You Must Remember This

Michael Jameson m.jameson at
Tue Oct 16 04:32:40 EST 2001

Brian wrote:

> "Michael Jameson" <m.jameson at> skrev i melding
> news:3BC9B655.E545C259 at


> > Journal of Theoretical Biology 2001 Jan 21;208(2):145-9
> > "Memory and DNA."
> > Dietrich A, Been W.
> > Institute of Human Genetics, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical
> > Centre, Meibergdreef 15, NL 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
> > a.dietrich at
> >
> > A model is presented for the storage of long-term memory. In our model
> > consolidation takes place by specific DNA sequences. These DNA sequences
> > are obtained by the recombination of DNA in a similar way to that during
> > meiosis and the production of immunological antibodies. DNA has the
> > potential of the production of large numbers of specific DNA sequences.
> > These sequences can be attached to images of neural networks.The
> > following considerations lead to the theory: (1)Most of the DNA is not
> > used: approximately 3% of our DNA is used. (2)There are no cell
> > divisions in the brain after adulthood is reached. Structural DNA
> > arrangements will not be altered nor disrupted as a consequence of cell
> > division and mitosis. (3)Chromosomal pairing is demonstrated in the
> > brain, which could indicate the exchange of DNA. In addition, in our
> > first survey experiments we found a positive reaction of components of
> > the synaptonemal complex (SC) in the nuclei of brain cells. The SC is
> > highly meiosis specific and plays a major role in genetic recombination.
> >
> > Copyright 2001 Academic Press.
> >
> > Mick.
> > --
> > "You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS
> > Eliot).
> So, you're basically saying that the gene-transcriptions are reversed ?

I don't have a clue what it means. My interest is from the direction of
memory function and I am less than ill-informed about genetics.

> Only a retro-virus like the HIV are capable of that, unless you have some
> data that indicate otherwise.

The New Scientist article indicated that the general hypothesis has 'only
circumstantial evidence so far' - 'DNA certainly has the capacity to act as a
stable blueprint... Once neurons are fully grown they don't divide again, so
there's no danger of disrupting the DNA during cell division, and no problem
if you disrupt genes that are needed to make new cells. In any case, there's
plenty of DNA to spare for archiving our memories. As much as 97 per cent of
our DNA has no obvious function'.

> And no, more that 3% of the data are used.
> That would say that only 3% of the DNA were used to create a human during
> developement.
> It seems more data are required

I don't understand. The abstract said that 'approximately 3% of our DNA is
used'. How are 'DNA' and 'data' interchangeable? Do you believe that 3%
figure to be incorrect?

> Brian

"You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS Eliot).

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list