Speak, Mouse

By Carl Zimmer | May 28, 2009 12:01 pm

More and more, scientists are figuring out the molecular changes that have taken place over the course of our evolution. It’s one thing, however, to have a good idea of the ways in which our DNA was altered, but it’s quite another to figure out how those changes affected our ancestors, and how those changes may have spread from an individual to the entire species through a process such as natural selection.

Knowing how genes work makes it possible to come up with hypotheses about how changes to those genes evolved. And today scientists can engineer animals to see if those hypotheses hold up. A couple years ago I blogged about a study on the evolution of our color vision, in which scientists gave mice the power to see the colors that we (and other primates) can see. Now comes a similar study on the evolution of language. The mice involved may not be able to talk, but their brains have changed in some very interesting ways.

This story begins with a family in London who had trouble with language. Some members of the family had trouble speaking and understanding grammar. They turned out to have an inherited language disorder, and scientists were able to use the family’s genealogy to pinpoint the gene involved, which they dubbed Foxp2. Foxp2 encodes a transcription factor, a protein that switches other genes on or off. That can make a gene very powerful, but it can also make it hard for scientists to figure out what it does, since its ultimate effects on a person’s body must first be carried down through a cascade of other genes. But it’s pretty clear at this point that Foxp2 influences the development of the brain.

Foxp2 exists in other animals, and in many cases it appears to have an influence on communication. When scientists have knocked out the gene in mouse embryos, for example, the mice are born having trouble producing the ultrasonic squeaks they need to make in order to get help from their mother. In 2002, Wolfgang Enard of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and his colleagues compared the version of Foxp2 in humans to other animals and found that it had undergone a dramatic evolution in our own ancestry after our ancestors branched off from those of chimpanzees and bonobos. Our hominid ancestors aquired two mutations to the gene that each changed an amino acid in the Foxp2 protein. In 2007, Max Planck researchers announced that they had found the Foxp2 gene in the DNA of Neanderthals, our closest hominid relatives. It turned out they shared that same altered sequence. If Neanderthals share our version of Foxp2 thanks to common descent, that means that the two amino acids changed before our common ancestors split off, some 800,000 years ago. It presumably was one of many changes that took place to many genes in our hominid ancestors on the road to full-blown language.

To get a sense of how this new version of Foxp2 might have changed the brains of our ancestors, Enard and his colleagues have now tweaked Foxp2 in mice into a human form. Because Foxp2 has changed very little in mammal evolution (except in humans), a mouse version of Foxp2 is a fairly good model for what the gene looked like in our own ancestors. And so this experiment can, in very rough form, replay the transition from the old Foxp2 to the new.

As the scientists report in Cell tomorrow, the mice are generally healthy, but their behavior has changed. Their squeaks are lower in frequency. They explore less. They have less dopamine in the brain, a neurotransmitter that we need to control our bodies and to pursue rewarding things like food. Dopamine is produced in the base of the brain by a clump of neurons called the basal ganglia.

Scientists who have studied people with Foxp2 defects have noticed that part of the basal ganglia, called the striatum, is altered. So the researchers looked closely at the striatum of the humanized mice. They discoverd that certain kinds of neurons had longer branches and could sprout new connections with other neurons than in regular mice.

None of these changes should be accepted blindly as having happened in our own ancestors. The effect of a mutation to a gene depends a lot on the other genes it interacts with. When Foxp2 changed in our ancestors, it was interacting with many other hominid genes, not with genes in mice.

Nevertheless, there are many intriguing clues from this study that hint that perhaps these mice are pointing to at least a few changes that gave rise to language. It turns out, for example, that people who produce less dopamine in the basal ganglia do a better job of breaking down the sounds of speech into smaller chunks in the brain in order to undertand the words someone is saying. It’s also intriguing that songbirds have independently evolved Foxp2 as they’ve become excellent singers, and when scientists block Foxp2 expression in the basal ganglia of birds, they do a worse job of singing.

Obviously, mice are no better at singing like birds than they are at talking like us. But it’s possible that their brains have been tweaked in a crucial way, much as happened independently in the ancestors of both birds and people.

Source: Enard et al.: “A Humanized Version of Foxp2 Affects Cortico-Basal Ganglia Circuits in Mice.” Cell 137, 961–971, May 29, 2009. DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2009.03.041 www.cell.com. Publishing in

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Evolution, The Tangled Bank

Comments (6)

Links to this Post

  1. Darwiniana » Genes and evolution | May 28, 2009
  1. David Lewin

    I wonder what the Foxp2 situation is for parrots, especially the African Greys. Birds have a much different higher brain organization than do mammals to get similar control of sound processing and production, if I remember.

  2. What do you mean birds have independently evolved foxp2? That reptiles lack foxp2 altogether? that bird foxp2 resembles human foxp2 more than other primate/basal mammal foxp2? That bird foxp2 differs dramatically from reptile foxp2 similar to the way that human foxp2 is dramatically different from basal mammalian foxp2, but not similar to the human version?

  3. I think we should be very careful with the interpretation of these results. The researchers did not introduce the human gene into mice, they merely changed two amino acids of the mouse gene such that it produces a protein similar to that in humans (there are still a few other different amino acids that are not predicted to be as important as the ones they changed).
    The really important point to note is that the human gene is over 600 kb in size and contains many human specific regulatory elements (transcription factor binding sites, microRNA target sites, etc) that have not been introduced into the mice in this current experiment.
    We still do not know what effect the human gene would really have in mice development.
    It is still technically very difficult to achieve such a germline alteration so I don’t fault the authors of this study for not being comprehensive but I think we should realize the limitations of the current study.

  4. Davi

    “Obviously, mice are no better at singing like birds than they are at talking like us”

    Following paper might indicate otherwise:

    Holy TE, Guo Z (2005) Ultrasonic Songs of Male Mice. PLoS Biol 3(12): e386.
    http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030386

  5. The capacity for language in humans seems to be linked to the Wernicke’s and Broca’s areas in the brain. There’s even evidence of hemispheric asymmetry in other primates. I’m not sure altering a mouse’s biochemistry is going to affect the basic architecture of a mouse’s brain to the point of developing actually language centers.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

The Loom

A blog about life, past and future. Written by DISCOVER contributing editor and columnist Carl Zimmer.

About Carl Zimmer

Carl Zimmer writes about science regularly for The New York Times and magazines such as DISCOVER, which also hosts his blog, The LoomHe is the author of 12 books, the most recent of which is Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »