Ques%on 1.

- Experiment 1a: Tes%ng the Necessity of the Gene for Light Touch Sensing in Hair Follicles

Hypothesis: Mice deficient in our desired gene will have decreased sensi%vity to light touch
s%muli. If our desired gene is required for light touch sensing in hair follicles.

• Experimental Group: Gene knockout mice, which are created by gene%c engineering and
lack the desired gene (loss of func%on experiment).
• Control Group: Wild-type mice with the intact desired gene.

• Expected Result: Gene knockout animals should have a markedly diminished or

nonexistent response to light touch s%muli in comparison to wild-type mice if the gene
is required for light touch sensing.

• Jus%fica%on: The lack of a reac%on in gene knockout mice would suggest that the
desired gene is required for the hair follicles' ability to detect light touch. The wild-type
mice are used as a control to demonstrate that the touch s%mula%on is, in fact,
percep%ble under typical circumstances.

- Experiment 1b: Tes%ng the Sufficiency of the Gene for Light Touch Sensing in Hair
Follicles

Hypothesis: If our desired gene is sufficient for detec%ng light touch in hair follicles, then adding
this gene into mice who do not naturally express it ought to make them sensi%ve to light touch
s%muli.

• Experimental Group: Transgenic mice that lack the desired gene but have been
gene%cally modified to express it (gain of func%on experiment).
• Control Group 1: Mice without the desired gene without any gene%c modifica%on.
• Control Group 2: Wild-type mice with the intact desired gene.

• Expected Result:
If the gene is sufficient for light touch sensing, the transgenic mice should exhibit
responses similar to or indis%nguishable from the wild-type mice. Control Group 1 (mice
without the gene) should show a reduced or absent response.

• Jus%fica%on:
The presence of responses comparable to those seen in wild-type mice in transgenic
mice would lend credence to the no%on that the desired gene alone is sufficient to
detect light touch in hair follicles. By ac%ng as a nega%ve control, Control Group 1
demonstrates that the introduc%on of the gene is the cause of the observed response.
The presence of the touch s%mulus in the experimental seVngs can be verified by
Control Group 2.
Ques%on 2.
- Scenario 1: the normal scenario illustrated above, in which each DCN receives
convergent input from 3 receptor cells and each receptor cell projects to 3 DCN
neurons.

- Scenario 2: density of receptor cells in the skin is increased (to 6 in the illustrated patch
of skin rather than 3) and the level of convergence and divergence is increased such
that each DCN neuron receives input from 5 receptor cells and each receptor cell
projects to 5 DCN neurons.

- Scenario 3: the density of receptor cells in the skin is increased (to 6 in the illustrated
patch of skin rather than 3), but they maintain the same level of convergence and
divergence (i.e. each DCN neuron s%ll receives input from 3 receptors, and each
receptor s%ll projects to 3 DCN neurons).

2a) Comparison of the Number of DCN Neurons in Scenario 2 vs. Scenario 1 and Scenario 3 vs.
Scenario 1:
(Number of Receptors) × (Convergence Factor)
Number of DCN Neurons =
𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
- Scenario 1: #DCN = (3 x 3)/3 = 3
- Scenario 2: #DCN = (6 x 5)/5 = 6
- Scenario 3: #DCN = (6 x 3)/3 = 6
- In both scenario 2 and 3 the number of DCNs increase

2b) Scenario 3 would lead to smaller DCN recep%ve fields when compared to Scenario 1.
This is because Scenario 3 is just a more densely packed version of Scenario 1 and
therefore, the area of skin containing a par%cular number of receptors would be smaller.
In comparing Scenarios 2 and 1, the higher convergence ra%o means that DCN neurons would
receive inputs from receptors covering roughly the same area of skin in
Scenarios 1 and 2, meaning that the DCN recep%ve field size will remain roughly the
same.

2c) assump%on: no lateral inhibi%on

Scenario 3 would have similar signal-to-noise as Scenario 1 because in both cases DCN neurons
are pooling the inputs from the same number of receptors (3).
Scenario 2 would have higher signal-to-noise than Scenario 1 because the higher level of
convergence means that each DCN pools/averages the signal from more cells,
thereby increasing signal-to-noise.