Comment by robwwilliams

Comment by robwwilliams 19 hours ago

12 replies

Need to read this asap, but 6.5% is an exceedingly small effect size and not robust given many confounding developmental and technical factors. The typical coefficient of error between volumes of even large brain regions in genetically identical mice is usually well over 5%. And I suspect the transgene was only tested on one genetic background—-usually C57BL/6J.

Will emend this post tomorrow with corrections after reading carefully. I can say with reasonsble assurance that no one has measured and weighed more mouse brains than I have ;-) (except you John Wong)

gwerbret 19 hours ago

You should have read the paper (or at least the abstract) first, as they used macaque and human organoid models, too. :) But yes, the overall effects of the region of DNA in question (an enhancer) are fairly small.

The preprint is available here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.10.588953v1....

  • robwwilliams 9 hours ago

    I have read it now. Comment below. As to an increase in mouse neocortical volume—they have ZERO data. Look at their figures 1g and 1h and weep for the crap reviewing.

vasco 16 hours ago

> can say with reasonsble assurance that no one has measured and weighed more mouse brains than I have

Out of curiosity how many would that be? Thousands? Tens of thousands? How long does it take to measure a mouse brain? When you do it does someone remove them for you or you also have to remove them before measuring?

  • robwwilliams 9 hours ago

    Personal dissections about 2-3K (lifetime). Total over 35 years of the lab: about 20,000.

hirenj 15 hours ago

I guess that whatever recognises the enhancers must be conserved ish in mice for us to be able to drop this region into the mouse genome. That might be interesting alone apart from the functions of the frizzleds. Always a curious question about how much new “machinery” we have in humans, vs us being a specific configuration of common machinery (i.e., if we were to swap out introns/regulatory regions from a mouse with human, and assuming we don’t screw up any checkpoints, how far would it get with looking/acting like a human?).

  • robwwilliams 9 hours ago

    Just reviewed the paper. Extremely elegant flamingo dance. But let me reserve my comments to the Hacker News theme of an enlarged brain (or really an enlarged neocortex). The key panels on this topic are Fig. 1g and 1h. OMG, the dissections of these "best examples" are sad–– the olfactory bulbs are serious torn and paraflocculi are detached. The histogram that is Fig 1h has a grand total of 6 measurement for the human transgenic mouse line and 4 (four) points for the control. Hey when you have a statistically significant result why mess it up by evaluating 10 of each of the two groups. You might not get published in Nature or airplay on HN, and would that not be a shame?

    As for the measurement of brain size, it is a planimetric projection of the area of the dorsal surface of the neocortex. This is a lame way to do morphometry. Squish the brain a bit and the area will expand beautifully—and by way more than 6.5%.

    One last comment on the genetics of these animals. The are probably incorrectly stated to be at least F8 progeny of the mixed 129-B6N embryonic stem cells. I hope they mean N8 backcross progeny––that is to say, 8th generation congenic lines. But in this case they appear to have backcrossed weirdly to a different type of B6; the standard C57BL/6J strain. All of this means that even in the best case, they have three different genomes banging around in supposedly co-isogenic cases and their controls: 1. chunks of 129 strain chromosomes that will still be common even at 8 generations, 2. chunks of B6N chromosomes that will also be common at 8 generations, and of course the B6J background strain. You would have to carry out sparse whole genome sequencing or use the GigaMUGA array to unconfound the genetics in this study.

    • gus_massa 8 hours ago

      > The key panels on this topic are Fig. 1g and 1h.

      Is it possible that they are 2a and 2b in the preprint?

gus_massa 11 hours ago

I can't read the full paper...

Do they have a control group? (Bonus for a blind control group.)

Is the 6.5% statisticaly significant?

How many mice?

  • robwwilliams 9 hours ago

    For the claim of increased neocortical size—-the topic of this HN thread, they show 4 controls versus 6 transgenic mice. Not sure if they did this blinded. Would depend mainly on when they did the genotyping.

BugsJustFindMe 9 hours ago

Since you mention both measuring and weighing, I'm now curious. How well does brain weight relate to brain size?

  • robwwilliams 9 hours ago

    Highly linear in vivo and close to 1. Brain has a lot of fat but not a big deal in mice. Only fine point is that the density of brain varies depending on fixation protocol but almost always by less than 5% if you get the osmolarity of the solution just right.

raverbashing 9 hours ago

The question remains if the same genes command an increase of the braincase, and what potential issues (including limited growth) happen if it's not the case