Nature versus nurture revisited: an old idea with a new twist.
The nature versus nurture debate has recently resurfaced with the emergence of the field of developmental molecular neurobiology. The questions associated with "nature" have crystallized into testable hypotheses regarding patterns of gene expression during development, and those associated with "nurture" have given over to activity-dependent cellular mechanisms that give rise to variable phenotypes in developing nervous systems. This review focuses on some of the features associated with complex brains and discusses the evolutionary and activity-dependent mechanisms that generate these features. These include increases in the size of the cortical sheet, changes in cortical domain and cortical field specification, and the activity-dependent intracellular mechanisms that regulate the structure and function of neurons during development. We discuss which features are likely to be genetically mediated, which features are likely to be regulated by activity, and how these two mechanisms act in concert to produce the wide variety of phenotypes observed for the mammalian neocortex. For example, the size of the cortical sheet is likely to be under genetic control, and regulation of cell-cycle kinetics through upregulation of genes such as beta-catenin can account for increases in the size of the cortical sheet. Similarly, intrinsic signaling genes or gene products such as Wnt, Shh, Fgf2, Fgf8 and BMP may set up a combinatorial coordinate system that guides thalamic afferents. Changes in peripheral morphology that regulate patterned activity are also likely to be under genetic control. Finally, the intracellular machinery that allows for activity-dependent plasticity in the developing CNS may be genetically regulated, although the specific phenotype they generate are not. On the other hand, aspects of neocortical organization such as sensory domain assignment, the size and shape of cortical fields, some aspects of connectivity, and details of functional organization are likely to be activity-dependent. Furthermore, the role of genes versus activity, and their interactions, may be different for primary fields versus non-primary fields.
Krubitzer
Leah
L
Department of Psychology, Center for Neuroscience, University of California, 1544 Newton Ct, Davis, CA 95616, USA. lakrubitzer@ucdavis.edu
Kahn
Dianna M
DM
D000818:Animals; D001519:Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D001522:Behavior, Animal / Q000502:physiology; D005075:Biological Evolution; D002454:Cell Differentiation / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology; D002540:Cerebral Cortex / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D018507:Gene Expression Regulation, Developmental / Q000502:physiology*; D006706:Homeostasis / Q000235:genetics; D006801:Humans; D019579:Neocortex / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology; D009415:Nerve Net / Q000502:physiology*; D009434:Neural Pathways / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D009473:Neuronal Plasticity / Q000502:physiology*; D009474:Neurons / Q000502:physiology*; D013045:Species Specificity