Few areas of neuron behavioral research seemed more promising is the early sixties than that investigating the relationship between protein synthesis and learning. The conceptual framework for the research was derived directly from molecular biology, which had shown that genetic information is stored in nucleic acids and expressed in proteins why not acquired information as well.
The first step towards establishing a connection between protein synthesis and learning seemed to be to block memory (cause adhesion) by interrupting the production of proteins. We were fortunate in finding a non lethal dosage of puromycin that could, it first appealed, thoroughly inhibit brain protein synthesis as well as reliability produce amnesia.
Before the actual connection between protein synthesis and learning could be established however we began to have douche about whether inhibition of protein synthesis was in fact the method by which puromycin produced amnesia. First, ocher drugs, glutavimides themselves potent protein synthesis inhibitors either failed to cause amnesia in some situations where it could easily be induced by puromycin or produced an amnesia with a different time course from that of puromycin. Second, puromycin was found to inhabit protein synthesis by breaking certain amino acid chaim, and the resulting fragments were suspected of being the actual cause of amnesia is some eases. Third, puromycin was reported to cause abnormalities in the train, including seizures. Thus, not only were decreased protein synthesis and amnesia dissociated, but alternative mechanism for the amnestic action of puromycin were readily suggested.
So, puromycin turned out to be a disappointment. It came to be regarded as a poor agent for amnesia studies, although, of course, it was poor only in the context of our original paradigm of protein synthesis inhibition. In our frustration, our initial response was simply to change dregs rather than our conceptual orientation. After many such disappointments, however, it now appears unlikely, that we will make a firm connection between protein synthesis and learning merely by pursuing the approaches of the past our experience with drugs has shown that all the amnestic agents, often interfere with memory in ways that seem unrelated to their inhibition of protein synthesis. More importantly, the notion that the interruption or intensification of protein production in the train can be related in cause and affect fashion to learning non seems simplistic and unproductive. Remove the battery from a car and the car will not go Drive the car a long distance at high speed and the battery will become more highly charged. Neither of these facts proves that the battery power the car, only knowledge of the overall automotive system will reveal it mechanism of locomotion and the role of the battery with in the system.
- The primary purpose a the passage is to show that extensive experimentation has
- Mot supported the hypothesis that learning is directly dependent on protein synthesis
- Cast doubt on the value of puromycin in the newer behavioral study of learning
- Revealed the importance of amnesia in the neuron behavioral study of learning
- Demonstrated the importance of amino acid fragmentation in the induction of amnesia.
- Not yet demonstrated the applicability of molecular biology to behavioral research.
- According to the passage, neuron behaviorists initially based their belief that protein synthesis was related to learning on which of the following?
- Specific research into learning on which of the following
- Traditional theories about learning
- Historic experiments on the effects puromycin
- Previous discoveries in molecular biology
- Now technique in protein synthesis.
- This passage was most likely excepted from
- A book review in a leading journal devoted to genetic research.
- A diary kept by a practicing neuron behavioral research
- An article summarizing a series of scientific investigations in neuron behavioral research.
- A news paper article on recent advances in the biochemistry of learning
- A technical article on experimental techniques in the field of molecular biology.
- It can be inferred from the passage that after puromycin was perceived to be a disappointment, researches did which of the following?
- They continued to experiment with puromycin until a neuron anatomical framework was developed.
- They continued to experiment with puromycin, but also tried other protein synthesis inhibitors
- They ceased to experiment with puromycin and shifted to other promising protein synthesis inhibitors.
- They ceased to experiment with puromycin and reexamined through experiments the relationship between genetic information and acquired information.
- They continued to experiment with puromycin, but applied their results to other facts of memory research.
- In the example of the car (lines 62-70) the battery is meant to represent which of the following elements in the neuron behavioral research program?
- acquired information
- protein synthesis
- The passage all of the following as effects of puromycin except
- Fragmentation of amino-acid chaim
- Inhibition of protein synthesis
- Brain seizures
- Memory loss
- Destruction of genetic information
- Which of the following statements would be most likely to come after the last sentences of the passage?
- It is important in the future, therefore for behavioral bio- chemist to focus on the several components of the total learning system.
- The ambivalent status of current research, however should not deter neuron behaviorists from exploring the deeper connection between protein production and learning.
- The failures of the past, however must not impede further research into the amnestic of protein-synthesis inhibitors.
- It is important in the future, therefore, for behavioral biochemist to emphasize more strongly place of their specific findings within the overall protein synthesis model of learning.
- It is a legacy of this research, therefore, that molecular biology’s genetic models have led to disagreement among neuron behaviorists.