Following the people and events that make up the research community at Duke

Students exploring the Innovation Co-Lab

Category: Neuroscience Page 1 of 15

Nature On the Brain: Green Space, Cities and Depression 

Sticky post

Though I’ve yet to explore all of Duke’s nooks and crannies, I feel confident that my favorite corner of campus will always be the Sarah P. Duke Gardens. Nature, and green space generally, is good for us as humans. Most of us understand this on an intuitive level, but what’s the underlying reason? How might it be built into our brains?

Psychology professor Marc G. Berman looks for the answers. At the University of Chicago, Berman directs the Environmental Neuroscience Lab, in which he investigates interactions between our brains and our physical surroundings. In a recent virtual Grand Rounds lecture in Duke’s Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Berman spoke about the broad scope of his research and its implications for a better society.

Attention Restoration Theory

Researchers have proposed various theories for why we love nature. For example, the biophilia hypothesis states that humans have an innate attraction to nature on a genetic and evolutionary basis. However, Berman is focused primarily on the Attention Restoration Theory, a concept he’s contributed to significantly. Under this theory, attention is split into two types: directed and involuntary.

The first type is finite––think about the amount of energy it takes you to deliberately concentrate on something. “The first five minutes of lecture, everybody’s very focused on me,” Berman said, using the example of his own classes. Forty-five minutes later, and people inevitably begin to nod off.

Mingo Falls, North Carolina. Author photo

On the other hand, involuntary attention is not really under our control and isn’t as susceptible to becoming drained. Within stimuli that capture our involuntary attention, some are softer or harsher than others, like a stream compared to flashing lights (the stream being a softer attention capture, which we call soft fascination).  

The cornerstone of Attention Restoration Theory is that nature provides an ideal environment for the restoration of directed attention; full of “softly fascinating” features, it stimulates involuntary attention without placing demands on directed attention.

A Walk in the Park

Roughly 20 years ago while Berman was a researcher at the University of Michigan, he and his colleagues wanted to test out the Attention Restoration Theory. So, after asking study participants to perform a backwards digit span task (a test for memory that would require directed attention), they told them to take a walk. Participants were directed to either a route through downtown Ann Arbor, or through the Nichols Arboretum. Then another digit span test. A week later, they repeated the whole procedure, this time walking in the other environment. Interestingly, walking through the arboretum proved more beneficial for memory. “We see about a 20% improvement in this task after people go on this brief 50-minute walk in nature versus walking in the urban environment. So that’s pretty impressive,” Berman said.

Many of us wouldn’t be surprised by this–certainly, I know a walk in the Gardens on a pleasant day recharges my ability to focus. Time in green space and warm weather often lifts our moods, but they discovered that this cognitive benefit occurs regardless of how you feel afterwards. Walkers turned cranky from the winter cold demonstrated improvements on par with those who gladly embraced sunny weather in June.

Berman saw even more of a positive effect for the park-goers when repeating the study with participants diagnosed with depression, contrary to a concern that walks alone might induce rumination on negative thoughts.

Cities: Better Than You Think They Are

In the Environmental Neuroscience Lab, Berman and doctoral students look at everything from brief interactions with nature to the long-term effects of living in large cities. Given everything thus far, it would seem logical that the latter would be far worse for our brains than other environments. Yet, Berman found just the opposite

As it turns out, cities are beneficial for our social connectivity. Since people tend to encounter each other more often in urban areas, an individual will likely develop more social connections on average. Prior neuroscience studies have connected a greater number of social relationships to protection against depression.  

Chicago is the third largest city in the United States, both in terms of population and metropolitan area.

Based on this, the risk of depression might be aptly represented by an inverse model of the number of people in one’s social network. In other words, the more people you maintain contact with, the lower your risk. To test it, Berman and collaborators enlisted four different data sets regarding depression–including in-person interviews, phone interviews with personal demographics, and over 15 million tweets (converted via machine learning algorithms into a PH-Q depression inventory score). The results confirmed it. “What we see across all of these different data sets is that as cities get larger, you get less depression per capita,” he said.

“Many of us have this impression that in bigger cities like New York, like Chicago, like Los Angeles, people are not as friendly…but these results suggest the opposite,” Berman said. “It must be on average that those social interactions are positive in cities and that more is better.” 

Designing Environments for Our Brains

Regarding the main conversation surrounding mental health, Berman said, “We often think about [depression] in terms of this individual scale…your genetic makeup, brain activity patterns, individual psychological patterns. Maybe things about your family. We don’t really think about your neighborhood and your city.”

Knowing what we do about nature and large social networks can ultimately help us improve mental health outcomes on a broad scale. These two factors might seem to work against each other, but they don’t have to. Ultimately, we need more green space everywhere, including in large cities. The benefits are undeniable–urban areas with more greenery consistently see less aggression and crime, even when adjusting for race, ethnicity and income.

In addition, cities tend to have a lot of harsh stimuli, but that doesn’t mean some features of urban environments can’t be potentially restorative. “We believe that certain environmental features can be designed to improve human performance and well-being, like incorporating more natural features or natural patterns in the environment, trying to figure out ways to increase social interactions,” Berman said. By mimicking aspects of nature like curved lines, we might be able to create “soft fascination” closer to home and reduce the different demands pulling on our attention. 

Crystal Han, Class of 2028

Making Sure Drugs Work Where They’re Needed in the Brain

Sticky post

Treating Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions has been challenging due to a lack of tools capable of navigating the complexity of neural circuits. New precision tools like DART.2 help make those therapeutic aspirations a reality, one tethered drug at a time.

The brain is one of our most complex organs, full of neurons that are constantly communicating with one another at places called synapses. Synapses both release molecules called ligands and express cell surface receptors that the ligands bind to, prompting the cells to undergo various processes within. The kinds of ligands and receptors that are important to disease are often released by and found on a variety of cell types. It is crucial, therefore that when we use a drug that targets a certain receptor, we also make sure that they only interact with receptors on the desired cell type.

To achieve this, in 2018 a team led by Duke professor Mike Tadross introduced “Drugs Acutely Restricted to Tethering” or “DART,” a drug delivery system that allows researchers to administer drugs to specific neuronal cell types. In June of this year, the Tadross lab unveiled DART.2. Pairing the cell-type specificity provided by DART.2 with the cellular receptor-specificity already provided by a given drug is essential to treating diseases like Parkinson’s without severe off-target effects, something researchers have been unable to do until tools like DART entered the scene.

Think of it like cutting the water supply to an apartment that has had a pipe burst. You don’t want to cut the water to the entire building, just the flooding apartment, because the other tenants still need water. This newest version of DART increases the ability of researchers to flip the right switches.

With increased cell type specificity optimized for drugs targeting two different receptor types, enabling broader dosing techniques and opening the door for discoveries of unknown roles of well-known receptors, researchers have made DART.2 into an “even more subtle, refined, yet transformative drug delivery system, a marked improvement from more rudimentary options that operate more like sledgehammers,” said Brenda Shields, one of the lead scientists on the DART.2 project.

The HaloTag protein (HTP) helps recruit drugs tethered to the HaloTag ligand (RXDART) to the desired cell types. Courtesy of Erin Fykes.

This is, in part, owing to the use of natural, or endogenous, receptor machinery in its design. Organisms are infected with a virus that prompts only certain cell types to express HaloTag, a protein that sits on the surface of the cells of choice. A HaloTag ligand, or small molecule that binds specifically to the HaloTag surface protein, is tethered to a drug of choice. This allows the tethered drug to be selectively recruited to the cells that have the HaloTag protein, bringing the drug into closer proximity to its intended cellular receptor, discouraging it from binding to unintended receptors, and reducing the amount of drug needed for efficacy.

DART.2 is not changing receptors that are already present, nor is it affecting the signaling cascades activated by engagement with the receptors. Cell-specificity of drug delivery was improved in DART.2 by decreasing the time and drug concentration needed to achieve intended effects – it is 100 times more precise than the previous system, with desired effects achieved in just 15 minutes.

Using the previous version of DART, researchers tried delivering a tethered version of the drug gabazine to GABA receptors (neural receptors associated with inhibitory neurotransmission) on a select group of neurons – gabazine blocks GABA from binding to GABA receptors and subsequently increases neural activity. Unfortunately, DART did not achieve high enough cell-specificity and gabazine bound to enough off-target receptors to trigger epileptic responses in mouse models. DART.2, however, is capable of delivering gabazine without these effects. The original version of DART was only optimized to work with drugs targeting excitatory (AMPA receptors) neurotransmission. The ability of the current version to work with inhibitory (GABA) and excitatory (AMPA) neurotransmission makes this system useful for “bi-directional” modifications, greatly increasing its utility.

Interestingly, while testing the effects of the drug gabazine on GABA receptors in ventral tegmental area dopamine neurons, they found that GABA receptors on these cells actually suppress locomotion, opposite to findings in other studies that more broadly focused on GABA receptors in multiple cell types. This highlights the need for tools like DART.2 that allow us to understand diverse receptor/ligand dynamics on a cell-by-cell basis to gain more nuanced approaches to understanding and treating disease.

To visualize dispersion and binding of tethered drugs to HaloTag proteins versus off-target receptors, Tadross’s team developed a way of seeing where the tethered drugs accumulated by introducing a small percentage of HaloTag ligands bound to a fluorescent reporter rather than a drug into the pool of tethered drugs. This visualization further confirmed a significant increase in cell-type specificity and a decrease in off-target effects of DART.2.

With previous levels of cell specificity, local delivery of the tethered drugs via cannula insertion at the brain region of interest was necessary to ensure drugs made it to the right targets. With increased specificity and a new visualization method for seeing where DART.2 drugs bind, researchers were able to assess whether brain wide dosing would be possible, decreasing deleterious effects of pumping high concentrations of drug into a certain area. Excitingly, they found that broad administration of tethered drugs across large areas of the brain did not significantly increase binding at receptors on cells not expressing the HaloTag protein. Drug delivery in the brain is notoriously difficult, so having the flexibility to administer a drug from an easier delivery point without reducing binding at target sites translates to a greater chance of therapeutic success.  

For those unfamiliar with the process of drug and therapeutic development, the improvements presented in DART.2 represent a realistic look into the measure of scientific progress. Originally used to treat Parkinson’s mouse models, our conception of DART.2’s therapeutic relevance to other conditions is continually expanding. Shields shared that adaptions for conditions such as anxiety and depression may not be far off, just to name a few. DART.2 also makes it possible to use drugs like opioids in new ways. While helpful for pain management, the addictive potential of opioids sometimes renders them more harmful than helpful. Utilizing DART.2, opioids could be administered more specifically to cells that benefit from the drug, potentially reducing interactions with cell types involved in addiction development. Additionally, researchers are beginning to couple DART.2 with other tools on the market that can enhance its therapeutic promise and applicability (and vice versa). Each improvement of DART brings us closer to the reality of treating conditions we once deemed hopeless.

Post by Erin Fykes, Ph.D. student in cell and molecular biology

How the body’s own defense system plays a role in Alzheimer’s disease

Sticky post

Carol Colton, a distinguished professor in neurology and pathology and a member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, is renowned for her groundbreaking research on the immune response’s role in the onset and progression of brain diseases, particularly Alzheimer’s disease (AD). She is a firm believer in using animals such as mice for scientific research, saying that progress in understanding and treating diseases like Alizheimer’s would not be possible without them. With a shorter life cycle than humans, mice can be studied throughout their whole life and across multiple generations. They are also biologically similar to humans and susceptible to many of the same health problems, such as Alzheimer’s. Her work has reshaped our understanding of the brain’s immune system, challenging the long-held notion that the brain is “immune privileged.” 

Carol Colton, PhD, professor of neurology and pathology at Duke

Central to Colton’s research is the role of “microglia,” the brain’s resident macrophages. Once thought to be passive observers in brain immunity, microglia are now recognized as active defenders, crucial in maintaining brain health. Colton’s early studies revealed that these cells not only eliminate harmful substances but also adapt to chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s. In this disease, microglia’s prolonged immune activity disrupts the brain’s metabolic balance, necessitating adaptations in neurons, astrocytes, and microglia themselves. She likens this adaptation to the brain coexisting with a parasite – functional but at a metabolic cost.  

Her research underscores how microglia can initially protect against Alzheimer’s by combating amyloid plaques and phospho-tau proteins but eventually contribute to the disease’s progression as metabolic disruptions intensify.

Colton’s approach integrates physiology and pathology, exploring how changes in normal physiological processes influence disease pathology. Her lab employs a variety of advanced techniques, from cellular microscopy to gene and protein analysis, to map the intricate relationships between brain metabolism and disease. This multidisciplinary approach enables a deeper understanding of how the brain’s unique environment shapes disease progression.

A cornerstone of Colton’s recent work is her discovery of “Radical S-Adenosyl domain 1 (RSAD1),” a mitochondrial protein found at the bottom of the ocean critical to understanding Alzheimer’s. RSAD1 is overexpressed in Alzheimer’s neurons, altering methionine metabolism and mitochondrial function. These disruptions contribute to the disease’s characteristic metabolic imbalance. By developing RSAD1-negative and RSAD1-overexpressing mouse models, her lab provides crucial tools to study the protein’s impact on neuronal and mitochondrial metabolism in the presence of amyloid plaques and phospho-tau.

RSAD1 also appears to be linked to methionine depletion in the brain, which may further exacerbate Alzheimer’s pathology. These findings pave the way for novel therapeutic targets aimed at restoring metabolic equilibrium in the brain.

Colton’s scientific journey is deeply influenced by her family’s academic legacy, particularly her mother, who earned a chemistry degree during an era when women faced significant barriers in science. Inspired by her mother’s determination, Colton is a passionate advocate for women scientists, often emphasizing the importance of diversity and mentorship in STEM fields.

Colton’s work highlights the slow, insidious nature of Alzheimer’s disease, driven by metabolic and immune system changes over decades. By asking fundamental questions, such as whether Alzheimer’s results from the loss of key metabolites or whether microglia contribute to this depletion, her research aims to uncover the mechanisms that underlie the disease and identify strategies for intervention.

In the fight against Alzheimer’s, Colton’s discoveries, particularly those surrounding RSAD1 and microglial activity, are setting the stage for innovative treatments. Her dedication to unraveling the complexities of brain metabolism and immune response solidifies her place as a leader in neurology and pathology, with an enduring impact on the field of Alzheimer’s research.

Post by Lydia Le, NCSSM class of 2026

Invincible Insect Pests Don’t Faze This Researcher

“My passion for what I do saved my life.”

Meet Ke Dong, a biology professor at Duke University. She’s a lover of nature, a great cook, and a Lupus survivor. About 20-25 years ago, she developed Lupus during her research years at Michigan State University. Her time with this autoimmune disease was not kind. “The Lupus brought depression,” she said. 

Fortunately, she was surrounded by amazing peers and her passion: research. Dong’s research focuses on ion channels and their reaction to various toxins and stimuli. These ion channels are incredibly important to the physiology of insects because of their impact on neuronal activity. 

Duke biology professor Ke Dong.

However, her passion didn’t develop from thin air. Dong grew up on a college campus in southeastern China. With both parents leading careers as professors — her father in history and her mother in biochemistry — she had the amazing opportunity to develop her passions early in childhood. 

Growing up, she “had never been afraid of insects” as her mother’s work focused on the development of an increased production rate of silk in silkworms. However, it was the incidents in the area around her that sparked her passion. People in the area were often poisoned from the consumption of insecticides from the rice they were growing. This piqued her interest in toxicology as she was curious about how these insecticides were toxic to the townspeople. 

Combining her fearlessness in the face of insects and her interest in toxicology, Dong has found the best of both worlds.

Dong also loves to dabble in the culinary worlds of a diverse range of cultures. As she travels from country to country, she brings with her the memorable flavors of each dish she tastes. Once arriving back home, she immediately purchases cookbooks from those countries to add to her rolodex of culinary skills. As she reads each recipe on her nightstand, she dreams of ways to introduce various flavors and techniques into her dishes. A creative cook, she has no time for following measurements. Her kitchen is her sandbox and allows her to dance with each flavor in her pot, adding less sugar but a little more salt. 

Dong has been through ups and downs in her life, but there’s nothing that’s going to stop her from her passion: research. 

Post by Eubey Kang, NCSSM Class of 2025

Advancing Immunotherapy for Glioblastoma

Sticky post
Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan, associate professor in neurosurgery and pathology, and member of the Duke Cancer Institute. Credit: Duke Department of Neurosurgery

Duke professor Vidyalakshmi Chandramohan is a pioneering neuro-oncologist whose work is redefining the future of glioblastoma (GBM) treatment. As a researcher in the Department of Neurosurgery at Duke, she is driven by a profound commitment to improving patient outcomes and providing new hope for those battling one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer.

Her journey into science began with an interest in immunology and oncology, which led her to earn a Ph.D. and conduct postdoctoral research focused on the complex relationship between cancer and immune responses. Her fascination with GBM stemmed from the urgent need to develop innovative treatments for a disease with limited therapeutic options. Today, her groundbreaking research offers new avenues for fighting GBM and improving patient survival.

PET scan showing glioblastoma brain cancer. Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Chandramohan’s work is centered on immunotherapy, particularly the development of D2C7-IT, a dual-specific immunotoxin currently in Phase I clinical trials for recurrent GBM patients. This precision medicine approach targets tumors with remarkable specificity, minimizing damage to healthy tissue. Her ongoing research aims to enhance the efficacy of D2C7-IT and expand its potential as a viable alternative to traditional treatments.

For Chandramohan, translating her research into tangible solutions is essential. “Developing a therapy is one thing, but making sure it works in the real world is another,” she says. She is exploring ways to combine D2C7-IT with other therapies to improve treatment outcomes and minimize side effects, pushing the boundaries of what is possible in GBM care.

A critical aspect of her research involves identifying biomarkers that predict patient responses to treatment, enabling personalized therapies. “Personalized medicine is the future,” she believes. “Tailoring treatment to each patient’s unique response will improve survival rates and outcomes.”

Collaboration is at the heart of Chandramohan’s work. She fosters an interdisciplinary environment where scientists, clinicians, and engineers work together toward a shared goal. “No one person can do it all,” she emphasizes. “It takes a community of experts to make breakthroughs happen.”

Despite the challenges of translating research into clinical practice, Chandramohan remains unwavering in her determination. “When our work leads to better treatment options, it reminds us why we do this every day,” she says. Her dedication to improving patient care fuels her optimism for the future of GBM treatment.

Looking ahead, Chandramohan is hopeful that the integration of immunotherapy, precision medicine, and innovative technologies will revolutionize the field of neuro-oncology. “We’re just scratching the surface,” she says, confident in the potential to improve outcomes for GBM patients.

Through her relentless pursuit of excellence, Chandramohan is not only advancing the science of glioblastoma treatment but also inspiring the next generation of researchers to push the boundaries of what is possible in the fight against cancer.

Blog post by Adarsh Magesh, NCSSM Class of 2025


Advancing Care and Research in Traumatic Brain Injury

Sticky post

Meet a trailblazer in the realm of neurocritical care and emergency medicine: Dr. Katharine Rose Colton, MD. Balancing roles as a clinician, researcher, and educator, Colton serves as an Assistant Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery at Duke University. Her dedication to understanding and treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) exemplifies her commitment to improving the lives of patients facing severe neurological challenges.

TBI is a significant public health issue, often resulting from falls, motor vehicle accidents, or sports injuries. It can range from mild concussions to severe brain trauma, leaving patients in comas or with long-term disabilities. While treatments for TBI have evolved, many gaps remain in understanding how to optimize recovery and outcomes. Colton’s work bridges this divide, combining cutting-edge research with compassionate patient care.

Colton’s journey into medicine wasn’t linear. A Canadian native, she initially pursued an eclectic range of interests, including ethnobotany and anthropology, during her undergraduate studies. She pivoted to medicine, taking the MCAT on a whim and earning her M.D. from Duke University School of Medicine.

Her first exposure to TBI occurred during a research year at the University of Maryland’s Shock Trauma Center. A project initially focused on trauma surgery shifted to neurocritical care, igniting her passion for studying brain injuries. “I loved it,” she recalls. “It was a completely different way of looking at medicine.”

Colton’s clinical path led her to a residency in Emergency Medicine at Northwestern University and a fellowship in Neurocritical Care. While she enjoyed the fast-paced decision-making of emergency medicine, she found herself drawn to the intricate details of critical care. “I struggled with letting patients go and handing them off to others,” she says. “I wanted to stay involved and see the whole story unfold.”

Now focused primarily on neurocritical care, Colton dedicates a third of her time to research, primarily on clinical trials targeting severe TBI. She has worked on large-scale, multi-site studies investigating drug therapies and monitoring systems to optimize treatment for comatose patients.

Her approach to research is pragmatic: “I’m a clinician first. I want to know how the things we do today will benefit the patient tomorrow.” For instance, her current trials explore the potential of older, cost-effective drugs previously overlooked by pharmaceutical companies to improve outcomes in TBI patients. These trials adopt adaptive designs, allowing for real-time adjustments based on early results to maximize impact.

Colton is also a strong advocate for personalizing TBI treatment. “TBI is an incredibly heterogeneous condition,” she explains. “We can’t treat a 20-year-old in a car accident the same as a 70-year-old who fell. They have completely different recovery pathways.” Her work aims to identify biomarkers and refine classifications of TBI to develop more targeted interventions.

One of the most memorable cases from Colton’s career underscores her dedication to patient care. A young woman struck by a car in Chicago arrived at the ICU in a deep coma, with little hope of recovery. Months later, to Colton’s astonishment, the patient returned to work and resumed her life. “You just don’t know,” she reflects. “That case taught me the importance of patience and persistence in medicine.”

Colton’s role extends beyond the ICU, often involving interactions with patients’ families during some of their most vulnerable moments. “Families often show incredible grace, even in tragedy,” she says. “It’s humbling to see their resilience and willingness to contribute to research, even when it might not help their loved one directly.”

Despite the challenges of long, emotionally taxing weeks in the ICU, Colton finds fulfillment in both the technical and human aspects of her work. “There’s something beautiful about the physiology — adjusting treatments and seeing how the body responds,” she explains. Yet, she never loses sight of the bigger picture: the patient. “Numbers on a screen don’t matter if we’re not improving their lives.”

Outside of work, Colton enjoys paddleboarding, camping, and spending time with her two young children. Her background in ethnobotany and love for snowboarding reflect her multifaceted personality, blending curiosity, determination, and a deep appreciation for life.

Dr. Katharine Colton is shaping the future of TBI care through her dedication to research, her patients, and the families she serves. Her journey is a testament to the impact of resilience, curiosity, and compassion in medicine.

Written by Amy Lei, NCSSM class of 2025

The Dukies Cited Most Highly

Sticky post

The Web of Science ranking of the world’s most highly-cited scientists was released this morning, telling us who makes up the top 1 percent of the world’s scientists. These are the authors of influential papers that other scientists point to when making their arguments.

EDITOR’S NOTE! — Web of Science shared last year’s data! We apologize. List below is now corrected, changes to copy in bold. We’re so sorry.

Twenty-three of the citation laureates are Duke scholars or had a Duke affiliation when the landmark works were created over the last decade.

A couple of these Duke people disappeared from this year’s list, but we’re still proud of them.

Two names on the list belong to Duke’s international powerhouse of developmental psychology, the Genes, Environment, Health and Behavior Lab, led by Terrie Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi.

Dan Scolnic of Physics returns as our lone entry in Space Science, which just makes Duke sound cooler all around, don’t you think?

This is a big deal for the named faculty and an impressive line on their CVs. But the selection process weeds out “hyper-authorship, excessive self-citation and anomalous citation patterns,” so don’t even think about gaming it.

Fifty-nine nations are represented by the 6,636 individual researchers on this year’s list. About half of the citation champions are in specific fields and half in ‘cross-field’ — where interdisciplinary Duke typically dominates. The U.S. is still the most-cited nation with 36 percent of the world’s share, but shrinking slightly. Mainland China continues to rise, claiming second place with 20 percent of the cohort, up 2.5 percent from just last year. Then, in order, the UK, Germany and Australia round out the top five.

Tiny Singapore, home of the Duke NUS Graduate Medical School, is the tenth-most-cited with 1.6 percent of the global share.

In fact, five Duke NUS faculty made this year’s list: Antonio Bertoletti, Derek Hausenloy and Jenny Guek-Hong Low for cross-field; Carolyn S. P. Lam for clinical medicine, and the world famous “Bat Man,” Lin-Fa Wang, for microbiology.

Okay, you scrolled this far, let’s go!

Biology and Biochemistry

Charles A. Gersbach

Clinical Medicine

Christopher Bull Granger

Adrian F. Hernandez

Gary Lyman

Cross-Field

Priyamvada Acharya

Chris Beyrer

Stefano Curtarolo

Vance G. Fowler Jr.

Po-Chun Hsu (adjunct, now U. Chicago)

Ru-Rong Ji

William E. Kraus

David B. Mitzi

Christopher B. Newgard

Pratiksha I. Thakore (now with Genentech)

Xiaofei Wang

Mark R. Wiesner

Environment and Ecology

Robert B. Jackson (adjunct, now Stanford U.)

Microbiology

Barton F. Haynes

Neuroscience and Behavior

Quinn T. Ostrom

Plant and Animal Science

Sheng-Yang He

Psychiatry and Psychology

Avshalom Caspi

William E. Copeland

Terrie E. Moffitt

Space Science

Dan Scolnic

Wiring the Brain

From tiny flies, Duke researchers are finding new clues to how the brain sets up its circuitry.

In her time at Duke, Khanh Vien figures she’s dissected close to 10,000 fly brains. For her PhD she spent up to eight hours each day peering at baby flies under the microscope, teasing out tiny brains a fraction the size of a poppy seed.

“I find it very meditative,” she said.

Vien acknowledges that, to most people, fruit flies are little more than a kitchen nuisance; something to swat away. But to researchers like her, they hold clues to how animal brains — including our own — are built.

While the human brain has some 86 billion neurons, a baby fruit fly’s brain has a mere 3016 — making it millions of times simpler. Those neurons talk to each other via long wire-like extensions, called axons, that relay electrical and chemical signals from one cell to the next.

Vien and other researchers in Professor Pelin Volkan’s lab at Duke are interested in how that wiring gets established during the fly’s development.

By analyzing a subset of neurons responsible for the fly’s sense of smell, the researchers have identified a protein that helps ensure that new neurons extend their axons to the correct spots in the olfactory area of the young fly’s brain and not elsewhere.

Because the same protein is found across the animal kingdom, including humans, the researchers say the work could ultimately shed light on what goes awry within the brains of people living with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Their findings are published in the journal iScience.

Khanh Vien earned her PhD in developmental and stem cell biology in Professor Pelin Volkan’s lab at Duke.
Robin Smith
By Robin Smith

Pioneering New Treatments in Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease

Note: Each year, we partner with Dr. Amy Sheck’s students at the North Carolina School of Science and Math to profile some unsung heroes of the Duke research community. This is the second of eight posts.

Meet a star in the realm of academic medicine – Dr. Kyle Todd Mitchell!

A man who wears many hats – a neurologist with a passion for clinical care, an adventurous researcher, and an Assistant Professor of Neurology at Duke – Mitchell finds satisfaction in the variety of work, which keeps him “driven and up to date in all the different areas.”

Dr. Mitchell holds a deep brain stimulation device.

Dr. Mitchell’s educational journey is marked by excellence, including a fellowship at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, a Neurology Residency at Washington University School of Medicine, and an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia. Beyond his professional accolades, he leads an active life, enjoying running, hiking, and family travels for rejuvenation. 

Dr. Mitchell’s fascination with neurology ignited during his exposure to the field in medical school and residency. It was a transformative moment when he witnessed a patient struggling with symptoms experience a sudden and remarkable improvement through deep brain stimulation. This therapy involves the implantation of a small electrode in the brain, offering targeted stimulation to control symptoms and bringing relief to individuals grappling with the challenges of Parkinson’s Disease.

“You don’t see that often in medicine, almost like a light switch, things get better and that really hooked me,” he said. The mystery and complexity of the brain further captivated him. “Everything comes in as a bit of a mystery, I liked the challenge of how the brain is so complex that you can never master it.” 

Dr. Mitchell’s research is on improving deep brain stimulation to alleviate the symptoms of  Parkinson’s disease, the second most prevalent neurodegenerative disorder, which entails a progressive cognitive decline with no cure. Current medications exhibit fluctuations, leading to tremors and stiffness as they wear off. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), FDA-approved for over 20 years, provides a promising alternative. 

Dr. Mitchell’s work involves creating adaptive algorithms that allow the device to activate when needed and deactivate so it is almost “like a thermostat.” He envisions a future where biomarkers recorded from stimulators could predict specific neural patterns associated with Parkinson’s symptoms, triggering the device accordingly. Dr. Mitchell is optimistic, stating that the “technology is very investigational but very promising.”

A key aspect of Dr. Mitchell’s work is its interdisciplinary nature, involving engineers, neurosurgeons, and fellow neurologists. Each member of the team brings a unique expertise to the table, contributing to the collaborative effort required for success. Dr. Mitchell emphasizes, “None of us can do this on our own.”

Acknowledging the challenges they face, especially when dealing with human subjects, Dr. Mitchell underscores the importance of ensuring research has a high potential for success. However, the most rewarding aspect, according to him, is being able to improve the quality of life for patients and their families affected by debilitating diseases.

Dr. Mitchell has a mindset of constant improvement, emphasizing the improvement of current technologies and pushing the boundaries of innovation. 

“It’s never just one clinical trial — we are always thinking how we can do this better,” he says. 

The pursuit of excellence is not without its challenges, particularly when attempting to improve on already effective technologies. Dr. Mitchell juggles his hats of being an educator, caregiver, and researcher daily. So let us tip our own hats and be inspired by Dr. Mitchell’s unwavering dedication to positively impact the lives of those affected by neurological disorders.

Guest post by Amy Lei, North Carolina School of Science and Math, Class of 2025.

Most Highly Cited: 30 for ’23

It’s that most wonderful time of the year: The official list of Clarivate’s Most Highly Cited Scientists came out this morning.  Scientists all over the world came racing down the stairs in their PJs to see if Clarivate had left a treat under the tree for them.

L-R: Odgers, Scolnic, Dong, Hernandez, Harrington, Smith, Ostrom and Lopes.

Good news – there are 30 Duke names on the list!

Being highly cited is a point of pride for researchers. To make the cut, a paper has to be ranked in the top 1 percent for its field for the last decade. Clarivate’s “Institute for Scientific Information” crunches all the numbers.

Mostly, the names on this year’s list of Duke authors are the usual titans. Oddly, some returning names have changed categories since last year — but that’s okay, they’re still important.

And there are three fresh faces: Cardiologist Renato Delascio Lopes, MD Ph.D., who studies atrial fibrillation; David R. Smith Ph.D. of physics and electrical engineering, who’s a leading light in the field of metamaterials; and Dan Scolnic Ph.D. of physics, who’s measuring the expansion of the universe and trying to figure out the dark energy that apparently drives it.

Five of the Duke names on the list this year are co-authors in the Terrie Moffit and Avshalom Caspi lab, a hugely influential group of psychologists and social scientists. Honnalee Harrington, Renate Houts, Caspi, Moffitt, and UC Irvine professor and Duke adjunct Candice Odgers are studying human development from cradle to grave using two cohorts of life-long study participants in New Zealand and England.

Two other longitudinal scientists, Jane Costello and William Copeland of the Great Smoky Mountains Study, are also on the list.

There are 6,938 highly cited scientists this year, from 69 countries and regions. Several appear in more than one division. The United States still dominates with 38 percent of the honorees, but Chinese scientists are on the rise at 16 percent.

The most highly cited Duke authors are:

Biology and Biochemistry

Charles A. Gersbach

Clinical Medicine

Christopher Bull Granger             

Adrian F. Hernandez      

Renato D. Lopes              

Cross-Field

Stefano Curtarolo

Xinnian Dong    

HonaLee Harrington

Renate Houts   

Tony Jun Huang               

Ru-Rong Ji

Robert Lefkowitz

Jason Locasale  

David B. Mitzi    

Christopher B. Newgard               

Michael J. Pencina    

Bryce B. Reeve                      

Pratiksha I. Thakore       

Mark R. Wiesner              

Microbiology    

Barton F. Haynes

Neuroscience and Behavior

Quinn T. Ostrom                              

Pharmacology and Toxicology

Evan D. Kharasch             

Physics

David R. Smith  

Plant and Animal Science

Sheng Yang He                 

Psychiatry and Psychology

Avshalom Caspi                

E. Jane Costello

Terrie E. Moffitt

Space Science  

Dan Scolnic        

Duke Affiliated:

Cross Field

Po-Chun Hsu – University of Chicago, Adjunct Assistant Professor in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Pratt School of Engineering

Candice Odgers, UC Irvine, Adjunct at Duke

Environment and Ecology

Robert B. Jackson, Stanford University, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Ocean Science at Nicholas School of the Environment

William E. Copeland, University of Vermont, adjunct in psychiatry and behavioral sciences, School of Medicine.

Page 1 of 15

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén