a whole world, another brain - although of course, it's not seperate from the neuronal brain, and neuron-glia interactions are the really interesting thing and the central theme of the book.

Glia have historically been regarded as mere "housekeepers", keeping the brain neat and tidy by cleaning up the byproducts of neural activity. Douglas Fields explains that there's actually a lot more to glia than that, but that even if they were just housekeepers, the housekeeping they do is extremely important.

Astrocytes, one kind of glial cell, are key to the regulation of glutamate levels in the brain. Glutamate is by far the most common neurotransmitter yet it's also the most dangerous: glutamate can kill neurons if they receive too much of it (excitotoxicity). I previously wrote about some bad clams which can cause permanent brain damage if who eat them; the toxin responsible mimics the action of glutamate.

By quickly clearing up glutamate as it's released from neurons, astrocytes perform a vital function which saves the brain from self-destruction. Yet recent evidence has shown that they don't just mop up neurotransmitters, they also respond to them, and even release them. People are nowadays talking about the "tripartite synapse" - presynaptic neuron, postsynaptic neuron, and glia.


Glia even have their own communication network quite seperate from the neuronal one. Whereas neurons use electrical currents to convey signals, and chemicals to talk to other cells, astrocytes are interconnected via direct gap-junctions - literally, little holes bridging the membranes between neighbors.

Waves of calcium can travel through these junctions across long distances. The function of this glial network is almost entirely mysterious at present, but it's surely important, or it wouldn't have evolved. (A few types of human neurons do the same thing; in some animals it's more common.)

The subtitle is overblown, as subtitles often are ("From Dementia to Schizophrenia, How New Discoveries About the Brain are Revolutionizing Medicine and Science"); the book also repeats itself in a number of places, especially when it's castigating neuroscientists for overlooking glia for so long (a fair point, but it gets old.) Overall though it's very readable and it's got some nice anecdotes as well as the science.

The Other Brain makes an excellent case that neuroscience can't remain neuron-science if it hopes to answer the big questions. It's certainly opened my eyes to the importance of glia and given me ideas for my own research. As such it's one of those rare popular science books that will prove interesting to professionals and others too.

Link: Also reviewed here.
Disclaimer: I got a free review copy.

The Other Brain

An interesting new book from R. Douglas Fields: The Other Brain.

"Glia" is a catch-all term for every cell in the nervous system that's not a neuron. We have lots and lots of them: on some estimates, 85% of the cells in the brain are glia. But to most neuroscientists at the moment, they're about as interesting as dirt is to archaeologists. They're the boring stuff that gets in the way. The name is Greek for "glue", which says a lot.

It's telling that most neuroscientists (myself included I confess) use the term "brain cells" to mean neurons, even though they're a minority. Hence the book's title: Douglas Fields argues that glia constitute a whole world, another brain - although of course, it's not seperate from the neuronal brain, and neuron-glia interactions are the really interesting thing and the central theme of the book.

Glia have historically been regarded as mere "housekeepers", keeping the brain neat and tidy by cleaning up the byproducts of neural activity. Douglas Fields explains that there's actually a lot more to glia than that, but that even if they were just housekeepers, the housekeeping they do is extremely important.

Astrocytes, one kind of glial cell, are key to the regulation of glutamate levels in the brain. Glutamate is by far the most common neurotransmitter yet it's also the most dangerous: glutamate can kill neurons if they receive too much of it (excitotoxicity). I previously wrote about some bad clams which can cause permanent brain damage if who eat them; the toxin responsible mimics the action of glutamate.

By quickly clearing up glutamate as it's released from neurons, astrocytes perform a vital function which saves the brain from self-destruction. Yet recent evidence has shown that they don't just mop up neurotransmitters, they also respond to them, and even release them. People are nowadays talking about the "tripartite synapse" - presynaptic neuron, postsynaptic neuron, and glia.


Glia even have their own communication network quite seperate from the neuronal one. Whereas neurons use electrical currents to convey signals, and chemicals to talk to other cells, astrocytes are interconnected via direct gap-junctions - literally, little holes bridging the membranes between neighbors.

Waves of calcium can travel through these junctions across long distances. The function of this glial network is almost entirely mysterious at present, but it's surely important, or it wouldn't have evolved. (A few types of human neurons do the same thing; in some animals it's more common.)

The subtitle is overblown, as subtitles often are ("From Dementia to Schizophrenia, How New Discoveries About the Brain are Revolutionizing Medicine and Science"); the book also repeats itself in a number of places, especially when it's castigating neuroscientists for overlooking glia for so long (a fair point, but it gets old.) Overall though it's very readable and it's got some nice anecdotes as well as the science.

The Other Brain makes an excellent case that neuroscience can't remain neuron-science if it hopes to answer the big questions. It's certainly opened my eyes to the importance of glia and given me ideas for my own research. As such it's one of those rare popular science books that will prove interesting to professionals and others too.

Link: Also reviewed here.
Disclaimer: I got a free review copy.

Going Through People's Stuff

I have finally figured out why my students think it's perfectly fine to rummage in my handbag when I leave the classroom. In order to make the task of endless paper grading a little more bearable, I turned on Dr. Phil's Show and discovered that parents who routinely invade their children's personal space and go through their pockets, cell phones, backpacks, and drawers are considered good and responsible parents.

After being brought up in the environment where personal space is not respected, is it surprising that my students have no idea that it is not acceptable to go through people's stuff in their absence?

Who Is Considered a Star. . .

. . . by the young people today? I need to include pictures of (American) celebrities that my students will recognize in a Spanish assignment. I discovered, however, that I'm hopelessly behind on who is considered a celebrity nowadays. I don't want to be one of those frumpy profs who hands out pictures of people that used to be famous 30 years ago and expects students who weren't even born then to recognize them.

So who is visually recognizable to 18-20 year olds? Please help!

Suing the Reviewer

When Thomas Weigend, a professor of law at the University of Cologne, wrote a 4-paragraph-long review of a book by Karin Calvo-Goller, a senior lecturer at the Academic Center of Law and Business in Israel, little did he know that the irate author would sue him in a criminal court. Apparently, nobody else noticed Calvo-Goller's book, and she decided to promote it by bringing a criminal suit against somebody who might well be the only person to have read it.

Academic publishing isn't easy. Getting people to read the product of one's scholarly labor is even more difficult. It's sad to see that some hapless academics are now resorting to these undignified stunts in hopes of attracting attention to their work.

What Is A Good Football Cleat For A Linemen

This watch has been commissioned very rewarding for me. From simple lines to the old it is, was mainly an issue of cleaning the multiple layers of varnish that overlapped each other. In addition, the plate of the clock showed discoloration spots. The clock numbers were painted with brush and without excessive pulse.




In the part where you see the pendulum had a molding cap I chose to remove. I think that is more attractive as well. And helps to clean the glass. Here you can see the plate in the process of polishing the metal with the dremel:




And that's how it was before the cleaning and pickling alcohol, Retinto and final varnishing. Ah, I painted a small ornament on the top and hit the plate to buy Roman numerals craft stores. The hands, smooth metal, I also painted. And as always, hope you like the result.

The War on Women

The New York Times published an article that condemns the Republican war on women. We have witnessed such egregious assaults on the rights of women recently that even this conservative newspaper can no longer be silent on the issue:

Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning. The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.

Once again, the Republican hypocrisy I wrote about recently is self-evident. On the one hand, legislation aimed at curtailing women's rights to an abortion is being discussed in a variety of states. The Republican majority in Congress states openly that it's main goal at this point is repealing abortion rights. (Jobs? What jobs? Who the hell cares about anything as ridiculously unimportant as that when you can rummage in a woman's uterus instead?). On the other hand, Republicans are trying to make sure that children who have already been born are deprived of health care and nutrition:

Beyond the familiar terrain of abortion or even contraception, House Republicans would inflict harm on low-income women trying to have children or who are already mothers. Their continuing resolution would cut by 10 percent the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, which serves 9.6 million low-income women, new mothers, and infants each month, and has been linked in studies to higher birth weight and lower infant mortality. The G.O.P. bill also slices $50 million from the block grant supporting programs providing prenatal health care to 2.5 million low-income women and health care to 31 million children annually.

After all this, how can anybody be blind enough to believe that the Republican anti-abortion frenzy has anything to do with "saving babies"? How can anybody be inhuman enough to support these cannibalistic measures?

I have always been fascinated - in the same way that one is fascinated with really nasty insects - with people who support Republicans. Anybody who has been graced with an ounce of brain matter can see very easily that this is a party that would rob everybody to benefit the tiny group of the extremely rich. That hates women to the degree of having a near epileptic fit whenever a woman tries to live her own life. That would gladly see children from poor families die out. That has come as near fascism as possible and is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to take the next step. How can anybody keep supporting them and still live with themselves? Isn't it obvious that these are vile creeps whose tenancy on the garbage heap of history has been guaranteed for a long time now?

Come on, people, try to forget about women's uteri for a while and concentrate on how many times the Republicans have lied to you. Weren't you told that their goal was to help you through this devastating economic crisis? Well, they lied as usual. Right now they are not only attempting to kill off poor babies but are also trying to destroy the housing rescue programs instituted by Obama's administration. There will be over 2,000,000 foreclosures this year.

Do you really hate women so much that you would keep voting for a party that is robbing you blind? Really?