Adapting CRISPR to detect COVID-19

“I’ve had the unique opportunity to help my PI, Feng Zhang, and McGovern Fellows, Jonathan Gootenberg and Omar Abudayyeh, develop SHERLOCK as a diagnostic tool for COVID-19.

SHERLOCK is a relatively new tool from the Zhang lab that uses unique properties of CRISPR enzymes to turn them into easily reprogrammable diagnostics. The technology really shines in this particular situation because it contains the plug-and-play features that makes all CRISPR technologies so transformative while also being amenable to low-resource settings. This allowed Feng to develop a test in a matter of days and send it out for testing by collaborators across the globe. We’ve already seen promising results from these collaborations that demonstrates the test is effective and we are excited to see how it may be adopted in countries that do not have the resources to expand PCR-based testing.

Our dream is to see someone who has never used a pipette before perform a SHERLOCK test in the comfort of their own kitchen.

In the US, appropriate testing has remained a significant barrier to proper control of this pandemic, regardless of the available resources. The bulk of the remaining work for this technology is aimed at tackling that problem. We want to turn SHERLOCK into an at-home test, allowing for widespread and scalable testing while maintaining the sensitivity of the gold-standard PCR test.

Our dream is to see someone who has never used a pipette before perform a SHERLOCK test in the comfort of their own kitchen. Thanks to all of the amazing support we have received, this dream has the very real opportunity to become a reality.”


Alim Ladha is a graduate student in Feng Zhang‘s lab and the 2019-2020 Tan-Yang Center for Autism Research Fellow.  In the Zhang lab, Alim tinkers with CRISPR gene-editing tools to make them work efficiently in cells.

#WeAreMcGovern

How We Feel app to track spread of COVID-19 symptoms

A major challenge with containing the spread of COVID-19 in many countries, has been an ability to quickly detect infection. Feng Zhang, along with Pinterest CEO Ben Silberman, and collaborators across scientific and medical disciplines, are coming together to launch an app called How We Feel, that will allow citizen scientists to self-report symptoms.

“It is so important to find a way to connect scientists to fight this pandemic,” explained Zhang. We wanted to find a fast and agile way to ultimately build a dynamic picture of symptoms associated with the virus.”

Designed to help scientists track and stop the spread of the novel coronavirus by creating an exchange of information between the citizens and scientists at scale, the new How We Feel app does just this. The app lets people self-report symptoms in 30 seconds or less and see how others in their area are feeling. To protect user privacy, the app explicitly does not require an account sign in, and doesn’t ask for identifying information such as the user’s name, phone number, or email address before they donate their data. Reporting symptoms only takes about 30 seconds, but the data shared by users has the potential to reveal and even predict outbreak hotspots, potentially providing insight into the spread and progression of COVID-19. To further contribute to the fight against COVID-19, Ben and Divya Silbermann will donate a meal to Feeding America for every download of the How We Feel app—up to 10 million meals.

The app was created by the How We Feel Project, a nonprofit collaboration between Silbermann, doctors, and an interdisciplinary group of researchers including Feng Zhang, investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Broad Institute, and the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT. Other institutions currently involved include Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the Weizmann Institute of Science.

Silbermann partnered closely with Feng Zhang, best known for his work on CRISPR, a pioneering gene-editing technique designed to treat diseases. Zhang and Silbermann first met in high school in Iowa. As the outbreak grew in the US, they called each other to figure out how the fields of biochemistry and technology could come together to find a solution for the lack of reliable health data from testing.

“Since high school, my friend Feng Zhang and I have been talking about the potential of the internet to connect regular people and scientists for the public good,” said Ben Silbermann, co-founder and CEO of, Pinterest. “When we saw how quickly COVID-19 was spreading, it felt like a critical moment to finally build that bridge between citizens and scientists that we’ve always wanted. I believe we’ve done that with How We Feel.”

Silbermann and Zhang formed the new HWF nonprofit because they believed a fully independent organization with a keen understanding of the needs of doctors and researchers should develop and manage the app. Now, they’re looking for opportunities to collaborate globally. Zhang is working to organize an international consortium of researchers from 11 countries that have developed similar health status surveys. The consortium is called the Coronavirus Census Collective (CCC).

The How We Feel app is available for download today in the US on iOS and Android, and via the web at http://www.howwefeel.org.

Protecting healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic

“When the COVID-19 crisis hit the US this March, my biggest concern was the shortage of face masks, which are a key weapon for healthcare providers, frontline service workers, and the public to protect against respiratory transmission of COVID-19. In mid-March I kicked off a gofundme campaign for simple masks to protect frontline service workers but, when it was first announced that frontline healthcare providers were short, I completed the campaign and joined groups of scientists and physicians working on N95 mask reuse in Boston (MGB Center for COVID Innovation) and nation-wide (N95DECON). The N95DECON team and used zoom to connect volunteer scientists, engineers, clinicians and students from across the US to address this problem.

I am deeply committed to helping conserve and decontaminate the N95 masks that are essential for our healthcare workers to most safely treat COVID-19 patients.

I personally love zoom meetings from home for many reasons. For one thing, you can meet people instantaneously from all over the world, no need to travel at all. Also, it is less hierarchical than a typical conference because people all have the same place at the table, rather than some people being relegated to ‘the back of the room.’

McGovern research scientist Jill Crittenden (top left) in a zoom meeting with the Boston-based COVID-19 Innovation Center N95 Reuse team. Photo: Jill Crittenden

For two weeks, we met online daily and exchanged information, suggestions and ideas in a free, open, and transparent way. We reviewed a large body of the information on N95 decontamination and deliberated different methods based on evidence from scientific literature and available data. Our discussions followed the same principles I use in my own work in the Graybiel lab; exploring whether data is convincing, definitive, complete, and reproducible. I am so proud of our resulting report, which provides a summary of this critical information.

I am deeply committed to helping conserve and decontaminate the N95 masks that are essential for our healthcare workers to most safely treat COVID-19 patients. I know physicians personally who are very grateful that teams of scientists are doing the in-depth data analysis so that they can feel confident in what is best for their own health.”


Jill Crittenden is a research scientist in Ann Graybiel‘s lab at the McGovern Institute. She studies neural microcircuits in the basal ganglia that are relevant to Huntington’s and Parkinson’s diseases, dystonia, drug addiction, and repetitive movement disorders such as autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Read more about her N95DECON project on our news site.

Jill has also developed a set of helpful guidelines for face masks (either purchased or DIY). She discussed these guidelines, among other COVID-19 related topics on the podcast Dear Discreet Guide.

#WeAreMcGovern

New COVID-19 resource to address shortage of face masks

When the COVID-19 crisis hit the United States this March, McGovern scientist Jill Crittenden wanted to help. One of her greatest concerns was the shortage of face masks, which are a key weapon for healthcare providers, frontline service workers, and the public to protect against respiratory transmission of COVID-19. For those caring for COVID-19 patients, face masks that provide a near 100% seal are essential. These critical pieces of equipment, called N95 masks, are now scarce, and healthcare workers are now faced with reusing potentially contaminated masks.

To address this, Crittenden joined a team of 60 scientists and engineers, students and clinicians, drawn from universities and the private sector to synthesize the scientific literature about mask decontamination and create a set of best practices for bad times. Today the group unveiled its website, N95decon.org, which provides a summary of this critical information.

McGovern research scientist Jill Crittenden helped the N95DECON consortium assess face mask decontamination protocols so healthcare workers can easily access them for COVID-19 protection. Photo: Caitlin Cunningham

 

“I first heard about the group from Larissa Little, a Harvard graduate student with John Doyle,” explains Crittenden, who is a research scientist in Ann Graybiel‘s lab at the McGovern Institute. “The three of us began communicating because we are all also members of the Boston-based MGB COVID-19 Innovation Center and we agreed that helping to assess the flood of information on N95 decontamination would be an important contribution.”

The team members who came together over several weeks scoured hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, and held continuous online meetings to review studies of decontamination methods that had been used to inactivate previous viral and bacterial pathogens, and to then assess the potential for these methods to neutralize the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

“This group is absolutely amazing,” says Crittenden. “The zoom meetings are very productive because it is all data and solutions driven. Everyone throws out ideas, what they know and what the literature source is, with the only goal being to get to a data-based consensus efficiently.”

Reliable resource

The goal of the consortium was to provide overwhelmed health officials who don’t have the time to study the literature for themselves, reliable, pre-digested scientific information about the pros and cons of three decontamination methods that offer the best options should local shortages force a choice between decontamination and reuse, or going unmasked.

The three methods involve (1) heat and humidity (2) a specific wavelength of light called ultraviolet C (UVC) and (3) treatment with hydrogen peroxide vapors (HPV). The scientists did not endorse any one method but instead sought to describe the circumstances under which each could inactivate the virus provided rigorous procedures were followed. Devices that rely on heat, for instance, could be used under specific temperature, humidity, and time parameters. With UVC devices – which emit a particular wavelength and energy level of light – considerations involve making sure masks are properly oriented to the light so the entire surface is bathed in sufficient energy. The HPV method has the potential advantage of decontaminating masks in volume, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, acting in this emergency, has certified certain vendors to offer hydrogen peroxide vapor treatments on a large scale. In addition to giving health officials the scientific information to assess the methods best suited to their circumstances, N95decon.org points decision makers to sources of reliable and detailed how-to information provided by other organizations, institutions, and commercial services.

“While there is no perfect method for decontamination of N95 masks, it is crucial that decision-makers and users have as much information as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches,” said Manu Prakash, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford who helped coordinate this ad hoc, volunteer undertaking. “Manufacturers currently do not recommend N95 mask reuse. We aim to provide information and evidence in this critical time to help those on the front lines of this crisis make risk-management decisions given the specific conditions and limitations they face.”

The researchers stressed that decontamination does not solve the N95 shortage, and expressed the hope that new masks should be made available in large numbers as soon as possible so that health care workers and first providers could be issued fresh protective gear whenever needed as specified by the non-emergency guidelines set by the U.S. the Centers for Disease Control.

Forward thinking

Meanwhile, these ad hoc volunteers have pledged to continue working together to update N95decon.org website as new information becomes available, and to coordinate their efforts to do research to plug the gaps in current knowledge to avoid duplication of effort.

“We are, at heart, a group of people that want to help better equip hospitals and healthcare personnel in this time of crisis,” says Brian Fleischer, a surgeon at the University of Chicago Medical Center and a member of the N95DECON consortium. “As a healthcare provider, many of my colleagues across the country have expressed concern with a lack of quality information in this ever-evolving landscape. I have learned a great deal from this team and I look forward to our continued collaboration to positively affect change.”

Crittenden is hopeful that the new website will help healthcare workers make informed decisions about the safest methods available for decontamination and reuse of N95 masks. “I know physicians personally who are very grateful that teams of scientists are doing the in-depth data analysis so that they can feel confident in what is best for their own health,” she says.

The members of the N95decon.org team come from institutions including UC Berkeley, the University of Chicago, Stanford, Georgetown University, Harvard University, Seattle University, University of Utah, the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, the University of Michigan, and from Consolidated Sterilizers and X, the Moonshot Factory.

 

Ed Boyden wins prestigious entrepreneurial science award

The Austrian Association of Entrepreneurs announced today that Edward S. Boyden, the Y. Eva Tan Professor in Neurotechnology at MIT, has been awarded the 2020 Wilhelm Exner Medal.

Named after Austrian businessman Wilhelm Exner, the medal has been awarded annually since 1921 to scientists, inventors, and designers that are “promoting the economy directly or indirectly in an outstanding manner.” Past honorees include 22 Nobel laureates.

“It’s a great honor to receive this award, which recognizes not only the basic science impact of our group’s work, but the impact of the work in the industrial and startup worlds,” says Boyden, who is a professor of biological engineering and of brain and cognitive sciences at MIT.

Boyden is a leading scientist whose work is widely used in industry, both in his own startup companies and in existing companies. Boyden is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Media Lab, and Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.

“I am so thrilled that Ed has received this honor,” says Robert Desimone, director of the McGovern Institute. “Ed’s work has transformed neuroscience, through optogenetics, expansion microscopy, and other findings that are pushing biotechnology forward too.”

He is interested in understanding the brain as a computational system, and builds and applies tools for the analysis of neural circuit structure and dynamics, in behavioral and disease contexts. He played a critical role in the development of optogenetics, a revolutionary tool where the activity of neurons can be controlled using light. Boyden also led the team that invented expansion microscopy, which gives an unprecedented view of the nanoscale structures of cells, even in the absence of special super resolution microscopy equipment. Exner Medal laureates include notable luminaries of science, including Robert Langer of MIT. In addition, Boyden has founded a number of companies based on his inventions in the busy biotech hub of Kendall Square, Cambridge. These include a startup that is seeking to apply expansion microscopy to medical problems.

Boyden will deliver his prize lecture at the Exner symposium in November 2020, during which economists and scientists come together to hear about the winner’s research.

2020 MacVicar Faculty Fellows named

The Office of the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar’s Office have announced this year’s Margaret MacVicar Faculty Fellows: materials science and engineering Professor Polina Anikeeva, literature Professor Mary Fuller, chemical engineering Professor William Tisdale, and electrical engineering and computer science Professor Jacob White.

Role models both in and out of the classroom, the new fellows have tirelessly sought to improve themselves, their students, and the Institute writ large. They have reimagined curricula, crossed disciplines, and pushed the boundaries of what education can be. They join a matchless academy of scholars committed to exceptional instruction and innovation.

Vice Chancellor Ian Waitz will honor the fellows at this year’s MacVicar Day symposium, “Learning through Experience: Education for a Fulfilling and Engaged Life.” In a series of lightning talks, student and faculty speakers will examine how MIT — through its many opportunities for experiential learning — supports students’ aspirations and encourages them to become engaged citizens and thoughtful leaders.

The event will be held on March 13 from 2:30-4 p.m. in Room 6-120. A reception will follow in Room 2-290. All in the MIT community are welcome to attend.

For nearly three decades, the MacVicar Faculty Fellows Program has been recognizing exemplary undergraduate teaching and advising around the Institute. The program was named after Margaret MacVicar, the first dean for undergraduate education and founder of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). Nominations are made by departments and include letters of support from colleagues, students, and alumni. Fellows are appointed to 10-year terms in which they receive $10,000 per year of discretionary funds.

Polina Anikeeva

“I’m speechless,” Polina Anikeeva, associate professor of materials science and engineering and brain and cognitive sciences, says of becoming a MacVicar Fellow. “In my opinion, this is the greatest honor one could have at MIT.”

Anikeeva received her PhD from MIT in 2009 and became a professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering two years later. She attended St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University for her undergraduate education. Through her research — which combines materials science, electronics, and neurobiology — she works to better understand and treat brain disorders.

Anikeeva’s colleague Christopher Schuh says, “Her ability and willingness to work with students however and whenever they need help, her engaging classroom persona, and her creative solutions to real-time challenges all culminate in one of MIT’s most talented and beloved undergraduate professors.”

As an instructor, advisor, and marathon runner, Anikeeva has learned the importance of finding balance. Her colleague Lionel Kimerling reflects on this delicate equilibrium: “As a teacher, Professor Anikeeva is among the elite who instruct, inspire, and nurture at the same time. It is a difficult task to demand rigor with a gentle mentoring hand.”

Students call her classes “incredibly hard” but fun and exciting at the same time. She is “the consummate scientist, splitting her time evenly between honing her craft, sharing knowledge with students and colleagues, and mentoring aspiring researchers,” wrote one.

Her passion for her work and her devotion to her students are evident in the nomination letters. One student recounted their first conversation: “We spoke for 15 minutes, and after talking to her about her research and materials science, I had never been so viscerally excited about anything.” This same student described the guidance and support Anikeeva provided her throughout her time at MIT.

After working with Anikeeva to apply what she learned in the classroom to a real-world problem, this student recalled, “I honestly felt like an engineer and a scientist for the first time ever. I have never felt so fulfilled and capable. And I realize that’s what I want for the rest of my life — to feel the highs and lows of discovery.”

Anikeeva champions her students in faculty and committee meetings as well. She is a “reliable advocate for student issues,” says Caroline Ross, associate department head and professor in DMSE. “Professor Anikeeva is always engaged with students, committed to student well-being, and passionate about education.”

“Undergraduate teaching has always been a crucial part of my MIT career and life,” Anikeeva reflects. “I derive my enthusiasm and energy from the incredibly talented MIT students — every year they surprise me with their ability to rise to ever-expanding intellectual challenges. Watching them grow as scientists, engineers, and — most importantly — people is like nothing else.”

Mary Fuller

Experimentation is synonymous with education at MIT and it is a crucial part of literature Professor Mary Fuller’s classes. As her colleague Arthur Bahr notes, “Mary’s habit of starting with a discrete practical challenge can yield insights into much broader questions.”

Fuller attended Dartmouth College as an undergraduate, then received both her MA and PhD in English and American literature from The Johns Hopkins University. She began teaching at MIT in 1989. From 2013 to 2019, Fuller was head of the Literature Section. Her successor in the role, Shankar Raman, says that her nominators “found [themselves] repeatedly surprised by the different ways Mary has pushed the limits of her teaching here, going beyond her own comfort zones to experiment with new texts and techniques.”

“Probably the most significant thing I’ve learned in 30 years of teaching here is how to ask more and better questions,” says Fuller. As part of a series of discussions on ethics and computing, she has explored the possibilities of artificial intelligence from a literary perspective. She is also developing a tool for the edX platform called PoetryViz, which would allow MIT students and students around the world to practice close reading through poetry annotation in an entirely new way.

“We all innovate in our teaching. Every year. But, some of us innovate more than others,” Krishna Rajagopal, dean for digital learning, observes. “In addition to being an outstanding innovator, Mary is one of those colleagues who weaves the fabric of undergraduate education across the Institute.”

Lessons learned in Fuller’s class also underline the importance of a well-rounded education. As one alumna reflected, “Mary’s teaching carried a compassion and ethic which enabled non-humanities students to appreciate literature as a diverse, valuable, and rewarding resource for personal and social reflection.”

Professor Fuller, another student remarked, has created “an environment where learning is not merely the digestion of rote knowledge, but instead the broad-based exploration of ideas and the works connected to them.”

“Her imagination is capacious, her knowledge is deep, and students trust her — so that they follow her eagerly into new and exploratory territory,” says Professor of Literature Stephen Tapscott.

Fuller praises her students’ willingness to take that journey with her, saying, “None of my classes are required, and none are technical, so I feel that students have already shown a kind of intellectual generosity by putting themselves in the room to do the work.”

For students, the hard work is worth it. Mary Fuller, one nominator declared, is exactly “the type of deeply impactful professor that I attended MIT hoping to learn from.”

William Tisdale

William Tisdale is the ARCO Career Development Professor of chemical engineering and, according to his colleagues, a “true star” in the department.

A member of the faculty since 2012, he received his undergraduate degree from the University of Delaware and his PhD from the University of Minnesota. After a year as a postdoc at MIT, Tisdale became an assistant professor. His research interests include nanotechnology and energy transport.

Tisdale’s colleague Kristala Prather calls him a “curriculum fixer.” During an internal review of Course 10 subjects, the department discovered that 10.213 (Chemical and Biological Engineering) was the least popular subject in the major and needed to be revised. After carefully evaluating the coursework, and despite having never taught 10.213 himself, Tisdale envisioned a novel way of teaching it. With his suggestions, the class went from being “despised” to loved, with subject evaluations improving by 70 percent from one spring to the next. “I knew Will could make a difference, but I had no idea he could make that big of a difference in just one year,” remarks Prather.

One student nominator even went so far as to call 10.213, as taught by Tisdale, “one of my best experiences at MIT.”

Always patient, kind, and adaptable, Tisdale’s willingness to tackle difficult problems is reflected in his teaching. “While the class would occasionally start to mutiny when faced with a particularly confusing section, Prof. Tisdale would take our groans on with excitement,” wrote one student. “His attitude made us feel like we could all get through the class together.” Regardless of how they performed on a test, wrote another, Tisdale “clearly sent the message that we all always have so much more to learn, but that first and foremost he respected you as a person.”

“I don’t think I could teach the way I teach at many other universities,” Tisdale says. “MIT students show up on the first day of class with an innate desire to understand the world around them; all I have to do is pull back the curtain!”

“Professor Tisdale remains the best teacher, mentor, and role model that I have encountered,” one student remarked. “He has truly changed the course of my life.”

“I am extremely thankful to be at a university that values undergraduate education so highly,” Tisdale says. “Those of us who devote ourselves to undergraduate teaching and mentoring do so out of a strong sense of responsibility to the students as well as a genuine love of learning. There are few things more validating than being rewarded for doing something that already brings you joy.”

Jacob White

Jacob White is the Cecil H. Green Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and chair of the Committee on Curricula. After completing his undergraduate degree at MIT, he received a master’s degree and doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley. He has been a member of the Course 6 faculty since 1987.

Colleagues and students alike observed White’s dedication not just to teaching, but to improving teaching throughout the Institute. As Luca Daniel and Asu Ozdaglar of the EECS department noted in their nomination letter, “Jacob completely understands that the most efficient way to make his passion and ideas for undergraduate education have a real lasting impact is to ‘teach it to the teachers!’”

One student wrote that White “has spent significant time and effort educating the lab assistants” of 6.302 (Feedback System Design). As one of these teaching assistants confirmed, White’s “enthusiastic spirit” inspired them to spend hours discussing how to best teach the subject. “Many people might think this is not how they want to spend their Thursday nights,” the student wrote. “I can speak for myself and the other TAs when I say that it was an incredibly fun and educational experience.”

His work to improve instruction has even expanded to other departments. A colleague describes White’s efforts to revamp 8.02 (Physics II) as “Herculean.” Working with a group of students and postdocs to develop experiments for this subject, “he seemed to be everywhere at once … while simultaneously teaching his own class.” Iterations took place over a year and a half, after which White trained the subject’s TAs as well. Hundreds of students are benefitting from these improved experiments.

White is, according to Daniel and Ozdaglar, “a colleague who sincerely, genuinely, and enormously cares about our undergraduate students and their education, not just in our EECS department, but also in our entire MIT home.”

When he’s not fine-tuning pedagogy or conducting teacher training, he is personally supporting his students. A visiting student described White’s attention: “He would regularly meet with us in groups of two to make sure we were learning. In a class of about 80 students in a huge lecture hall, it really felt like he cared for each of us.”

And his zeal has rubbed off: “He made me feel like being excited about the material was the most important thing,” one student wrote.
The significance of such a spark is not lost on White.

“As an MIT freshman in the late 1970s, I joined an undergraduate research program being pioneered by Professor Margaret MacVicar,” he says. “It was Professor MacVicar and UROP that put me on the academic’s path of looking for interesting problems with instructive solutions. It is a path I have walked for decades, with extraordinary colleagues and incredible students. So, being selected as a MacVicar Fellow? No honor could mean more to me.”

Uncovering the functional architecture of a historic brain area

In 1840 a patient named Leborgne was admitted to a hospital near Paris: he was only able repeat the word “Tan.” This loss of speech drew the attention of Paul Broca who, after Leborgne’s death, identified lesions in his frontal lobe in the left hemisphere. These results echoed earlier findings from French neurologist Marc Dax. Now known as “Broca’s area,” the roles of this brain region have been extended to mental functions far beyond speech articulation. So much so, that the underlying functional organization of Broca’s area has become a source of discussion and some confusion.

McGovern Investigator Ev Fedorenko is now calling, in a paper at Trends in Cognitive Sciences, for recognition that Broca’s area consists of functionally distinct, specialized regions, with one sub-region very much dedicated to language processing.

“Broca’s area is one of the first regions you learn about in introductory psychology and neuroscience classes, and arguably laid the foundation for human cognitive neuroscience,” explains Ev Fedorenko, who is also an assistant professor in MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences. “This patch of cortex and its connections with other brain areas and networks provides a microcosm for probing some core questions about the human brain.”

Broca’s area, shown in red. Image: Wikimedia

Language is a uniquely human capability, and thus the discovery of Broca’s area immediately captured the attention of researchers.

“Because language is universal across cultures, but unique to the human species, studying Broca’s area and constraining theories of language accordingly promises to provide a window into one of the central abilities that make humans so special,” explains co-author Idan Blank, a former postdoc at the McGovern Institute who is now an assistant professor of psychology at UCLA.

Function over form

Broca’s area is found in the posterior portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG). Arguments and theories abound as to its function. Some consider the region as dedicated to language or syntactic processing, others argue that it processes multiple types of inputs, and still others argue it is working at a high level, implementing working memory and cognitive control. Is Broca’s area a highly specialized circuit, dedicated to the human-specific capacity for language and largely independent from the rest high-level cognition, or is it a CPU-like region, overseeing diverse aspects of the mind and orchestrating their operations?

“Patient investigations and neuroimaging studies have now associated Broca’s region with many processes,” explains Blank. “On the one hand, its language-related functions have expanded far beyond articulation, on the other, non-linguistic functions within Broca’s area—fluid intelligence and problem solving, working memory, goal-directed behavior, inhibition, etc.—are fundamental to ‘all of cognition.’”

While brain anatomy is a common path to defining subregions in Broca’s area, Fedorenko and Blank argue that instead this approach can muddy the water. In fact, the anatomy of the brain, in terms of cortical folds and visible landmarks that originally stuck out to anatomists, vary from individual to individual in terms of their alignment with the underlying functions of brain regions. While these variations might seem small, they potentially have a huge impact on conclusions about functional regions based on traditional analysis methods. This means that the same bit of anatomy (like, say, the posterior portion of a gyrus) could be doing different things in different brains.

“In both investigations of patients with brain damage and much of brain imaging work, a lot of confusion has stemmed from the use of macroanatomical areas (like the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)) as ‘units of analysis’,” explains Fedorenko. “When some researchers found IFG activation for a syntactic manipulation, and others for a working memory manipulation, the field jumped to the conclusion that syntactic processing relies on working memory. But these effects might actually be arising in totally distinct parts of the IFG.”

The only way to circumvent this problem is to turn to functional data and aggregate information from functionally defined areas across individuals. Using this approach, across four lines of evidence from the last decade, Fedorenko and Blank came to a clear conclusion: Broca’s area is not a monolithic region with a single function, but contains distinct areas, one dedicated to language processing, and another that supports domain-general functions like working memory.

“We just have to stop referring to macroanatomical brain regions (like gyri and sulci, or their parts) when talking about the functional architecture of the brain,” explains Fedorenko. “I am delighted to see that more and more labs across the world are recognizing the inter-individual variability that characterizes the human brain– this shift is putting us on the right path to making fundamental discoveries about how our brain works.”

Indeed, accounting for distinct functional regions, within Broca’s area and elsewhere, seems essential going forward if we are to truly understand the complexity of the human brain.

Study explores brain basis of special interests

Did you know that 88% of children on the autism spectrum have an affinity — or special interest that they are particularly passionate about?

We are curious about this.

The Gabrieli lab is exploring the brain basis of these special interests in kids with and without autism. The PAL (Project on Affinities and Language) study uses noninvasive and child-friendly fMRI methods to study whether affinities can activate language regions of the brain. The lab is currently looking for 7–12-year-old children with and without autism who have a special interest or passion.

Interested in participating?

Sign up here

Embracing neurodiversity to better understand autism

Researchers often approach autism spectrum disorder (ASD) through the lens of what might “break down.” While this approach has value, autism is an extremely heterogeneous condition, and diagnosed individuals have a broad range of abilities.

The Gabrieli lab is embracing this diversity and leveraging the strengths of diagnosed individuals by researching their specific “affinities.”

Affinities involve a strong passion for specific topics, ranging from insects to video game characters, and can include impressive feats of knowledge and focus.

The biological basis of these affinities and associated abilities remains unclear, which is intriguing to John Gabrieli and his lab.

“A striking aspect of autism is the great variation from individual to individual,” explains McGovern Investigator John Gabrieli. “Understanding what motivates an individual child may inform how to best help that child reach his or her communicative potential.”

Doug Tan is an artist on the autism spectrum who has a particular interest in Herbie, the fictional Volkswagen Beetle. Nearly all of Tan’s works include a visual reference to his “affinity” (shown here in black). Image: Doug Tan

Affinities have traditionally been seen as a distraction “interfering” with conventional teaching and learning. This mindset was upended by the 2014 book Life Animated by Ron Suskind, whose autistic son Owen seemingly lost his ability to speak around age three. Despite this setback, Owen maintained a deep affinity for Disney movies and characters. Rather than extinguishing this passion, the Suskinds embraced it as a path to connection.

Reframing such affinities as a strength not a frustration, and a path to communication rather than a roadblock, caught the attention of Kristy Johnson, a PhD student at the MIT Media Lab, who also has a non-verbal child with autism.

“My interest is in empowering and understanding populations that have traditionally been hard to study, including those with non-verbal and minimally verbal autism,” explains Johnson. “One way to do that is through affinities.”

But even identifying affinities is difficult. An interest in “trains” might mean 18th-century smokestacks to one child, and the purple line of the MBTA commuter rail to another. Serendipitously, she mentioned her interest to Gabrieli one day. He slammed his hands on the table, jumped up, and ran to find lab members Anila D’Mello and Halie Olson, who were gearing up to pursue the neural basis of affinities in autism. A collaboration was born.

Scientific challenge

What followed was six months of intense discussion. How can an affinity be accurately defined? How can individually tailored experiments be adequately controlled? What makes a robust comparison group? How can task-related performance differences between individuals with autism be accounted for?

The handful of studies that had used fMRI neuroimaging to examine affinities in autism had focused on the brain’s reward circuitry. D’Mello and Olson wanted to examine the language network of the brain — a well-defined network of brain regions whose activation can be measured by fMRI. Affinities trigger communication in some individuals with autism (Suskind’s family were using Disney characters to engage and communicate, not simply as a reward). Was the language network being engaged by affinities? Could these results point to a way of tailoring learning for all types of development?

“The language network involves lots of regions across the brain, including temporal, parietal, frontal, and subcortical areas, which play specific roles in different aspects of language processing” explains Olson. “We were interested in a task that used affinities to tap the language network.”

fMRI reveals regions of the brain that show increased activity for stories related to affinities versus neutral stories; these include regions important for language processing. Image: Anila D’Mello

By studying this network, the team is testing whether affinities can elicit “typical” activation in regions of the brain that are sometimes assumed to not be engaged in autism. The approach may help develop better paradigms for studying other tasks with individuals with autism. Regardless of whether there are differences between the group diagnosed with autism and typically developing children, insight will likely be gained into how personalized special interests influence engagement of the language network.

The resulting study is task-free, removing the variable of differing motor or cognitive skill sets. Kids watch videos of their individual affinity in the fMRI scanner, and then listen to stories based on that affinity. They also watch and listen to “neutral” videos and stories about nature that are consistent across all children. Identifying affinities robustly so that the right stimulus can be presented is critical. Rather than an interest in bugs, affinities are often very specific (bugs that eat other bugs). But identifying and cross-checking affinities is something the group is becoming adept at. The results are emerging, but the effects that the team are seeing are significant, and preliminary data suggest that affinities engage networks beyond reward circuits.

“We have a small sample right now, but across the sample, there seems to be a difference in activation in the brain’s language network when listening to affinity stories compared to neutral stories,” explains D’Mello. “The biggest surprise is that the differences are evident in single subjects.”

Future forward

The work is already raising exciting new questions. Are there other brain regions engaged by affinities? How would such information inform education and intervention paradigms? In addition, the team is showing it’s possible to derive information from individualized, naturalistic experimental paradigms, a message for brain imaging and behavioral studies in general. The researchers also hope the results inspire parents, teachers, and psychologists to perceive and engage with an individual’s affinities in new ways.

“This could really help teach us to communicate with and motivate very young and non-verbal kids on the spectrum in a way that is interesting and meaningful to them,” D’Mello explains.

By studying the strengths of individuals with autism, these researchers are showing that, through embracing neurodiversity, we can enhance science, our understanding of the brain, and perhaps even our understanding of ourselves.

Learn about autism studies at MIT