Here should be noted that the widely quoted “sensitivity” of microtubules to
external electric and magnetic fields is indeed (1) arrangement along the field
strength lines of the microtubules (Vassilev et al., 1982), (2) electrophoretic
mobility (Vater et al., 1998; Stracke et al., 2001; 2002) and (3) use of high
intensity magnetic field exceeding 7.6 tesla in order to produce aligned samples
of hydrated microtubules suitable for low-resolution x-ray fiber diffraction
experiments (Bras et al., 1998). All these microtubule-electromagnetic field
interactions have no direct biological importance and this “sensitivity” should not
be used as proof of in vivo existing such interaction.
In contrast attractive neuromolecular model based upon the tubulin tail function is
proposed in which tubulin tails are “sensitive” to local changes of the
intraneuronal electric field strength and direction. Positively and negatively
charged quasiparticles (solitons) are formed and propagate on the microtubular
surface transferring information and energy without dissipation and exhibiting
long-range correlations. The tubulin C-termini function is essentially linked both
to the electrophysiologic input (fast response) and to biochemical cascades
(memorization). Thus the Q-mind hypothesis is presented in “new face” meeting
the classical neuroscience.
The conclusion from the presented data is that before starting microtubule
quantum modeling it is useful to be acquainted with the specific intracellular
microenvironment. The local electric field in the brain cortex is the carrier of
information to our mind (Dobelle, 2000), that’s why if microtubules are linked to
the cognitive processes in brain their interaction with the electric field is crucial
and must be taken into account in the future models.
78