NSF workshop report: Discovering general principles of nervous system organization by comparing brain maps across species |
| |
| Authors: | Georg F. Striedter T. Grant Belgard Chun‐Chun Chen Fred P. Davis Barbara L. Finlay Onur Güntürkün Melina E. Hale Julie A. Harris Erin E. Hecht Patrick R. Hof Hans A. Hofmann Linda Z. Holland Andrew N. Iwaniuk Erich D. Jarvis Harvey J. Karten Paul S. Katz William B. Kristan Eduardo R. Macagno Partha P. Mitra Leonid L. Moroz Todd M. Preuss Clifton W. Ragsdale Chet C. Sherwood Charles F. Stevens Maik C. Stüttgen Tadaharu Tsumoto Walter Wilczynski |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California;2. Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California;3. Department of Neurobiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina;4. Janelia Farm Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia;5. Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York;6. Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany;7. Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois;8. Allen Institute for Brain Science, Seattle, Washington;9. Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia;10. Fishberg Department of Neuroscience and Friedman Brain Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York 10029;11. Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas;12. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California;13. Department of Neuroscience, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada;14. Department of Neurosciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California;15. Neuroscience Institute, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia;16. Section of Neurobiology, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California;17. Section of Cell and Developmental Biology, Division of Biological Sciences, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California;18. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York;19. Department of Neuroscience and The Whitney Laboratory for Marine Bioscience, University of Florida, St. Augustine, Florida;20. Division of Neuropharmacology and Neurologic Diseases, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia;21. Department of Neurobiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois;22. Department of Anthropology, The George Washington University, Washington, DC;23. The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California;24. Brain Science Institute RIKEN, Wako, Japan |
| |
| Abstract: | Efforts to understand nervous system structure and function have received new impetus from the federal Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. Comparative analyses can contribute to this effort by leading to the discovery of general principles of neural circuit design, information processing, and gene‐structure‐function relationships that are not apparent from studies on single species. We here propose to extend the comparative approach to nervous system ‘maps' comprising molecular, anatomical, and physiological data. This research will identify which neural features are likely to generalize across species, and which are unlikely to be broadly conserved. It will also suggest causal relationships between genes, development, adult anatomy, physiology, and, ultimately, behavior. These causal hypotheses can then be tested experimentally. Finally, insights from comparative research can inspire and guide technological development. To promote this research agenda, we recommend that teams of investigators coalesce around specific research questions and select a set of ‘reference species' to anchor their comparative analyses. These reference species should be chosen not just for practical advantages, but also with regard for their phylogenetic position, behavioral repertoire, well‐annotated genome, or other strategic reasons. We envision that the nervous systems of these reference species will be mapped in more detail than those of other species. The collected data may range from the molecular to the behavioral, depending on the research question. To integrate across levels of analysis and across species, standards for data collection, annotation, archiving, and distribution must be developed and respected. To that end, it will help to form networks or consortia of researchers and centers for science, technology, and education that focus on organized data collection, distribution, and training. These activities could be supported, at least in part, through existing mechanisms at NSF, NIH, and other agencies. It will also be important to develop new integrated software and database systems for cross‐species data analyses. Multidisciplinary efforts to develop such analytical tools should be supported financially. Finally, training opportunities should be created to stimulate multidisciplinary, integrative research into brain structure, function, and evolution. J. Comp. Neurol. 522:1445–1453, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
| |
| Keywords: | brain evolution comparative method brain mapping |
|
|
