Brain Disorder: Autism Spectrum Disorder

Charting the cerebellum

Anne Trafton |

Small and tucked away under the cerebral hemispheres toward the back of the brain, the human cerebellum is still immediately obvious due to its distinct structure. From Galen’s second century anatomical description to Cajal’s systematic analysis of its projections, the cerebellum has long drawn the eyes of researchers studying the brain.  Two parallel studies from MIT’s McGovern institute have recently converged to support an unexpectedly complex level of non-motor cerebellar organization, that would not have been predicted from known motor representation regions.

Historically the cerebellum has primarily been considered to impact motor control and coordination. Think of this view as the cerebellum being the chain on a bicycle, registering what is happening up front in the cortex, and relaying the information so that the back wheel moves at a coordinated pace. This simple view has been questioned as cerebellar circuits have been traced to the basal ganglia and to neocortical regions via the thalamus. This new view suggests the cerebellum is a hub in a complex network, with potentially higher and non-motor functions including cognition and reward-based learning.

A collaboration between the labs of John Gabrieli, Investigator at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research and Jeremy Schmahmann, of the Ataxia Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, has now used functional brain imaging to give new insight into the cerebellar organization of non-motor roles, including working memory, language, and, social and emotional processing. In a complementary paper, a collaboration between Sheeba Anteraper of MIT’s Martinos Imaging Center and Gagan Joshi of the Alan and Lorraine Bressler Clinical and Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, has found changes in connectivity that occur in the cerebellum in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

A more complex map of the cerebellum

Published in NeuroImage, and featured on the cover, the first study was led by author Xavier Guell, a postdoc in the Gabrieli and Schmahmann labs. The authors used fMRI data from the Human Connectome Project to examine activity in different regions of the cerebellum during specific tasks and at rest. The tasks used extended beyond motor activity to functions recently linked to the cerebellum, including working memory, language, and social and emotional processing. As expected, the authors saw that two regions assigned by other methods to motor activity were clearly modulated during motor tasks.

“Neuroscientists in the 1940s and 1950s described a double representation of motor function in the cerebellum, meaning that two regions in each hemisphere of the cerebellum are engaged in motor control,” explains Guell. “That there are two areas of motor representation in the cerebellum remains one of the most well-established facts of cerebellar macroscale physiology.”

When it came to assigning non-motor tasks, to their surprise, the authors identified three representations that localized to different regions of the cerebellum, pointing to an unexpectedly complex level of organization.

Guell explains the implications further. “Our study supports the intriguing idea that while two parts of the cerebellum are simultaneously engaged in motor tasks, three other parts of the cerebellum are simultaneously engaged in non-motor tasks. Our predecessors coined the term “double motor representation,” and we may now have to add “triple non-motor representation” to the dictionary of cerebellar neuroscience.”

A serendipitous discussion

What happened next, over a discussion of data between Xavier Guell and Sheeba Arnold Anteraper of the McGovern Institute for Brain Research that culminated in a paper led by Anteraper, illustrates how independent strands can meet and reinforce to give a fuller scientific picture.

The findings by Guell and colleagues made the cover of NeuroImage.
The findings by Guell and colleagues made the cover of NeuroImage.

Anteraper and colleagues examined brain images from high-functioning ASD patients, and looked for statistically-significant patterns, letting the data speak rather than focusing on specific ‘candidate’ regions of the brain. To her surprise, networks related to language were highlighted, as well as the cerebellum, regions that had not been linked to ASD, and that seemed at first sight not to be relevant. Scientists interested in language processing, immediately pointed her to Guell.

“When I went to meet him,” says Anteraper, “I saw immediately that he had the same research paper that I’d been reading on his desk. As soon as I showed him my results, the data fell into place and made sense.”

After talking with Guell, they realized that the same non-motor cerebellar representations he had seen, were independently being highlighted by the ASD study.

“When we study brain function in neurological or psychiatric diseases we sometimes have a very clear notion of what parts of the brain we should study” explained Guell, ”We instead asked which parts of the brain have the most abnormal patterns of functional connectivity to other brain areas? This analysis gave us a simple, powerful result. Only the cerebellum survived our strict statistical thresholds.”

The authors found decreased connectivity within the cerebellum in the ASD group, but also decreased strength in connectivity between the cerebellum and the social, emotional and language processing regions in the cerebral cortex.

“Our analysis showed that regions of disrupted functional connectivity mapped to each of the three areas of non-motor representation in the cerebellum. It thus seems that the notion of two motor and three non-motor areas of representation in the cerebellum is not only important for understanding how the cerebellum works, but also important for understanding how the cerebellum becomes dysfunctional in neurology and psychiatry.”

Guell says that many questions remain to be answered. Are these abnormalities in the cerebellum reproducible in other datasets of patients diagnosed with ASD? Why is cerebellar function (and dysfunction) organized in a pattern of multiple representations? What is different between each of these representations, and what is their distinct contribution to diseases such as ASD? Future work is now aimed at unraveling these questions.

Study finds early signatures of the social brain

Anne Trafton |

Humans use an ability known as theory of mind every time they make inferences about someone else’s mental state — what the other person believes, what they want, or why they are feeling happy, angry, or scared.

Behavioral studies have suggested that children begin succeeding at a key measure of this ability, known as the false-belief task, around age 4. However, a new study from MIT has found that the brain network that controls theory of mind has already formed in children as young as 3.

The MIT study is the first to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of children as young as age 3 as they perform a task requiring theory of mind — in this case, watching a short animated movie involving social interactions between two characters.

“The brain regions involved in theory-of-mind reasoning are behaving like a cohesive network, with similar responses to the movie, by age 3, which is before kids tend to pass explicit false-belief tasks,” says Hilary Richardson, an MIT graduate student and the lead author of the study.

Rebecca Saxe, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences and an associate member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, is the senior author of the paper, which appears in the March 12 issue of Nature Communications. Other authors are Indiana University graduate student Grace Lisandrelli and Wellesley College undergraduate Alexa Riobueno-Naylor.

Thinking about others

In 2003, Saxe first showed that theory of mind is seated in a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). The TPJ coordinates with other regions, including several parts of the prefrontal cortex, to form a network that is active when people think about the mental states of others.

The most commonly used test of theory of mind is the false-belief test, which probes whether the subject understands that other people may have beliefs that are not true. A classic example is the Sally-Anne test, in which a child is asked where Sally will look for a marble that she believes is in her own basket, but that Anne has moved to a different spot while Sally wasn’t looking. To pass, the subject must reply that Sally will look where she thinks the marble is (in her basket), not where it actually is.

Until now, neuroscientists had assumed that theory-of-mind studies involving fMRI brain scans could only be done with children at least 5 years of age, because the children need to be able to lie still in a scanner for about 20 minutes, listen to a series of stories, and answer questions about them.

Richardson wanted to study children younger than that, so that she could delve into what happens in the brain’s theory-of-mind network before the age of 5. To do that, she and Saxe came up with a new experimental protocol, which calls for scanning children while they watch a short movie that includes simple social interactions between two characters.

The animated movie they chose, called “Partly Cloudy,” has a plot that lends itself well to the experiment. It features Gus, a cloud who produces baby animals, and Peck, a stork whose job is to deliver the babies. Gus and Peck have some tense moments in their friendship because Gus produces baby alligators and porcupines, which are difficult to deliver, while other clouds create kittens and puppies. Peck is attacked by some of the fierce baby animals, and he isn’t sure if he wants to keep working for Gus.

“It has events that make you think about the characters’ mental states and events that make you think about their bodily states,” Richardson says.

The researchers spent about four years gathering data from 122 children ranging in age from 3 to 12 years. They scanned the entire brain, focusing on two distinct networks that have been well-characterized in adults: the theory-of-mind network and another network known as the pain matrix, which is active when thinking about another person’s physical state.

They also scanned 33 adults as they watched the movie so that they could identify scenes that provoke responses in either of those two networks. These scenes were dubbed theory-of-mind events and pain events. Scans of children revealed that even in 3-year-olds, the theory-of-mind and pain networks responded preferentially to the same events that the adult brains did.

“We see early signatures of this theory-of-mind network being wired up, so the theory-of-mind brain regions which we studied in adults are already really highly correlated with one another in 3-year-olds,” Richardson says.

The researchers also found that the responses in 3-year-olds were not as strong as in adults but gradually became stronger in the older children they scanned.

Patterns of development

The findings offer support for an existing hypothesis that says children develop theory of mind even before they can pass explicit false-belief tests, and that it continues to develop as they get older. Theory of mind encompasses many abilities, including more difficult skills such as understanding irony and assigning blame, which tend to develop later.

Another hypothesis is that children undergo a fairly sudden development of theory of mind around the age of 4 or 5, reflected by their success in the false-belief test. The MIT data, which do not show any dramatic changes in brain activity when children begin to succeed at the false-belief test, do not support that theory.

“Scientists have focused really intensely on the changes in children’s theory of mind that happen around age 4, when children get a better understanding of how people can have wrong or biased or misinformed beliefs,” Saxe says. “But really important changes in how we think about other minds happen long before, and long after, this famous landmark. Even 2-year-olds try to figure out why different people like different things — this might be why they get so interested in talking about everybody’s favorite colors. And even 9-year-olds are still learning about irony and negligence. Theory of mind seems to undergo a very long continuous developmental process, both in kids’ behaviors and in their brains.”

Now that the researchers have data on the typical trajectory of theory of mind development, they hope to scan the brains of autistic children to see whether there are any differences in how their theory-of-mind networks develop. Saxe’s lab is also studying children whose first exposure to language was delayed, to test the effects of early language on the development of theory of mind.

The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Studies help explain link between autism, severe infection during pregnancy

Anne Trafton |

Mothers who experience an infection severe enough to require hospitalization during pregnancy are at higher risk of having a child with autism. Two new studies from MIT and the University of Massachusetts Medical School shed more light on this phenomenon and identify possible approaches to preventing it.

In research on mice, the researchers found that the composition of bacterial populations in the mother’s digestive tract can influence whether maternal infection leads to autistic-like behaviors in offspring. They also discovered the specific brain changes that produce these behaviors.

“We identified a very discrete brain region that seems to be modulating all the behaviors associated with this particular model of neurodevelopmental disorder,” says Gloria Choi, the Samuel A. Goldblith Career Development Assistant Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

If further validated in human studies, the findings could offer a possible way to reduce the risk of autism, which would involve blocking the function of certain strains of bacteria found in the maternal gut, the researchers say.

Choi and Jun Huh, formerly an assistant professor at UMass Medical School who is now a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, are the senior authors of both papers, which appear in Nature on Sept. 13. MIT postdoc Yeong Shin Yim is the first author of one paper, and UMass Medical School visiting scholars Sangdoo Kim and Hyunju Kim are the lead authors of the other.

Reversing symptoms

A 2010 study that included all children born in Denmark between 1980 and 2005 found that severe viral infections during the first trimester of pregnancy translated to a threefold risk for autism, and serious bacterial infections during the second trimester were linked with a 1.42-fold increase in risk. These infections included influenza, viral gastroenteritis, and severe urinary tract infections.

Similar effects have been described in mouse models of maternal inflammation, and in a 2016 Science paper, Choi and Huh found that a type of immune cells known as Th17 cells, and their effector molecule, called IL-17, are responsible for this effect in mice. IL-17 then interacts with receptors found on brain cells in the developing fetus, leading to irregularities that the researchers call “patches” in certain parts of the cortex.

In one of the new papers, the researchers set out to learn more about these patches and to determine if they were responsible for the behavioral abnormalities seen in those mice, which include repetitive behavior and impaired sociability.

The researchers found that the patches are most common in a part of the brain known as S1DZ. Part of the somatosensory cortex, this region is believed to be responsible for proprioception, or sensing where the body is in space. In these patches, populations of cells called interneurons, which express a protein called parvalbumin, are reduced. Interneurons are responsible for controlling the balance of excitation and inhibition in the brain, and the researchers found that the changes they found in the cortical patches were associated with overexcitement in S1DZ.

When the researchers restored normal levels of brain activity in this area, they were able to reverse the behavioral abnormalities. They were also able to induce the behaviors in otherwise normal mice by overstimulating neurons in S1DZ.

The researchers also discovered that S1DZ sends messages to two other brain regions: the temporal association area of the cortex and the striatum. When the researchers inhibited the neurons connected to the temporal association area, they were able to reverse the sociability deficits. When they inhibited the neurons connected to the striatum, they were able to halt the repetitive behaviors.

Microbial factors

In the second Nature paper, the researchers delved into some of the additional factors that influence whether or not a severe infection leads to autism. Not all mothers who experience severe infection end up having child with autism, and similarly not all the mice in the maternal inflammation model develop behavioral abnormalities.

“This suggests that inflammation during pregnancy is just one of the factors. It needs to work with additional factors to lead all the way to that outcome,” Choi says.

A key clue was that when immune systems in some of the pregnant mice were stimulated, they began producing IL-17 within a day. “Normally it takes three to five days, because IL-17 is produced by specialized immune cells and they require time to differentiate,” Huh says. “We thought that perhaps this cytokine is being produced not from differentiating immune cells, but rather from pre-existing immune cells.”

Previous studies in mice and humans have found populations of Th17 cells in the intestines of healthy individuals. These cells, which help to protect the host from harmful microbes, are thought to be produced after exposure to particular types of harmless bacteria that associate with the epithelium.

The researchers found that only the offspring of mice with one specific type of harmless bacteria, known as segmented filamentous bacteria, had behavioral abnormalities and cortical patches. When the researchers killed those bacteria with antibiotics, the mice produced normal offspring.

“This data strongly suggests that perhaps certain mothers who happen to carry these types of Th17 cell-inducing bacteria in their gut may be susceptible to this inflammation-induced condition,” Huh says.

Humans can also carry strains of gut bacteria known to drive production of Th17 cells, and the researchers plan to investigate whether the presence of these bacteria is associated with autism.

Sarah Gaffen, a professor of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, says the study clearly demonstrates the link between IL-17 and the neurological effects seen in the mice offspring. “It’s rare for things to fit into such a clear model, where you can identify a single molecule that does what you predicted,” says Gaffen, who was not involved in the study.

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative, the Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Robert Buxton, the National Research Foundation of Korea, the Searle Scholars Program, a Pew Scholarship for Biomedical Sciences, the Kenneth Rainin Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research.

New center for autism research established at the McGovern Institute

by McGovern Institute |

The McGovern Institute is pleased to announce the establishment of a new center dedicated to autism research. The center is made possible by a kick-off commitment of $20 million, made by Lisa Yang and MIT alumnus Hock Tan ’75.

The Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research will support research on the genetic, biological and neural bases of autism spectrum disorders, a developmental disability estimated to affect 1 in 68 individuals in the United States. Tan and Yang hope their initial investment will stimulate additional support and help foster collaborative research efforts to erase the devastating effects of this disorder on individuals, their families and the broader autism community.

“With the Tan-Yang Center for Autism Research, we can imagine a world in which medical science understands and supports those with autism — and we can focus MIT’s distinctive strengths on making that dream a reality. Lisa and Hock’s gift reminds us of the impact we envision for the MIT Campaign for a Better World.  I am grateful for their leadership and generosity, and inspired by the possibilities ahead,” says MIT President L. Rafael Reif.

“I am thrilled to be investing in an institution that values a multidisciplinary collaborative approach to solving complex problems such as autism,” says Hock Tan, who graduated from MIT in 1975 with a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in mechanical engineering. “We expect that successful research originating from our Center will have a significant impact on the autism community.”

Originally from Penang, Malaysia, Tan has held several high-level finance and executive positions since leaving MIT. Tan is currently CEO of chipmaker Broadcom, Ltd.

Research at the Tan-Yang Center will focus on four major lines of investigation: genetics, neural circuits, novel autism models and the translation of basic research to the clinical setting.  By focusing research efforts on the origins of autism in our genes, in the womb and in the first years of life, the Tan-Yang Center aims to develop methods to better detect and potentially prevent autism spectrum disorders entirely. To help meet this challenge, the Center will support collaborations across multiple disciplines—from genes to neural circuits—both within and beyond MIT.

“MIT has some of the world’s leading scientists studying autism,” says McGovern Institute director Robert Desimone. “Support from the Tan-Yang Center will enable us to pursue exciting new directions that could not be funded by traditional sources. We will exploit revolutionary new tools, such as CRISPR and optogenetics, that are transforming research in neuroscience. We hope to not only identify new targets for medicines, but also develop novel treatments that are not based on standard pharmacological approaches. By supporting cutting-edge autism research here at MIT as well as our collaborative institutions, the Center holds great promise to accelerate our basic understanding of this complex disorder.”

“Millions of families have been impacted by autism,” says Yang, a longtime advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities and learning differences. “I am profoundly hopeful that the discoveries made at the Tan-Yang Center will have a long-term impact on the field of autism research and will provide fresh answers and potential new treatments for individuals affected by this disorder.”

Rethinking mental illness treatment

by Elizabeth Dougherty |

McGovern researchers are finding neural markers that could help improve treatment for psychiatric patients.

Ten years ago, Jim and Pat Poitras committed $20M to the McGovern Institute to establish the Poitras Center for Affective Disorders Research. The Poitras family had been longtime supporters of MIT, and because they had seen mental illness in their own family, they decided to support an ambitious new program at the McGovern Institute, with the goal of understanding the fundamental biological basis of depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other major psychiatric disorders.

The gift came at an opportune time, as the field was entering a new phase of discovery, with rapid advances in psychiatric genomics and brain imaging, and with the emergence of new technologies for genome editing and for the development of animal models. Over the past ten years, the Poitras Center has supported work in each of these areas, including Feng Zhang’s work on CRISPR-based genome editing, and Guoping Feng’s work on animal models for autism, schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders.

This reflects a long-term strategy, says Robert Desimone, director of the McGovern Institute who oversees the Poitras Center. “But we must not lose sight of the overall goal, which is to benefit human patients. Insights from animal models and genomic medicine have the potential to transform the treatments of the future, but we are also interested in the nearer term, and in what we can do right now.”

One area where technology can have a near-term impact is human brain imaging, and in collaboration with clinical researchers at McLean Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital and other institutions, the Poitras Center has supported an ambitious program to bring human neuroimaging closer to the clinic.

Discovering psychiatry’s crystal ball

A fundamental problem in psychiatry is that there are no biological markers for diagnosing mental illness or for indicating how best to treat it. Treatment decisions are based entirely on symptoms, and doctors and their patients will typically try one treatment, then if it does not work, try another, and perhaps another. The success rates for the first treatments are often less than 50%, and finding what works for an individual patient often means a long and painful process of trial and error.

“Someday, a person will be able to go to a hospital, get a brain scan, charge it to their insurance, and know that it helped the doctor select the best treatment,” says Satra Ghosh.

McGovern research scientist Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli and her colleagues are hoping to change this picture, with the help of brain imaging. Their findings suggest that brain scans can hold valuable information for psychiatrists and their patients. “We need a paradigm shift in how we use imaging. It can be used for more than research,” says Whitfield-Gabrieli, who is a member of McGovern Investigator John Gabrieli’s lab. “It would be a really big boost to be able use it to personalize psychiatric medicine.”

One of Whitfield-Gabrieli’s goals is to find markers that can predict which treatments will work for which patients. Another is to find markers that can predict the likely risk of disease in the future, allowing doctors to intervene before symptoms first develop. All of these markers need further validation before they are ready for the clinic, but they have the potential to meet a dire need to improve treatment for psychiatric disease.

A brain at rest

For Whitfield-Gabrieli, who both collaborates with and is married to Gabrieli, that paradigm shift began when she started to study the resting brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Most brain imaging studies require the subject to perform a mental task in the scanner, but these are time-consuming and often hard to replicate in a clinical setting.In contrast, resting state imaging requires no task. The subject simply lies in the scanner and lets the mind wander. The patterns of activity can reveal functional connections within the brain, and are reliably consistent from study to study.

Whitfield-Gabrieli thought resting state scanning had the potential to help patients because it is simple and easy to perform.

“Even a 5-minute scan can contain useful information that could help people,” says Satrajit Ghosh, a principal research scientist in the Gabrieli lab who works closely with Whitfield-Gabrieli.

Whitfield-Gabrieli and her clinical collaborator Larry Seidman at Harvard Medical School decided to study resting state activity in patients with schizophrenia. They found a pattern of activity strikingly different from that of typical brains. The patients showed unusually strong activity in a set of interconnected brain regions known as the default mode network, which is typically activated during introspection. It is normally suppressed when a person attends to the outside world, but schizophrenia patients failed to show this suppression.

“The patient isn’t able to toggle between internal processing and external processing the way a typical individual can,” says Whitfield-Gabrieli, whose work is supported by the Poitras Center for Affective Disorders Research.

Since then, the team has observed similar disturbances in the default network in other disorders, including depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, and ADHD. “We knew we were onto something interesting,” says Whitfield-Gabrieli. “But we kept coming back to the question: how can brain imaging help patients?”

fMRI on patients

Many imaging studies aim to understand the biological basis of disease and ultimately to guide the development of new drugs or other treatments. But this is a long-term goal, and Whitfield-Gabrieli wanted to find ways that brain imaging could have a more immediate impact. So she and Ghosh decided to use fMRI to look at differences among individual patients, and to focus on differences in how they responded to treatment.

“It gave us something objective to measure,” explains Ghosh. “Someone goes through a treatment, and they either get better or they don’t.” The project also had appeal for Ghosh because it was an opportunity for him to use his expertise in machine learning and other computational tools to build systems-level models of the brain.

For the first study, the team decided to focus on social anxiety disorder (SAD), which is typically treated with either prescription drugs or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Both are moderately effective, but many patients do not respond to the first treatment they try.

The team began with a small study to test whether scans performed before the onset of treatment could predict who would respond best to the treatment. Working with Stefan Hofmann, a clinical psychologist at Boston University, they scanned 38 SAD patients before they began a 12-week course of CBT. At the end of their treatment, the patients were evaluated for clinical improvement, and the researchers examined the scans for patterns of activity that correlated with the improvement. The results were very encouraging; it turned out that predictions based on scan data were 5-fold better than the existing methods based on severity of symptoms at the time of diagnosis.

The researchers then turned to another condition, ADHD, which presents a similar clinical challenge, in that commonly used drugs—such as Adderall or Ritalin—work well, but not for everyone. So the McGovern team began a collaboration with psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, Chief of Clinical and Research Programs in Pediatric Psychopharmacology and Adult ADHD
at Massachusetts General Hospital, on a similar study, looking for markers of treatment response.

The study is still ongoing, and it will be some time before results emerge, but the researchers are optimistic. “If we could predict who would respond to which treatment and avoid months of trial and error, it would be totally transformative for ADHD,” says Biederman.

Another goal is to predict in advance who is likely to develop a given disease in the future. The researchers have scanned children who have close relatives with schizophrenia or depression, and who are therefore at increased risk of developing these disorders themselves. Surprisingly, the children show patterns of resting state connectivity similar to those of patients.

“I was really intrigued by this,” says Whitfield-Gabrieli. “Even though these children are not sick, they have the same profile as adults who are.”

Whitfield-Gabrieli and Seidman are now expanding their study through a collaboration with clinical researchers at the Shanghai Mental Institute in China, who plan to image and then follow 225 people who are showing early risk signs for schizophrenia. They hope to find markers that predict who will develop the disease and who will not.

“While there are no drugs available to prevent schizophrenia, it may be possible to reduce the risk or severity of the disorder through CBT, or through interventions that reduce stress and improve sleep and well-being,” says Whitfield-Gabrieli. “One likely key to success is early identification of those at highest risk. If we could diagnose early, we could do early interventions
and potentially prevent disorders.”

From association to prediction

The search for predictive markers represents a departure from traditional psychiatric imaging studies, in which a group of patients is compared with a control group of healthy subjects. Studies of this type can reveal average differences between the groups, which may provide clues to the underlying biology of the disease. But they don’t provide information about individual patients, and so they have not been incorporated into clinical practice.

The difference is critical for clinicians, says Biederman. “I treat individuals, not groups. To bring predictive scans to the clinic, we need to be sure the individual scan is informative for the person you are treating.”

To develop these predictions, Whitfield-Gabrieli and Ghosh must first use sophisticated computational methods such as ‘deep learning’ to identify patterns in their data and to build models that relate the patterns to the clinical outcomes. They must then show that these models can generalize beyond the original study population—for example, that predictions based on patients from Boston can be applied to patients from Shanghai. The eventual goal is a model that can analyze a previously unseen brain scan from any individual, and predict with high confidence whether that person will (for example) develop schizophrenia or respond successfully to a particular therapy.

Achieving this will be challenging, because it will require scanning and following large numbers of subjects from diverse demographic groups—thousands of people, not just tens or hundreds
as in most clinical studies. Collaborations with large hospitals, such as the one in Shanghai, can help. Whitfield-Gabrieli has also received funding to collect imaging, clinical, and behavioral
data from over 200 adolescents with depression and anxiety, as part of the National Institutes of Health’s Human Connectome effort. These data, collected in collaboration with clinicians at
McLean Hospital, MGH and Boston University, will be available not only for the Gabrieli team, but for researchers anywhere to analyze. This is important, because no one team or center can
do it alone, says Ghosh. “Data must be collected by many and shared by all.”

The ultimate goal is to study as many patients as possible now so that the tools can help many more later. “Someday, a person will be able to go to a hospital, get a brain scan, charge it to their insurance, and know that it helped the doctor select the best treatment,” says Ghosh. “We’re still far away from that. But that is what we want to work towards.”

Finding a way in

by Elizabeth Dougherty |

Our perception of the world arises within the brain, based on sensory information that is sometimes ambiguous, allowing more than one interpretation. Familiar demonstrations of this point include the famous Necker cube and the “duck-rabbit” drawing (right) in which two different interpretations flip back and forth over time.

Another example is binocular rivalry, in which the two eyes are presented with different images that are perceived in alternation. Several years ago, this phenomenon caught the eye of Caroline Robertson, who is now a Harvard Fellow working in the lab of McGovern Investigator Nancy Kanwisher. Back when she was a graduate student at Cambridge University, Robertson realized that binocular rivalry might be used to probe the basis of autism, among the most mysterious of all brain disorders.

Robertson’s idea was based on the hypothesis that autism involves an imbalance between excitation and inhibition within the brain. Although widely supported by indirect evidence, this has been very difficult to test directly in human patients. Robertson realized that binocular rivalry might provide a way to perform such a test. The perceptual switches that occur during rivalry are thought to involve competition between different groups of neurons in the visual cortex, each group reinforcing its own interpretation via excitatory connections while suppressing the alternative interpretation through inhibitory connections. Thus, if the balance is altered in the brains of people with autism, the frequency of switching might also be different, providing a simple and easily measurable marker of the disease state.

To test this idea, Robertson recruited adults with and without autism, and presented them with two distinct and differently colored images in each eye. As expected, their perceptions switched back and forth between the two images, with short periods of mixed perception in between. This was true for both groups, but when she measured the timing of these switches, Robertson found that individuals with autism do indeed see the world in a measurably different way than people without the disorder. Individuals with autism cycle between the left and right images more slowly, with the intervening periods of mixed perception lasting longer than in people without autism. The more severe their autistic symptoms, as determined by a standard clinical behavioral evaluation, the greater the difference.

Robertson had found a marker for autism that is more objective than current methods that involve one person assessing the behavior of another. The measure is immediate and relies on brain activity that happens automatically, without people thinking about it. “Sensation is a very simple place to probe,” she says.

A top-down approach

When she arrived in Kanwisher’s lab, Robertson wanted to use brain imaging to probe the basis for the perceptual phenomenon that she had discovered. With Kanwisher’s encouragement, she began by repeating the behavioral experiment with a new group of subjects, to check that her previous results were not a fluke. Having confirmed that the finding was real, she then scanned the subjects using an imaging method called Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS), in which an MRI scanner is reprogrammed to measure concentrations of neurotransmitters and other chemicals in the brain. Kanwisher had never used MRS before, but when Robertson proposed the experiment, she was happy to try it. “Nancy’s the kind of mentor who could support the idea of using a new technique and guide me to approach it rigorously,” says Robertson.

For each of her subjects, Robertson scanned their brains to measure the amounts of two key neurotransmitters, glutamate, which is the main excitatory transmitter in the brain, and GABA, which is the main source of inhibition. When she compared the brain chemistry to the behavioral results in the binocular rivalry task, she saw something intriguing and unexpected. In people without autism, the amount of GABA in the visual cortex was correlated with the strength of the suppression, consistent with the idea that GABA enables signals from one eye to inhibit those from the other eye. But surprisingly, there was no such correlation in the autistic individuals—suggesting that GABA was somehow unable to exert its normal suppressive effect. It isn’t yet clear exactly what is going wrong in the brains of these subjects, but it’s an early flag, says Robertson. “The next step is figuring out which part of the pathway is disrupted.”

A bottom-up approach

Robertson’s approach starts from the top-down, working backward from a measurable behavior to look for brain differences, but it isn’t the only way in. Another approach is to start with genes that are linked to autism in humans, and to understand how they affect neurons and brain circuits. This is the bottom-up approach of McGovern Investigator Guoping Feng, who studies a gene called Shank3 that codes for a protein that helps build synapses, the connections through which neurons send signals to each other. Several years ago Feng knocked out Shank3 in mice, and found that the mice exhibited behaviors reminiscent of human autism, including repetitive grooming, anxiety, and impaired social interaction and motor control.

These earlier studies involved a variety of different mutations that disabled the Shank3 gene. But when postdoc Yang Zhou joined Feng’s lab, he brought a new perspective. Zhou had come from a medical background and wanted to do an experiment more directly connected to human disease. So he suggested making a mouse version of a Shank3 mutation seen in human patients, and testing its effects.

Zhou’s experiment would require precise editing of the mouse Shank3 gene, previously a difficult and time-consuming task. But help was at hand, in the form of a collaboration with McGovern Investigator Feng Zhang, a pioneer in the development of genome-editing methods.

Using Zhang’s techniques, Zhou was able to generate mice with two different mutations: one that had been linked to human autism, and another that had been discovered in a few patients with schizophrenia.

The researchers found that mice with the autism-related mutation exhibited behavioral changes at a young age that paralleled behaviors seen in children with autism. They also found early changes in synapses within a brain region called the striatum. In contrast, mice with the schizophrenia-related gene appeared normal until adolescence, and then began to exhibit changes in behavior and also changes in the prefrontal cortex, a brain region that is implicated in human schizophrenia. “The consequences of the two different Shank3 mutations were quite different in certain aspects, which was very surprising to us,” says Zhou.

The fact that different mutations in just one gene can produce such different results illustrates exactly how complex these neuropsychiatric disorders can be. “Not only do we need to study different genes, but we also have to understand different mutations and which brain regions have what defects,” says Feng, who received funding from the Poitras Center for Affective Disorders research and the Simons Center for the Social Brain. Robertson and Kanwisher were also supported by the Simons Center.

Surprising plasticity

The brain alterations that lead to autism are thought to arise early in development, long before the condition is diagnosed, raising concerns that it may be difficult to reverse the effects once the damage is done. With the Shank3 knockout mice, Feng and his team were able to approach this question in a new way, asking what would happen if the missing gene were to be restored in adulthood.

To find the answer, lab members Yuan Mei and Patricia Monteiro, along with Zhou, studied another strain of mice, in which the Shank3 gene was switched off but could be reactivated at any time by adding a drug to their diet. When adult mice were tested six weeks after the gene was switched back on, they no longer showed repetitive grooming behaviors, and they also showed normal levels of social interaction with other mice, despite having grown up without a functioning Shank3 gene. Examination of their brains confirmed that many of the synaptic alterations were also rescued when the gene was restored.

Not every symptom was reversed by this treatment; even after six weeks or more of restored Shank3 expression, the mice continued to show heightened anxiety and impaired motor control. But even these deficits could be prevented if the Shank3 gene was restored earlier in life, soon after birth.

The results are encouraging because they indicate a surprising degree of brain plasticity, persisting into adulthood. If the results can be extrapolated to human patients, they suggest that even in adulthood, autism may be at least partially reversible if the right treatment can be found. “This shows us the possibility,” says Zhou. “If we could somehow put back the gene in patients who are missing it, it could help improve their life quality.”

Converging paths

Robertson and Feng are approaching the challenge of autism from different starting points, but already there are signs of convergence. Feng is finding early signs that his Shank3 mutant mice may have an altered balance of inhibitory and excitatory circuits, consistent with what Robertson and Kanwisher have found in humans.

Feng is continuing to study these mice, and he also hopes to study the effects of a similar mutation in non-human primates, whose brains and behaviors are more similar to those of humans than rodents. Robertson, meanwhile, is planning to establish a version of the binocular rivalry test in animal models, where it is possible to alter the balance between inhibition and excitation experimentally (for example, via a genetic mutation or a drug treatment). If this leads to changes in binocular rivalry, it would strongly support the link to the perceptual changes seen in humans.

One challenge, says Robertson, will be to develop new methods to measure the perceptions of mice and other animals. “The mice can’t tell us what they are seeing,” she says. “But it would also be useful in humans, because it would allow us to study young children and patients who are non-verbal.”

A multi-pronged approach

The imbalance hypothesis is a promising lead, but no single explanation is likely to encompass all of autism, according to McGovern director Bob Desimone. “Autism is a notoriously heterogeneous condition,” he explains. “We need to try multiple approaches in order to maximize the chance of success.”

McGovern researchers are doing exactly that, with projects underway that range from scanning children to developing new molecular and microscopic methods for examining brain changes in animal disease models. Although genetic studies provide some of the strongest clues, Desimone notes that there is also evidence for environmental contributions to autism and other brain disorders. “One that’s especially interesting to us is a maternal infection and inflammation, which in mice at least can affect brain development in ways we’re only beginning to understand.”

The ultimate goal, says Desimone, is to connect the dots and to understand how these diverse human risk factors affect brain function. “Ultimately, we want to know what these different pathways have in common,” he says. “Then we can come up with rational strategies for the development of new treatments.”

From cancer to brain research: learning from worms

by Elizabeth Dougherty |

In Bob Horvitz’s lab, students watch tiny worms as they wriggle under the microscope. Their tracks twist and turn in every direction, and to a casual observer the movements appear random. There is a pattern, however, and the animals’ movements change depending on their environment and recent experiences.

“A hungry worm is different from a well-fed worm,” says Horvitz, David H. Koch Professor of Biology and a McGovern Investigator. “If you consider worm psychology, it seems that the thing in life worms care most about is food.”

Horvitz’s work with the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans extends back to the mid-1970s. He was among the first to recognize the value of this microscopic organism as a model species for asking fundamental questions about biology and human disease.

The leap from worm to human might seem great and perilous, but in fact they share many fundamental biological mechanisms, one of which is programmed cell death, also known as apoptosis. Horvitz shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2002 for his studies of cell death, which is central to a wide variety of human diseases, including cancer and neurodegenerative disorders. He has continued to study the worm ever since, contributing to many areas of biology but with a particular emphasis on the nervous system and the control of behavior.

In a recently published study, the Horvitz lab has found another fundamental mechanism that likely is shared with mice and humans. The discovery began with an observation by former graduate student Beth Sawin as she watched worms searching for food. When a hungry worm detects a food source, it slows almost to a standstill, allowing it to remain close to the food.
Postdoctoral scientist Nick Paquin analyzed how a mutation in a gene called vps-50, causes worms to slow similarly even when they are well fed. It seemed that these mutant worms were failing to transition normally between the hungry and the well-fed state.

Paquin decided to study the gene further, in worms and also in mouse neurons, the latter in collaboration with Yasunobu Murata, a former research scientist in Martha Constantine-Paton’s lab at the McGovern Institute. The team, later joined by postdoctoral fellow Fernando Bustos in the Constantine-Paton lab, found that the VPS-50 protein controls the activity of synapses, the junctions between nerve cells. VPS-50 is involved in a process that acidifies synaptic vesicles, microscopic bubbles filled with neurotransmitters that are released from nerve terminals, sending signals to other nearby neurons.

If VPS-50 is missing, the vesicles do not mature properly and the signaling from neurons is abnormal. VPS-50 has remained relatively unchanged during evolution, and the mouse version can
substitute for the missing worm gene, indicating the worm and mouse proteins are similar not only in sequence but also in function. This might seem surprising given the wide gap between the tiny nervous system of the worm and the complex brains of mammals. But it is not surprising to Horvitz, who has committed about half of his lab resources to studying the worm’s nervous system and behavior.

“Our finding underscores something that I think is crucially important,” he says. “A lot of biology is conserved among organisms that appear superficially very different, which means that the
understanding and treatment of human diseases can be advanced by studies of simple organisms like worms.”

Human connections

In addition to its significance for normal synaptic function, the vps-50 gene might be important in autism spectrum disorder. Several autism patients have been described with deletions that include vps-50, and other lines of evidence also suggest a link to autism. “We think this is going to be a very important molecule in mammals,” says Constantine-Paton. “We’re now in a position to look into the function of vps-50 more deeply.”

Horvitz and Constantine-Paton are married, and they had chatted about vps-50 long before her lab began to study it. When it became clear that the mutation was affecting worm neurons in a novel way, it was a natural decision to collaborate and study the gene in mice. They are currently working to understand the role of VPS-50 in mammalian brain function, and to explore further the possible link to autism.

The day the worm turned

A latecomer to biology, Horvitz studied mathematics and economics as an undergraduate at MIT in the mid-1960s. During his last year, he took a few biology classes and then went on to earn
a doctoral degree in the field at Harvard University, working in the lab of James Watson (of double helix fame) and Walter Gilbert. In 1974, Horvitz moved to Cambridge, England, where he worked with Sydney Brenner and began his studies of the worm.

“Remarkably, all of my advisors, even my undergraduate advisor in economics here at MIT, Bob Solow, now have Nobel Prizes,” he notes.

The comment is matter-of-fact, and Horvitz is anything but pretentious. He thinks about both big questions and small experimental details and is always on the lookout for links between the
worm and human health.

“When someone in the lab finds something new, Bob is quick to ask if it relates to human disease,” says former graduate student Nikhil Bhatla. “We’re not thinking about that. We’re deep in
the nitty-gritty, but he’s directing us to potential collaborators who might help us make that link.”

This kind of mentoring, says Horvitz, has been his primary role since he joined the MIT faculty in 1978. He has trained many of the current leaders in the worm field, including Gary Ruvkun
and Victor Ambros, who shared the 2008 Lasker Award, Michael Hengartner, now President of the University of Zurich, and Cori Bargmann, who recently won the McGovern’s 2016 Scolnick Prize in Neuroscience.

“If the science we’ve done has been successful, it’s because I’ve been lucky to have outstanding young researchers as colleagues,” Horvitz says.

Before becoming a mentor, Horvitz had to become a scientist himself. At Harvard, he studied bacterial viruses and learned that even the simplest organisms could provide valuable insights about fundamental biological processes.

The move to Brenner’s lab in Cambridge was a natural step. A pioneer in the field of molecular biology, Brenner was also the driving force behind the adoption of C. elegans as a genetic model organism, which he advocated for its simplicity (adults have fewer than 1000 cells, and only 302 neurons) and short generation time (only three days). Working in Brenner’s lab, Horvitz
and his collaborator John Sulston traced the lineage of every body cell from fertilization to adulthood, showing that the sequence of cell divisions was the same in each individual animal. Their landmark study provided a foundation for the entire field. “They know all the cells in the worm. Every single one,” says Constantine-Paton. “So when they make a mutation and something is weird, they can determine precisely which cell or set of cells are affected. We can only dream of having such an understanding of a mammal.”

It is now known that the worm has about 20,000 genes, many of which are conserved in mammals including humans. In fact, in many cases, a cloned human gene can stand in for a missing
worm gene, as is the case for vps-50. As a result, the worm has been a powerful discovery machine for human biology. In the early years, though, many doubted whether worms would be relevant. Horvitz persisted undeterred, and in 1992 his conviction paid off, with the discovery of ced-9, a worm gene that regulates programmed cell death. A graduate student in Horvitz’ lab cloned ced-9 and saw that it resembled a human cancer gene called Bcl-2. They also showed that human Bcl-2 could substitute for a mutant ced-9 gene in the worm and concluded that the two genes have similar functions: ced-9 in worms protects healthy cells from death, and Bcl-2 in cancer patients protects cancerous cells from death, allowing them to multiply. “This was the moment we knew that the studies we’d been doing with C. elegans were going to be relevant to understanding human biology and disease,” says Horvitz.

Ten years later, in 2002, he was in the French Alps with Constantine-Paton and their daughter Alex attending a wedding, when they heard the news on the radio: He’d won a Nobel Prize, along with Brenner and Sulston. On the return trip, Alex, then 9 years old but never shy, asked for first-class upgrades at the airport; the agent compromised and gave them all upgrades to business class instead.

Discovery machine at work

Since the Nobel Prize, Horvitz has studied the nervous system using the same strategy that had been so successful in deciphering the mechanism of programmed cell death. His approach, he says, begins with traditional genetics. Researchers expose worms to mutagens and observe their behavior. When they see an interesting change, they identify the mutation and try to link the gene to the nervous system to understand how it affects behavior.

“We make no assumptions,” he says. “We let the animal tell us the answer.”

While Horvitz continues to demonstrate that basic research using simple organisms produces invaluable insights about human biology and health, there are other forces at work in his lab. Horvitz maintains a sense of wonder about life and is undaunted by big questions.

For instance, when Bhatla came to him wanting to look for evidence of consciousness in worms, Horvitz blinked but didn’t say no. The science Bhatla proposed was novel, and the question
was intriguing. Bhatla pursued it. But, he says, “It didn’t work.”

So Bhatla went back to the drawing board. During his earlier experiments, he had observed that worms would avoid light, a previously known behavior. But he also noticed that they immediately stopped feeding. The animals had provided a clue. Bhatla went on to discover that worms respond to light by producing hydrogen peroxide, which activates a taste receptor.

In a sense, worms taste light, a wonder of biology no one could have predicted.

Some years ago, the Horvitz lab made t-shirts displaying a quote from the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche: “You have made your way from worm to man, and much within you is still worm.”
The words have become an informal lab motto, “truer than Nietzsche could everhave imagined,” says Horvitz. “There’s still so much mystery, particularly about the brain, and we are still learning from the worm.”

Study reveals a basis for attention deficits

Anne Trafton |

More than 3 million Americans suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a condition that usually emerges in childhood and can lead to difficulties at school or work.

A new study from MIT and New York University links ADHD and other attention difficulties to the brain’s thalamic reticular nucleus (TRN), which is responsible for blocking out distracting sensory input. In a study of mice, the researchers discovered that a gene mutation found in some patients with ADHD produces a defect in the TRN that leads to attention impairments.

The findings suggest that drugs boosting TRN activity could improve ADHD symptoms and possibly help treat other disorders that affect attention, including autism.

“Understanding these circuits may help explain the converging mechanisms across these disorders. For autism, schizophrenia, and other neurodevelopmental disorders, it seems like TRN dysfunction may be involved in some patients,” says Guoping Feng, the James W. and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute.

Feng and Michael Halassa, an assistant professor of psychiatry, neuroscience, and physiology at New York University, are the senior authors of the study, which appears in the March 23 online edition of Nature. The paper’s lead authors are MIT graduate student Michael Wells and NYU postdoc Ralf Wimmer.

Paying attention

Feng, Halassa, and their colleagues set out to study a gene called Ptchd1, whose loss can produce attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability, aggression, and autism spectrum disorders. Because the gene is carried on the X chromosome, most individuals with these Ptchd1-related effects are male.

In mice, the researchers found that the part of the brain most affected by the loss of Ptchd1 is the TRN, which is a group of inhibitory nerve cells in the thalamus. It essentially acts as a gatekeeper, preventing unnecessary information from being relayed to the brain’s cortex, where higher cognitive functions such as thought and planning occur.

“We receive all kinds of information from different sensory regions, and it all goes into the thalamus,” Feng says. “All this information has to be filtered. Not everything we sense goes through.”

If this gatekeeper is not functioning properly, too much information gets through, allowing the person to become easily distracted or overwhelmed. This can lead to problems with attention and difficulty in learning.

The researchers found that when the Ptchd1 gene was knocked out in mice, the animals showed many of the same behavioral defects seen in human patients, including aggression, hyperactivity, attention deficit, and motor impairments. When the Ptchd1 gene was knocked out only in the TRN, the mice showed only hyperactivity and attention deficits.

Toward new treatments

At the cellular level, the researchers found that the Ptchd1 mutation disrupts channels that carry potassium ions, which prevents TRN neurons from being able to sufficiently inhibit thalamic output to the cortex. The researchers were also able restore the neurons’ normal function with a compound that boosts activity of the potassium channel. This intervention reversed the TRN-related symptoms but not any of the symptoms that appear to be caused by deficits of some other circuit.

“The authors convincingly demonstrate that specific behavioral consequences of the Ptchd1 mutation — attention and sleep — arise from an alteration of a specific protein in a specific brain region, the thalamic reticular nucleus. These findings provide a clear and straightforward pathway from gene to behavior and suggest a pathway toward novel treatments for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism,” says Joshua Gordon, an associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, who was not involved in the research.

Most people with ADHD are now treated with psychostimulants such as Ritalin, which are effective in about 70 percent of patients. Feng and Halassa are now working on identifying genes that are specifically expressed in the TRN in hopes of developing drug targets that would modulate TRN activity. Such drugs may also help patients who don’t have the Ptchd1 mutation, because their symptoms are also likely caused by TRN impairments, Feng says.

The researchers are also investigating when Ptchd1-related problems in the TRN arise and at what point they can be reversed. And, they hope to discover how and where in the brain Ptchd1 mutations produce other abnormalities, such as aggression.

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, the Poitras Center for Affective Disorders Research, and the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute.

Toward a better understanding of the brain

Anne Trafton |

In 2011, about a month after joining the MIT faculty, Feng Zhang attended a talk by Harvard Medical School Professor Michael Gilmore, who studies the pathogenic bacterium Enteroccocus. The scientist mentioned that these bacteria protect themselves from viruses with DNA-cutting enzymes known as nucleases, which are part of a defense system known as CRISPR.

“I had no idea what CRISPR was but I was interested in nucleases,” Zhang says. “I went to look up CRISPR, and that’s when I realized you might be able to engineer it for use for genome editing.”

Zhang devoted himself to adapting the system to edit genes in mammalian cells and recruited new members to his nascent lab at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard to work with him on this project. In January 2013, they reported their success in the journal Science.

Since then, scientists in fields from medicine to plant biology have begun using CRISPR to study gene function and investigate the possibility of correcting faulty genes that cause disease. Zhang now heads a lab of 19 scientists who continue to develop the system and pursue applications of genome editing, especially in neuroscience.

“The goal is to try to make our lives better by developing new technologies and using them to understand biological systems so that we can improve our treatment of disease and our quality of life,” says Zhang, who is also a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research and recently earned tenure in MIT’s Departments of Biological Engineering and Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

Understanding the brain

Growing up in Des Moines, Iowa, where his parents moved from China when he was 11, Zhang had plenty of opportunities to feed his interest in science. He participated in Science Bowl competitions and took special Saturday science classes, where he got his first introduction to molecular biology. Experiments such as extracting DNA from strawberries and transforming bacteria with genes for drug resistance whetted his appetite for genetic engineering, which was further stimulated by a showing of “Jurassic Park.”

“That really caught my attention,” he recalls. “It didn’t seem that far-fetched. I guess that’s what makes it good science fiction. It kind of tantalizes your imagination.”

As a sophomore in high school, Zhang began working with Dr. John Levy in a gene therapy lab at the Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines, where he studied green fluorescent protein (GFP). Scientists had recently figured out how to adapt this naturally occurring protein to tag and image proteins inside living cells. Zhang used it to track viral proteins within infected cells to determine how the proteins assemble to form new viruses. He also worked on a project to adapt GFP for a different purpose — protecting DNA from damage induced by ultraviolet light.

At Harvard University, where he earned his undergraduate degree, Zhang majored in chemistry and physics and did research under the mentorship of Xiaowei Zhuang, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology. “I was always interested in biology but I felt that it’s important to get a solid training in chemistry and physics,” he says.

While Zhang was at Harvard, a close friend was severely affected by a psychiatric disorder. That experience made Zhang think about whether such disorders could be approached just like cancer or heart disease, if only scientists knew more about their underlying causes.

“The difference is we’re at a much earlier stage of understanding psychiatric diseases. That got me really interested in trying to understand more about how the brain works,” he says.

At Stanford University, where Zhang earned his PhD in chemistry, he worked with Karl Deisseroth, who was just starting his lab with a focus on developing new technology for studying the brain. Zhang was the second student to join the lab, and he began working on a protein called channelrhodopsin, which he and Deisseroth believed held potential for engineering mammalian cells to respond to light.

The resulting technique, known as optogenetics, has transformed biological research. Collaborating with Edward Boyden, a member of the Deisseroth lab who is now a professor at MIT, Zhang adapted channelrhodopsin so that it could be inserted into neurons and make them light-sensitive. Using this approach, neuroscientists can now selectively activate and de-activate specific neurons in the brain, allowing them to map brain circuits and investigate how disruption of those circuits causes disease.

Better gene editing

After leaving Stanford, Zhang spent a year as a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, studying brain development with Professor Paola Arlotta and collaborating with Professor George Church. That’s when he began to focus on gene editing — a type of genetic engineering that allows researchers to selectively delete a gene or replace it with a new one.

He began with zinc finger nucleases — enzymes that can be designed to target and cut specific DNA sequences. However, these proteins turned out to be challenging to work with, in part because it is so time-consuming to design a new protein for each possible DNA target.

That led Zhang to experiment with a different type of nucleases known as transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), but these also proved laborious to work with. “Learning how to use them is a project on its own,” Zhang says.

When he heard about CRISPR in early 2011, Zhang sensed that harnessing the natural bacterial process held the potential to solve many of the challenges associated with those earlier gene-editing techniques. CRISPR includes a nuclease called Cas9, which can be guided to the correct genetic target by RNA molecules known as guide strands. For each target, scientists need only design and synthesize a new RNA guide, which is much simpler than creating new TALEN and zinc finger proteins.

Since his first CRISPR paper in 2013, Zhang’s lab has devised many enhancements to the original system, such as making the targeting more precise and preventing unintended cuts in the wrong locations. They also recently reported another type of CRISPR system based on a different nuclease called Cpf1, which is simpler and has unique features that further expand the genome editing toolbox.

Zhang’s lab has become a hub for CRISPR research worldwide. It has shared CRISPR-Cas9 components in response to nearly 30,000 requests from academic laboratories around the world and has trained thousands of researchers in the use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing technology through in-person events and online opportunities.

His team is now working on creating animal models of autism, Alzheimer’s, and other neurological disorders, and in the long term, they hope to develop CRISPR for use in humans to potentially cure diseases caused by defective genes.

“There are many genetic diseases that we don’t have any way of treating and this could be one way, but we still have to do a lot of work,” Zhang says.

Neuroscientists discover a gene that controls worms’ behavioral state

Anne Trafton |

In a study of worms, MIT neuroscientists have discovered a gene that plays a critical role in controlling the switch between alternative behavioral states, which for humans include hunger and fullness, or sleep and wakefulness.

This gene, which the researchers dubbed vps-50, helps to regulate neuropeptides — tiny proteins that carry messages between neurons or from neurons to other cells. This kind of signaling is important for controlling physiology and behavior in animals, including humans. Deletions of the human counterpart of the vps-50 gene have been found in some people with autism.

“Given what is reported in this paper about how the gene works, coupled with findings by others concerning the genetics of autism, we suggest that the disruption of the function of this gene could promote autism,” says H. Robert Horvitz, the David H. Koch Professor of Biology and a member of MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research.

Horvitz and Martha Constantine-Paton, an MIT professor of brain and cognitive sciences and member of the McGovern Institute, are the senior authors of the study, which appears in the March 3 issue of the journal Current Biology. The paper’s lead authors are former MIT postdocs Nicolas Paquin and Yasunobu Muruta.

Influencing behavior

Neuropeptides, which are involved in brain functions such as reward, metabolism, and learning and memory, are released from cellular structures called dense-core vesicles.

In the new study, the researchers found that the vps-50 gene encodes a protein that is important in the generation of such vesicles and in the release of neuropeptides from them.

They discovered the protein in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, where it is found primarily in nerve cells. In those cells, vps-50 associates with both synaptic vesicles and dense-core vesicles, which release neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. The researchers showed that vps-50 is required for maturation of the dense-core vesicles and also regulates activity of a proton pump that acidifies the vesicles. Without the proper acidity level, the vesicles’ ability to produce neuropeptides is impaired.

The researchers also found distinctive behavioral effects in C. elegans worms, which normally change their speed depending on food availability and whether they have recently eaten.

“Worms are the fastest when food (bacteria) is absent, presumably because they are looking for food,” Paquin says. “When they reach food, they slow down, but when you make them hungry for 30 minutes before putting them on food, they slow down even more.”

Worms lacking vps-50 behaved as if they were hungry — moving slowly through a food-rich area even when they were well fed, the researchers found. This suggests that the worms without vps-50 are unable to signal that they are full and continue to behave as if they are hungry. The researchers also found an equivalent gene in mice and showed that it can compensate for loss of the worm version of vps-50, showing that the two genes have the same function.

Human link

One important question raised by the study is how the mouse and human versions of vps-50 affect behavior in those animals, Horvitz says. Although this study focused on switching between hunger and fullness, neuropeptide signaling has been previously shown to control other alternative behaviors such as sleep and wakefulness and also to control social behaviors, such as anxiety.

The researchers suggest that studies of vps-50 might shed light on aspects of autism, because the human version of the gene is missing in some people with autism. Furthermore, a protein known as UNC-31, which is also located in dense-core vesicles has also been linked with autism in humans and mice. When mutated in worms, UNC-31 produces behavioral effects similar to those caused by vps-50 mutations.

“For these reasons, we hope that our studies of vps-50 will provide insights into human neuropsychiatric disorders,” Horvitz says.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Simons Center for the Social Brain at MIT.