Faculty Bibliography

Spontaneous neural activity has historically been viewed as task-irrelevant noise that should be controlled for via experimental design, and removed through data analysis. However, electrophysiology and functional MRI studies of spontaneous activity patterns, which have greatly increased in number over the past decade, have revealed a close correspondence between these intrinsic patterns and the structural network architecture of functional brain circuits. In particular, by analyzing the large-scale covariation of spontaneous hemodynamics, researchers are able to reliably identify functional networks in the human brain. Subsequent work has sought to identify the corresponding neural signatures via electrophysiological measurements, as this would elucidate the neural origin of spontaneous hemodynamics and would reveal the temporal dynamics of these processes across slower and faster timescales. Here we survey common approaches to quantifying spontaneous neural activity, reviewing their empirical success, and their correspondence with the findings of neuroimaging. We emphasize invasive electrophysiological measurements, which are amenable to amplitude- and phase-based analyses, and which can report variations in connectivity with high spatiotemporal precision. After summarizing key findings from the human brain, we survey work in animal models that display similar multi-scale properties. We highlight that, across many spatiotemporal scales, the covariance structure of spontaneous neural activity reflects structural properties of neural networks and dynamically tracks their functional repertoire.

The invention of new mouse molecular genetics techniques, initiated in the 1980s, has repeatedly expanded our ability to tackle exciting developmental biology problems. The brain is the most complex organ, and as such the more sophisticated the molecular genetics technique, the more impact they have on uncovering new insights into how our brain functions. I provide a general time line for the introduction of new techniques over the past 30 years and give examples of new discoveries in the neural development field that emanated from them. I include a look to what the future holds and argue that we are at the dawn of a very exciting age for young scientists interested in studying how the nervous system is constructed and functions with such precision.

This chapter questions the prevailing "implicit" assumption that molecular mechanisms and the biological phenotype of dominantly inherited early-onset alzheimer's disease (EOAD) could serve as a linear model to study the pathogenesis of sporadic late-onset alzheimer's disease (LOAD). Now there is growing evidence to suggest that such reductionism may not be warranted; these suppositions are not adequate to explain the molecular complexities of LOAD. For example, the failure of some recent amyloid-centric clinical trials, which were largely based on the extrapolations from EOAD biological phenotypes to the molecular mechanisms in the pathogenesis of LOAD, might be due to such false assumptions. The distinct difference in the biology of LOAD and EOAD is underscored by the presence of EOAD cases without evidence of familial clustering or Mendelian transmission and, conversely, the discovery and frequent reports of such clustering and transmission patterns in LOAD cases. The primary thesis of this chapter is that a radically different way of thinking is required for comprehensive explanations regarding the distinct complexities in the molecular pathogenesis of inherited and sporadic forms of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We propose using longitudinal analytical methods and the paradigm of systems biology (using transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and lipidomics) to provide us a more comprehensive insight into the lifelong origin and progression of different molecular mechanisms and neurodegeneration. Such studies should aim to clarify the role of specific pathophysiological and signaling pathways such as neuroinflammation, altered lipid metabolism, apoptosis, oxidative stress, tau hyperphosphorylation, protein misfolding, tangle formation, and amyloidogenic cascade leading to overproduction and reduced clearance of aggregating amyloid-beta (Abeta) species. A more complete understanding of the distinct difference in molecular mechanisms, signaling pathways, as well as comparability of the various forms of AD is of paramount importance. The development of knowledge and technologies for early detection and characterization of the disease across all stages will improve the predictions regarding the course of the disease, prognosis, and response to treatment. No doubt such advances will have a significant impact on the clinical management of both EOAD and LOAD patients. The approach propped here, combining longitudinal studies with the systems biology paradigm, will create a more effective and comprehensive framework for development of prevention therapies in AD.

It is well known that hormones affect both brain and behavior, but less is known about the extent to which hormones affect economic decision-making. Numerous studies demonstrate gender differences in attitudes to risk and loss in financial decision-making, often finding that women are more loss and risk averse than men. It is unclear what drives these effects and whether cyclically varying hormonal differences between men and women contribute to differences in economic preferences. We focus here on how economic rationality and preferences change as a function of menstrual cycle phase in women. We tested adherence to the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP), the standard test of economic rationality. If choices satisfy GARP then there exists a well-behaved utility function that the subject's decisions maximize. We also examined whether risk attitudes and loss aversion change as a function of cycle phase. We found that, despite large fluctuations in hormone levels, women are as technically rational in their choice behavior as their male counterparts at all phases of the menstrual cycle. However, women are more likely to choose risky options that can lead to potential losses while ovulating; during ovulation women are less loss averse than men and therefore more economically rational than men in this regard. These findings may have market-level implications: ovulating women more effectively maximize expected value than do other groups.