Researchers find the organization of the human brain to be nearly ideal

July 6, 2015
A new strategy for mapping networks, from those underlying the Internet to the human brain, suggests possibilities for repairing damaged connections and disrupting dangerous ones. Credit: iStock

Have you ever wondered why the human brain evolved the way it did?

A new study by Northeastern physicist Dmitri Krioukov and his colleagues suggests an answer: to expedite the transfer of information from one brain region to another, enabling us to operate at peak capacity.

The paper, published in the July 3 issue of Nature Communications, reveals that the structure of the has an almost ideal of connections—the links that permit information to travel from, say, the auditory cortex (responsible for hearing) to the motor cortex (responsible for movement) so we can do everything from raise our hand in class in response to a question to rock out to the beat of The 1975.

The findings represent more than a confirmation of our evolutionary progress. They could have important implications for pinpointing the cause of neurological disorders and eventually developing therapies to treat them.

"An optimal network in the brain would have the smallest number of connections possible, to minimize cost, and at the same time it would have maximum navigability—that is, the most direct pathways for routing signals from any possible source to any possible destination," says Krioukov. It's a balance, he explains, raising and lowering his hands to indicate a scale. The study presents a new strategy to find the connections that achieve that balance or, as he puts it, "the sweet spot."

Krioukov, an associate professor in the Department of Physics, studies networks, from those related to massive Internet datasets to those defining our brains. In the new research, he and his co-authors used sophisticated statistical analyses based on Nobel laureate John Nash's contributions to game theory to construct a map of an idealized brain network—one that optimized the transfer of information. They then compared the idealized map of the brain to a map of the brain's real network and asked the question "How close are the two?"

Researchers find the organization of the human brain to be nearly ideal
Krioukov and his colleagues discovered that the structure of the human brain has an almost ideal network of connections (magenta), enabling optimal transmission of information from one part of the brain to another.

Remarkably so. They were surprised to learn that 89 percent of the connections in the idealized brain network showed up in the real as well. "That means the brain was evolutionarily designed to be very, very close to what our algorithm shows," says Krioukov.

The scientists' strategy bucks tradition: It lets function—in this case, navigability—drive the structure of the idealized network, thereby showing which links are essential for optimal navigation. Most researchers in the field, says Krioukov, build models of the real network first, and only then address function, an approach that does not highlight the most crucial links.

The new strategy is also transferable to a variety of disciplines. The study, whose co-authors are at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, mapped six diverse navigable networks in total, including that of the Internet, U.S. airports, and Hungarian roads. The Hungarian road network, for example, gave travelers the "luxury to go on a road trip without a map," the authors wrote.

Future applications of the research cross disciplines, too. Knowing what links in a network are the most critical for navigation tells you where to focus protective measures, whether the site is the Internet, roadways, train routes, or flight patterns. "Conversely, if you're a good guy facing a terrorist network, you know what links to attack first," says Krioukov. A systems designer could locate the missing connections necessary to maximize the navigability of a computer network and add them.

In the brain, the links existing in the idealized network are likely those required for normal brain function, says Krioukov. He points to a maze of magenta and turquoise tangles coursing through a illustration in his paper and traces the magenta trail, which is present in both the ideal and real brains. "So we suspect that they are the primary candidates to look at if some disease develops—to see if they are damaged or broken." Looking to the future, he speculates that once such links are identified, new drugs or surgical techniques could perhaps be developed to target them and repair, or circumvent, the damage.

"At the end of the day, what we are trying to do is to fix the diseased network so that it can resume its normal function," says Krioukov.

Explore further: Popularity versus similarity: A balance that predicts network growth

More information: "Navigable networks as Nash equilibria of navigation games." Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7651 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms8651

Related Stories

Fight or flight neural pathway mapped in mouse brain

June 26, 2015

(Medical Xpress)—A team of researchers working at the Chinese Academy of Sciences has succeeded in mapping the neural pathway that is involved when a mouse sees something frightening. In their paper published in the journal ...

Mapping new paths for stressed-out Internet

September 10, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The San Diego Supercomputer Center and Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) at the University of California, San Diego, in a collaboration with researchers from Universitat de Barcelona ...

Recommended for you

37 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
5 / 5 (5) Jul 06, 2015
This is the kind of research that adds to our understanding of neural networks and brains as general systems. I await the day when we have proper generalized models for analyzing these systems.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2015
"ideal" is rank stinking teleology.
Eikka
5 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2015
"ideal" is rank stinking teleology.


Or just referring to the ideal behind the model.

Ideal doesn't necessarily mean "perfect". When in physics you say "ideal gas", you don't mean the best kind of gas, but one that behaves according to certain mathematical assumptions. It's the archetype of what a gas is like, rather than what gasses are supposed to be like.

If then, you find a substance that behaves accordingly, you can identify it as a gas because it resembles the idea of a gas. In the same way, if the real brain structure resembles the ideal of a certain kind of transmission network, you can make certain inferences about what the brain is doing and being.
rpaul_bauman
1 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2015
"ideal" is junk. If my brain were even close to "ideal" , I would be 1,000,000 times smarter. And you can easily see I am not. One is not even close to the brain if you summulate the brain with say 1.000,000 conections. And the diagram above doesn't show 1000.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2015
"ideal" is junk. If my brain were even close to "ideal" , I would be 1,000,000 times smarter.

You always have to ask "ideal for what". Our brains are evolved for "find food, find mate, don't get eaten by predators" - we've just repurposed this for a bunch of other things (like solving differential equations)

'Ideal' here is providing the above functionality with least amount of cost (biomass/energy expenditure) used.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2015
'Ideal' here is providing the above functionality with least amount of cost (biomass/energy expenditure) used.


Teleology means basically to explain something based on some percieved purpose. The brains have no purpose and therefore they don't provide any specific functionality. They simply are.

What the brains are depends on what kind of brains can be. The ideal brain is exactly what exists, because it exists, because it needs not be anything else to exist. It wouldn't exist more if it were different in some respect.

Whether these brains then follow any other ideals such as energy efficiency, and to what extent, depends on how much they need to.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2015
Teleology means basically to explain something based on some percieved purpose. The brains have no purpose and therefore they don't provide any specific functionality. They simply are.

That makes no sense. If a brain had no functionality then - during its evolution - any member of the species that had none would have had a vast evolutionary advantage (as all the food/energy needed by the 'brainy' one for the construction and upkeep could have gone to better uses - like mating earlier and more often).
It would have gone the way of all traits that aren't of any benefit - that of the dodo. And being such an energy intensive organ it would have done so very, very fast.
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jul 08, 2015
Brains do not evolve. All cell type differentiation in all cells of all tissues of all organs and all organ systems is nutrient-dependent.

The honeybee model organism links nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled brain development to the development of the human brain via the conserved molecular mechanisms of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry.

Cell type differentiation is constrained by nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions.

See: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353
Excerpt: "The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli (Kohl, 2012)."

The brain is an ecological adaptation.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2015
Brains do not evolve.

Some don't seem to. You are a prime candidate of that.
In truth though even yours is a step in evolution. Unfortunately your genetics mutation from the mixture of your parents genes led to your developing the extreme mental illness you show so regularly everywhere you post. Is that why you really hate evolution and mutations and refuse to change your beliefs even when proven wrong so much?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
Brains do not evolve.
@jk
so, you are saying that this brain, in all it's glory, sprang immediately from nothing suddeny?
out of what? - a penchant for peanuts? or was it sugar, which feeds it?

if we have brains which are "an ecological adaptation" based upon our diet, why did it spring forth into what we have today and not simply stay the same as a chimp or orangutan, or something similar?
Why not even a hummingbird?

Just because you want to obfuscate biological processes and create word-salads with techno-jargon doesn't mean you comprehend biology: to date, you have epically FAILED to interpret a single study where the authors have given feedback on your "interpretations" of their work.

that kind of failure suggest: Dunning-Kruger, Narcissism, mental illness and a lot more (See JSDark above)
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2015
That makes no sense. If a brain had no functionality then


You misread. Brains don't have any specific -function-

That is, they're not supposed to do anything, just like a stone on the ground isn't supposed to be there. It is there because it can be there.
Eikka
1 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2015
The editing function is out of whack.

Basically, to say that brains have evolved to "find food and avoid predators at minimum energy cost" is to give a teleological purpose for evolution - as if it was seeking a goal set by some other entity.

Imagine you had a conveyor belt, and along the belt there are different shaped gates much like in the game show "Hole in the Wall", and you place inanimate objects on the belt and see what comes out the other end. The objects tumble down through the gates along the belt, and at the end you see one that wasn't caught.

Do you say that the reason it got there was because that was its purpose, or because it just happened to tumble the right way?

Similiarily, every living evolving being is on a random trajectory through the space of possible trait combinations, being knocked off the belt where they can't fit through, so brains aren't energy efficient because they need to be, but because other kinds of brains can't be.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2015
This is not surprising, the cortex that is tied together by more basal tissue is old - both vertebrates ("cortex") and invertebrates ("mushroom bodies") have orthologs.

@Eikka: Populations have evolved so that brains have a function. Of course the process has no telepatic, teleportation 'teleology' (comprehensive foresight). On the other hand brains are "supposed" to be there by the current organisms, their genes control for brain development in their current environment, and without it the organisms fail to procreate.

Evolution is not a "random" trajectory, selection is largely deterministic, it is a contingent trajectory (depends on stochastic variation and environment). Also, not all organism traits are selected for (spandrels) or 'best' (positive and negative selection; recent changes).
JVK
1 / 5 (6) Jul 09, 2015
...sprang immediately from nothing suddeny?


No. From plants.

http://rna-mediat...lopment/

Excerpt: It has become obvious to many serious scientists that microRNAs control the development of the body and the brain in insect species and in mammals. Control appears to involve the finely tuned balance of viral microRNAs and nutrient-dependent microRNAs.

That balance links the microRNA/messenger RNA balance to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation via amino acid substitutions in the context of the biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding.

Proper protein folding (sans mutations) links the physiology of reproduction to the fixation of amino acid substitutions in the organized genomes of all living genera.

Viruses and accumulated viral microRNAs perturb protein folding, which links them to pathology instead of to healthy longevity via what is known about nutritional epigenetics and pharmacogenomics.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Plants were created first! Viruses appear to have begun to perturb protein folding in microbes, plants, and animals after the de novo creation of light-induced amino acids, which links them to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all cells of all individuals of all genera via their biophysically constrained chemistry of nutrient-dependent protein folding and physiology of their reproduction.

"...nearly half of the 50 chicken meat samples purchased from supermarkets, street markets, and butchers in Austria contained viruses that are capable of transferring antibiotic resistance genes from one bacterium to another—or from one species to another."

See: http://phys.org/n...nce.html

In my model, it is the virus-driven changes in RNA-mediated events that link viral microRNAs to perturbed protein folding and nutrient-dependent microRNAs to healthy longevity.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
selection is largely deterministic, it is a contingent trajectory (depends on stochastic variation and environment).


What is selected?
When is it selected?

Are you deliberately being vague so that others may not see how foolish your comments actually are?

Have you, perhaps, eaten too much chicken? Viruses might have selected your brain for deterioration and malfunction that could lead others to their death by evolutionary theory.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
What is selected?
When is it selected?


In Lenski's experiment, when the translocation occurred resulting in the oxic cit+ trait, the resulting strain had better access to nutrients. Because of that, they could outgrow the ancestral strain. They became better and outcompeted. That's just one example of selection. If I described it and called it anything else besides selection, you wouldn't have a problem with it, but you have some arbitrary aversion to that word as well as "evolve".
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
"Plants were created!"

No, JVK, plants evolved.

http://www.scient...evolved/
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
If I described it and called it anything else besides selection, you wouldn't have a problem with it, but you have some arbitrary aversion to that word as well as "evolve".


Obviously, you must separate selection from evolution because you can't link what was selected to when it was selected and get to evolution. But, even if you ever link the two, they have already been separated by Nei in his textbook "Mutation-Driven Evolution."

Excerpt: "...genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements" (p. 199).

Simply put, he claims that evolution 'just happens,' not that it happens via selection. Thus, it seems you have invented your own theory, but won't tell anyone what it is.

Vietvet simply echoes what must be a very simple-minded theory.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Vietvet linked to http://www.scient...evolved/

When the food runs out but sunlight is abundant, then photosynthesis works better" to support an organism, Bhattacharya notes. And from that forced union a supergroup of extremely successful organisms—the plants—sprang.


From the dawn of creation, the light-induced de novo creation of amino acid substitutions -- via the speed of light being slowed on contact with water -- led to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all nutrient-dependent cell types in all individuals of all living genera.

"...—the plants—sprang" is akin to saying that evolution "just happens."

That is what biologically uninformed science idiots typically claim. Why do other biolgoically uninformed science idiots believe them.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
http://www.scient...evolved/
1- your paragraph of horse hooey is NOT from the link you provided

2- you have never once been able to produce empirical evidence other than "because jk said so" that links the speed of light to the de novo creation of amino acids, let alone to link it causative to "the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions"

3- pseudoscience claims without evidence can be dismissed as creationist religious horse-puckey as there is so substance to claims without evidence

PSEUDOSCIENCE is PSEUDOSCIENCE - not legitimate science
your claims are the perfect example of "what biologically uninformed science idiots typically claim", so the real question is, "Why do other biolgoically uninformed science idiots believe them"?

when you can answer that, you will answer why you believe the crock of patootie you just posted
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
Ask yourself why I am the only person who commented on this news:

Phage spread antibiotic resistance http://phys.org/n...nce.html

Ask yourself why no one commented on this news (or why comments are missing and closed):

Viruses in gut confer antibiotic resistance to bacteria
http://medicalxpr...tml#nRlv

Then, fix yourself a salad or join others who are Combating Evolution to Fight Disease.

See also: http://medicalxpr...ted.html
"... Our results show that patients who suffer from mycobacterial infections as a result of RORC mutations can be treated with interferon-γ—a potentially life-saving intervention," Casanova says. "By finding that RORC helps control the development of these two cytokines, interleukin-17 and interferon-γ, we have revealed a surprisingly dual role for RORC in human immunity to infection."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
2- you have never once been able to produce empirical evidence other than "because jk said so" that links the speed of light to the de novo creation of amino acids


I have repeatedly cited "Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism" http://dx.doi.org...hem.2202

You have also ignored the report: On the Origins of Life http://www.the-sc...of-Life/

3- pseudoscience claims without evidence can be dismissed as creationist religious horse-puckey


You are ignoring the evidence and you continue to make the claims touted in the context of pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2015
...ignored the report: ... http://www.the-sc...of-Life/
@jk
ROTFLMFAO

your "link" does not, in ANY way, link "the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"!
ROTFLMFAO

what it *does* do is suggest that
all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry. The key reaction steps are driven by ultraviolet light, use ​hydrogen sulfide as the reductant and can be accelerated by Cu(I)–Cu(II) photoredox cycling.
IOW - you are promoting Evolution and it's theory, you know that?

it also suggests
we experimentally investigate the validity of this assumption by examining the assembly of various biomolecular building blocks from prebiotically plausible intermediates and one-carbon feedstock molecules. We show that precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of ​hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2015
one last thing, jk!
from the title:
Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism

Bhavesh H. Patel, Claudia Percivalle, Dougal J. Ritson, Colm D. Duffy & John D. Sutherland
nowhere in that group or on that paper is ANY mention of the pseudoscience stupidity of Kohl... nor are you referenced, that i found!
also note, the study does NOT prove your claim
In the past two years I've learned enough about physics to link the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids
NOR does it support your BS post
... the light-induced de novo creation of amino acid substitutions -- via the speed of light being slowed on contact with water -- led to the RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions...
IT also doesn't explain why you continue to make the rest of the world suffer through your Dunning-Kruger adn PSEUDOSCIENCE

EPIC FAILURE
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 09, 2015
your "link" does not, in ANY way, link "the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"!


Is there any other science idiot who doesn't know how photosynthesis occurs?

all the cellular subsystems could have arisen simultaneously through common chemistry.


Is there any other science idiot who does not understand the link from photosynthesis to plant and animal life occurs in the context of their nutrient-dependent biophysically constrained chemistry of protein folding and the physiology of their reproduction?

http://dx.doi.org...2013_499 "Laboratory experiments have shown that the UV photo-irradiation of low-temperature ices of astrophysical interest leads to the formation of organic molecules, including molecules important for biology such as amino acids..."

Reported as: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2015
No, JVK, plants evolved.


Has anyone else ever encountered biologically uninformed science idiots like this one anywhere else but here?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2015
@JVK

How can you pretend to be a scientist and yet deny the overwhelming evidence for evolution?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
Widespread rescue of Y-linked genes by gene movement to autosomes
http://genomebiol...16/1/121

Excerpt: "...an alternative way to compensate for gene loss is to move genes from the degraded Y chromosome to other, non-sex chromosome locations..."

The inventors of neo-Darwinism are wrong. There are no "lower races" and sex differences in cell types didn't evolve.

Cell type differentiation is nutrient-dependent and controlled by the physiology of reproduction in all living genera. Experimental evidence links chromosomal rearrangements to biodiversity instead of mutations. Biologically uninformed science idiots like PZ Myers don't like that fact.

See: One crank dies, another rises to take his place
http://freethough...fSS0jRxE

"The primary demonstrable differences that distinguish us from our closest primate relatives are revealed in the structure of our chromosomes."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
your "link" does not, in ANY way, link "the speed of light on contact with water to the de novo creation of amino acids"!


Is there any other science idiot who doesn't know how photosynthesis occurs?
ROTFLMFAO
really?
you are saying that photosynthesis is the DE NOVO creation of amino acids by the speed of light impacting with water?

are you drunk?
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
I have detailed the link from the light-induced de novo creation of amino acids to cell type differentiation via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions in all genera. It is clear that chromosomal rearrangements are the source of biodiversity that biologically uninformed science idiots like PZ Myers teach others is due to mutations and evolution.

The best that other biologically uninformed science idiots can do is try to put words in my mouth.

you are saying that photosynthesis is the DE NOVO creation of amino acids by the speed of light impacting with water?


What I've said is contained in a series of published works, and this invited review of nutritional epigenetics.

Nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled ecological adaptations: from atoms to ecosystems
http://figshare.c...s/994281

anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2015
Chromosomal rearrangements are a source of SOME biodiversity. Rearrangement shuffles existing genetic material, it doesn't create novel gene sequences.
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
Rearrangement... doesn't create novel gene sequences.

Andrew Jones (aka anonymous_9001) is a biologically uninformed science idiot.

Excerpt from my invited review: "The ability of nutrients to epigenetically effect changes in base pairs and to alter the miRNA/mRNA balance appears to link food odors; cell type-specific alternative splicings of pre-mRNA; de novo gene creation and pseudogene creation; chromosomal rearrangements and the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man (Diamond, et al., 1996; J. V. Kohl, et al., 2001) (J. V. Kohl, 2012, 2013). The bottom-up epigenetic effects of food odors associated with nutrients and the top-down epigenetic effects of pheromones seem to act within the context of biophysically constrained conserved molecular mechanisms that finely tune the transcriptional output of different alleles."
JVK
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2015
DNA methylation and single nucleotide variants in the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and oxytocin receptor (OXTR) genes are associated with anxiety/depression in older women
http://www.fronti...15.00230

The obvious effect on hormones that affect behavior via a single base pair change and one amino acid substitution during the life history transitions of humans (that can be linked to hormone changes with menopause) is:

Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5

If the nutrient-dependent epigenetic link to hormones that affect behavior is not obvious to you, it may be obvious to others that you are a biologically uninformed science idiot, like Andrew Jones.

DNA methylation is RNA-directed, which links the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA.
JVK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2015
Chromosomal rearrangements are a source of SOME biodiversity...


Since 1985, the fact that chromosomal rearrangements are the source of all biodiversity has been linked from viruses to all extant biodiversity via the anti-entropic epigenetic effects of nutrient-dependent microRNAs on RNA-mediated gene duplication, which is controlled by fixation of amino acid substitutions in the context of the physiology of reproduction in all genera. In species from microbes to man, pheromones control nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated gene duplication via the physiology of reproduction.

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction http://www.ncbi.n...16290036

See also: Bacteria use DNA replication to time key decision
http://phys.org/n...ion.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
http://www.ncbi.n...BK21367/
http://www.biomed...11/S1/S1

In all cases, at least one of the two DSBs is generated by a pathologic process, such as (1) randomly-positioned breaks due to ionizing radiation, free radical oxidative damage, or spontaneous hydrolysis; (2) breaks associated with topoisomerase inhibitor treatment; or (3) breaks at direct or inverted repeat sequences, mediated by unidentified strand breakage mechanisms.


There are examples of beneficial rearrangements:

http://phys.org/n...ous.html

they are also also heavily involved in cancer:

http://www.nature...024.html
http://www.nature..._81.html
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2015
http://www.tandfo...xV61YxjU
http://creation.c...ngements

http://cshprotoco...492.full

Cells devote a significant amount of metabolism to maintaining the stability of their genome and to preventing inappropriate chromosomal rearrangements that are characteristic of many cancers.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.