You Must Remember This

Brian zhil at
Tue Oct 16 13:41:04 EST 2001

"Michael Jameson" <m.jameson at> skrev i melding
news:3BCBFEBE.63C3114A at
> 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
> > > are obtained by the recombination of DNA in a similar way to that
> > > meiosis and the production of immunological antibodies. DNA has the
> > > potential of the production of large numbers of specific DNA
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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.

Then grab a book, and start reading.

> > Only a retro-virus like the HIV are capable of that, unless you have
> > 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,
> there's no danger of disrupting the DNA during cell division, and no
> if you disrupt genes that are needed to make new cells. In any case,
> plenty of DNA to spare for archiving our memories. As much as 97 per cent
> our DNA has no obvious function'.

No, DNA is as you said the _stable_ blue-print.
The major differences we call _mutations_, in the sequence.
There _are_ sections of the DNA that we call junk-genes, but that is simply
because 'we' (not me) don't really know what it is for (I see it as
spacefill were
new mutations might occur, and create new functions out of previously unused
Sometimes they're positive changes, orther times they're neutral or negative
which means that the organism doesn't change (obviously) or dies
I would suspect that far more than 3% is used to develope an organism, and
the 3%
figure seems to be the _genetic differences_ between certain _species_.
The developement of the brain needs (according to what I've read/heard)
50.000 genes.
And no, the neuron doesn't divide (except in certain cases), but it doesn't
mean the
DNA is unused.
RNA-sequencing occur in neurons as in other cells (transcription from

> > 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
> > 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?

Data means exactly that, DNA is biological data.
Unless they can provide a REASON that reverse gene-transcription occurs, I
won't take it at face-value.
It sounds like Lysenkoism to me.
Last, I'm currently reading "Memory" by Kandel et al, and they have never
mentioned any reverse transcription so far, and so far I've dealt through
book with conditioned, habituationed and sensitizationed responses (which is
what is called undeclared memory, short term).
I've just begun with declared memory, and so far there's nothing about
long term memory data onto the DNA-string by reverse transcription.
I know it might sound terrific to have such huge quantities of data on DNA,
the facts is that it isn't so, memory is stored at the synapses.
I made the mistake of overlooking this fact, and searched (in a wild
after something I termed a 'neo-dendrite' which would have something to do
long term memory.
Don't do the same mistake, please.


> Mick.
> --
> "You are the music while the music lasts" - Antonio Damasio (after TS

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list