Molecules of the Mind

Let’s say you’re in a crowded bar when somebody suddenly shoots at a patron. You clearly see a man carrying a firearm, but all hell breaks loose as you and everybody else scramble for the exits. In the terrifying seconds following the crime, you lose track of who discharged the firearm: it could have been 1 of 3 suspects. Afterward, the police interview you, but it is hopeless. Even bringing in the suspects for a lineup isn’t going to help you recall. There will be no “Perry Mason” moments, when the perpetrator breaks down under the weight of guilt and confesses to the crime. How can the authorities make an arrest?

I think I am going to talk about the neurobiology of happiness in my next column. The reason has to do with the nature of our 2-month journey into the biology of eating disorders—a subject that, considering the dearth of explanatory data, is tough to write about. It’s also a bit depressing, considering how difficult it can be to treat. This is the second installment in a 2-part series that focuses on the neurobiology of restricting-type anorexia nervosa (AN).

Appetite regulation is made up of complex interlocking, incentive-driven motivational hormonal and neuronal circuitries . . . that can be pulled in many directions, especially where food is cheap and readily available.

In our last installment, we discussed a familiar finding from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R): the peak age of onset for any mental health disorder is about 14 years. In an attempt to explain these data, we are exploring some of the known developmental changes in the teenaged brain at the level of gene, cell, and behavior.

This statistic is as familiar as it is startling. According to the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication (NCS-R), the peak age of onset for any disease involving mental health is 14 years. True for bipolar disorder. True for anxiety. True for schizophrenia and substance abuse and eating disorders. The data suggest that most mental health challenges emerge during adolescence. If true, this brings to mind an important developmental question:

I was puzzled. How could Fourier transforms performed on signals coming from someone’s cortex say anything about their politics? What could possibly have reduced the interpretation of these noninvasive imaging data to conceptual phrenology? I got so mad as I thought more about it that I jammed the articles back into the pocket, aggravating an already ripped inner seam.

In my January column (“Fishing Expeditions and Autism: A Big Catch for Genetic Research?” Psychiatric Times, January 2009, page 12), I described the great difficulties research­ers face characterizing the genetic basis of the disease. Complexities range from trying to establish a stable diagnostic profile to making sense of the few isolated mutations that show clear associations (either with disease or syndrome variants).

I am a fan of the television show Deadliest Catch—a documentary series that follows the travails of deep-sea fishermen in the Bering Sea. (Actually, it is mostly about deep crab fishing.) Living in Seattle, I have actually seen some of the boats filmed on the show.

For some couples, the transition to parenthood is not filled with this rich mixture of great perplexity and great joy. For them, parenthood is mostly filled with sadness and even despair.

In last month’s column (“Painting Neural Circuitry With a Viral Brush,” Psychiatric Times, October 2008, page 16), I used Michelangelo’s famous fresco, “Hand of God Giving Life to Adam” on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel as a metaphor to introduce a series of technologies that have allowed researchers to map the complex interactions of neural connections in continuously functioning neural tissues. This technology promises to deliver accurate synaptic associations—one finger to another—at a very high level of resolution.