Taking the new out of neurons

By Ed Yong | October 2, 2008 10:00 am


Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research
You are not the person you used to be. Two weeks ago, the surface of your skin was covered with a completely different set of cells, which have since died and flaked off. Four month ago, you had a wholly different set of red blood cells. Since birth, your body has grown tremendously in size and much of it is constantly regenerating, replacing old cells with new ones.

human_brain_nih.jpgBut your brain is different. At birth, the part of your brain that controls your most human abilities – the neocortex – came fully equipped with 100 billion neurons. These same neurons have lasted throughout the years and still power your thoughts today.

The neocortex makes up most of the brain. Its relatively large size is unique to humans, and with good reason. In addition to controlling our bodies, its collection of neurons house our most characteristic qualities – our experiences, and our powers of language, reasoning and creativity. For this reason, the development of these neurons has fascinated scientists for decades.

Throughout our lives, the neocortex needs to change at an incredible pace as we accrue new memories and skills. One of the most hotly contested questions in neuroscience is how it copes – does it constantly grow new neurons (a process called neurogenesis), or do we have the same set from birth? For years, the question has had no hard answers because of inaccurate and easily misinterpreted research techniques. A reported sighting of newly-made neurons in primate brains fanned the flames of debate but could not be confirmed. Clearly, a new breakthrough was needed. It came from the most unlikely of techniques – carbon-dating.

Carbon-dating neurons

nuclear_fireball.jpgCarbon dating measures the levels of 14C, a radioactive form of carbon found in small background levels in the atmosphere. It is a useful technique for working out the age of ancient artefacts, but it’s only accurate to about 30 years and has limited use for studying living cells.

But Ratan Bhardwaj and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, found a way to do this. They exploited the fact that during the Cold War, the world’s superpowers busied themselves by testing their new nuclear arsenals. In doing so, they unleashed large amounts of 14C into the atmosphere and from 1955, global levels doubled in eight years.

The Test Ban Treaty of 1963 put an end to both nuclear testing and the rising 14C levels, which fell exponentially in the following decades. Meanwhile, the high atmospheric levels of 14C were converted into carbon dioxide and taken in by plants. In this way, 14C worked its way up the food chain, and some of it made it into the bodies and neurons of people alive at the time.

So, the levels of 14C in any neuron acts as a time stamp, directly reflecting the amount of 14C in the air at the time it was created. Because the atmospheric levels changed so much from year to year, the team could accurately work out the birthday of each cell.

Bhardwaj and his colleagues looked at the levels of 14C in the neurons of 7 people born between 1933 and 1973. The results were unequivocal. The levels of 14C in each person’s neocortical neurons matched the levels in the air when they were born – high in those born after nuclear testing, and low in those born before it. The team studied millions of neurons, across the four distinct parts of the neocortex. Not a single one was younger than the brain that carried it.

The final blow

braincn9902.jpgBhardwaj did another study to confirm his sensational result. He looked at the brains of cancer patients who were injected with a chemical called BrdU before they died. BrdU is a variant of one of the four bases that make up DNA and once injected, it gets incorporated into newly-created DNA. In this way, the presence of BrdU acts as a marker for newborn cells. Again, the experiment left no room for doubt – in these patients, many different types of cell within the neocortex were labelled with BrdU, but not a single one of them was a neuron.

While Bhardwaj admits that the techniques have their limits, they are incredibly sensitive. Any new neurons missed by the two methods would account for under 1% of the neocortex’s collection, and would be very short-lived. At most, the neocortex adds one new neuron every year for every 7000 existing ones. Their impact on the existing million-strong network would be insignificant.

Dynamism through stability

Bhardwaj’s elegant experiments bring the debate crashing down in favour of one side. It strongly suggests that all 100 million neurons in our neocortex are produced during a strict developmental window while we are still inside the womb. We are then stuck with these cells for our entire lives.

That is not to say that the brain creates no new neurons at all. On the contrary, they are most definitely produced in two specific regions – the olfactory bulb, which controls the sense of smell, and the hippocampus, a region associated with building short-term memories. But in the neocortex, stability is the order of the day.

The situation is much the same in primates and rodents, where new neurons only appear in the hippocampus and olfactory bulb. In contrast, fish, reptiles and birds renew the neurons throughout their entire network and throughout their entire lives.

How can a static population of neurons be reconciled with a dynamic adaptable brain that is anything but static? Without new neurons, the neocortex’s vaunted flexibility must come from changing connections between existing neurons, constantly rewiring our mental circuits in the face of new experiences and sensations. When it comes to neurons, it’s not how many you have, it’s how you use them that counts

Bhardwaj believes that mammals have evolved a stable neural network so that we can retain important information throughout our lives; in the case of humans, that would include our vaunted language skills. Our mental network was forged through experience, but new neurons are naïve. Adding them into the mix would change the flow of currents through the existing system existing network, causing potential problems. Anyone who watched the England football team recently can appreciate the chaos that ensues when new players are unexpectedly thrust into a stable formation.

Preventing the development of new neurons in the neocortex may even have been a critical step in the evolution of human intelligence. It is deliciously ironic that rigidly fixing this number may have allowed us to become more mentally dynamic than any other animal could ever hope to be.

Reference: R. D. Bhardwaj (2006). From the Cover: Neocortical neurogenesis in humans is restricted to development Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (33), 12564-12568 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0605177103


Comments (8)

  1. Interesting post, but a brief correction: The entire human brain is estimated to contain about 100 billion neurons, but the neocortex is estimated to contain around 20 billion.

  2. Paul

    I’m sorry, but a sample size of seven covering people born over a 40 year period is highly suspect. In fact, it’s so small that the entire result could be justifiably thrown out.
    Even if it were 7 people born FROM EACH YEAR between 1933 and 1973 the results would still be suspect, especially if the results showed any variation.
    I’d also challenge the study based on the region of the globe these 7 folks came from. I’m not convinced that levels off carbon 14 are uniformly distributed around the globe.
    Yes, this result is interesting, and might even look promising, but it should certainly no be embraced until further studies are done. Results from seven people really doesn’t say much about anything.

  3. Markk

    Looking at that study is very confusing. It is assuming a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with neurogenesis. Even with no new neurons, this study is saying there is no carbon exchange in brain cells? No chemical transmitters with carbon in them are emitted by brain cells and lost to the bloodstream? No intake of carbon for metabolism or protein formation in brain cells that is not from other brain cells?
    All of those processes and many more would alter the C14-C12 balance in neurons over the years.
    Neurons are not a closed system. They take nourishment and building blocks from the blood and exchange all sorts of chemicals with many cells. Yet this paper is positing that for carbon they are closed. That is an amazing, one could say incredible in the literal sense, result. It would mean this group has a good model of ALL molecular transport of organic materials into and out of brain cells. I think they have a general loss rate they use, but that is very iffy stuff.
    If neurons are this isolated then I don’t see how this actually proves no neurogenesis. Since these areas of the brain must also be isolated, there could be new neurons from the same area will have essentially the same composition. Thus they would give the same “birthday”.

  4. Erik

    Markk, the study measured the C14 ratio in the *DNA*, not the entire cell. After the last cell division, there is no change in the carbon composition of the DNA. Ergo: the C14 ratio in the DNA reflects the ratio when the cell was born.
    I hope this clarifies things.

  5. Ian

    This is old news, Ed. The Crystals knew this back in ’63:
    I researched in a rat brain and my heart stood still
    New neuron-ron-ron-ron, new neuron-ron-ron
    Nature held surprises, it was still a thrill
    New neuron-ron-ron-ron, new neuron-ron-ron
    Yes, in nature still
    Yes, we find a thrill
    And yes, they control our will
    New neuron-ron-ron-ron new neuron-ron-ron
    Oh how soon we forget the classics…!

  6. Nice and clear elaboration. More research is needed to be doubly sure.

  7. Angela Limoges

    “Taking the New out of Neurons”
    What caught my eye on this post was the big picture of the brain. Adding clip-art really grabs a readers attention. The main purpose of this blog was regeneration of neurons in the neocortex. Studies were done to see if the neurons we were born with, are still present know at our given age. They tested this by using carbon dating, or Carbon 14. They did this by taking seven people during the time period of the Cold War. Each of those seven people, had the same number of neurons as the amount of Carbon in the air on the day they were born. They further studied by injecting a dye called BrdU into brains of cancer patients before they died. The dye was used to determing new generation of cells. When they did this, none of the dye stained cells were neurons. This test provided more evidence that the neurons we were born with, we still have.
    It was funny that it mentioned a use of Carbon 14 in this blog, since I had just talked about the uses of Carbon 14 in my last Biology lecture. Cells we have already covered. I thought it to be cool that this article related to what my class was doing to a certain extent.

  8. yogi-one

    Erik, you are very good science writer. You should work as a Presidential science adviser. Be a great citizen-scientists and help save us from Ted Kennedy!
    I would like to see studies using more subjects to confirm early findings. And more studies involving different types of animals for comparative purposes.
    These results certainly are intriguing.
    Meanwhile, can I make a T-shirt with this:
    When it comes to neurons, it’s not how many you have, it’s how you use them that counts


Discover's Newsletter

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

Not Exactly Rocket Science

Dive into the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science news with award-winning writer Ed Yong. No previous experience required.

See More

Collapse bottom bar