- cross-posted to:
- science@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- science@beehaw.org
In our latest attempts to make lab rats immortal, a new compound has been shown to reverse late stage Alzheimer’s disease in lab mice. This is a rare case where the title isn’t even clickbait.
With all the things we have learned from mice physiology, we could make them super-mice that had supreme physique, intelligence and lived well for a hundred years - move over AGI, the mice overlords are here…
Unfortunately, mice don’t get Alzheimer’s disease. This has been a claim for a while in animal models. I’m sure it’s good scientific work, but the press release is making wild claims.
I bet the mice wish they could forget they are stuck in a lab
only the bad ones ;_; The one where they learn to drive sounds fun af. Can’t wait for the human trials in Maryland.
Oh bullshit I saw that Stargate guy get sick and then it was monkeys monkeys monkeys.
On the one hand, I really really want it to be a world-changing breakthrough for real this time. I’ve been losing my dad to Alzheimer’s for several years now and even if it’s too late for him I would just hope that nobody else has to go through that in the future. On the other hand, knowing that it’s someone’s business model to jerk at my hope and heart-strings for ad engagement has me more or less ready to fire futurism into the fucking sun
Right so Alzheimer’s results in the death of neurons.
Humans cannot regrow neurons. Most animals cannot.
The few exceptions are in one small area of the brains limbic system.
Again. Not supported to happen in humans. But some theories say it might.
Even so. There is no drug that can restore neurons lost.
No drug that can restore the connections between neurons that are lost.
There already were drugs discovered 20 years ago that cure rats of AD related plaques and tau proteins. Doesn’t work in humans . Probably because those rats are genetically engineered to produce plaques and tau proteins.
Not the same as a human disease model.
There is no drug that can restore neurons lost.
Might be a stupid question, but could stem cells do that?
So a few things.
The brain tissue is formed in layers.
Each layer has specific types of neurons and specific types of connections. Which connect specific regions.
when your brain develops as an embryo, there are two primary ways that neuron connections are formed to make sure the right type of neuron with the right pathway is made.
-
Scaffolding. Othe types of neurons and cells are grown in a way so that neurons can “grow up them”. Think of like lattice fences for vine plants. Chemical signals are also sent that tell these neurons where to grow and where to connect. Kind of like a “hey buddy, over here”.
-
The other big one is folding of brain sections.
This part is kinda insane but as the brain is developing it starts sectioning out pretty early and then these sections do this folding thing. Where they sort of turn themselves inward. This folding also helps form the layers of the brain within the sub organs of the brain. Like the brain stem, hippocampus thalamus (other parts of limbic system) etc. There are a lot of sub organs in the brain.
And I guess the 3rd thing I should mention even though you probably figured it out is that these two things cannot occur in adults.
The scaffolding thing isn’t quite as simple as I’ve said. But trust me. It can’t occur in adults either.
So now you know two fundamentals of neuro development that even a fair number of people in my field seem to be ignorant of.
Now what does this mean. ?
It means you can’t just “repair” or “replace” missing tissue.
This is why there aren’t any mammals that regrow brain tissue. None regrow cortical tissue.
The only neurogenesis (neuron growth) observed is a small tiny area in the hippocampus (part of limbic system ) and that’s a whole other complicated thing. But I’m willing to give you the basics if you want. Just ask.
Okay so. Back to fixing the brain.
Same problem as fixing severed nerves in the spine but actually worse. You can’t get a neuron to make a connection if there isn’t scaffolding. So you can strengthen something if there is something there that new connections can follow. This is why some people can restore some nerve loss. If there are some nerves still connected then with physical and occupational therapy, new connections can be formed and strengthened. (I’m talking about limbs, not brain. Such as with spinal injury. In strokes it works differently; by reprogramming existing architecture).
But if there is nothing then that is not possible.
You also can’t easily tell a stem cell to grow into a very specific type of neuron and connect in the right way.
A large portion of neurons are inhibitory. And they must be placed properly.
I give this example to explain why stem cells can’t fix a brain
Let’s say you have a circuit board. And some circuits are burnt out. So you cut up a bunch of pieces of solder and thin wires and scatter it on top of the circuit board and try to power it up.
There is pretty much no way that adding stem cells to the brain won’t result in bad things happening.
There was a study that did this… It gave people brain tumors.
There are still on going studies to potentially use stem cells but honestly there is a very good reason why mammals can’t regrow cortical tissue.
I did a quick search and was surprised to see people still trying to do this line of research. As I said with the circuit board example, you can’t control the errors that would be created.
Brain neuron connections (aka the architecture) is the mind. You can’t alter these without people loosing something.
A few years ago (7 ish years?) when the study I’m thinking of came out, there was a lot of talk and a lot of studies were cancelled. I was working in pharm Alzheimer’s research at the time at a clinic. I remember people thought it was going to be some miracle fix. But the brain is much more complicated than , like regrowing a damaged kidney or something.
Which also isn’t currently possible with modern medicine.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_cerebral_cortex
Here this “neural tube” is talking about that folding I was referring to. During embryo development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_tube
There is also cortical folding (brain wrinkles) that form during later development. That’s a different thing but also ads to the difficulty of repairing the brain.
I’ve got my neuro anatomy book out. It has some great images so here they are. I think the way the brain folds in is really cool.
Also. First image is the front of the book. I also have a ebook copy somewhere I got for free on library genesis.
It’s an anatomy book. So it’s not light reading. But it’s also full of real brain images. So if you are interested in the topic, get it on library genesis.
-
the problem would be getting a specific type of stem cell to do that, likely a pluripotent rather than a totipotent(which is usually a blastocyst after fertiliation) to differentiate into a nerve cell and not continue growing or dividing. because cancer behaves pretty much like a stem cells, if not some are stem cells themselves.
You should really look up human brain organoids, how they are created, and what we are doing with them. You can rent one and make it…do…think things. Sometimes they grow eyes.

Sometimes they grow eyes.
They don’t just randomly sprout eyes, you have to give them the hormone that makes eyes develop to have them start.
The most recent Radiolab episode was on exactly that topic.
Wow thanks for this, that was an amazing podcast.
Not until after the orange man is gone. Please.
Where is that comic about reporters creating misinformed headlines about science?
An unforgettable moment for those mice
Underrated comment.
Odds are it is at least somewhat bullshit, oversold, to garner more funding.
In a mouse model. The mice don’t have alzheimers they have… something we gave them that looks like it… Hopefully it is similar enough
Happy to see Lemmy has a “in a rat”-guy as well.
We… we gave… Alzheimer’s to mice…?
Are we the baddies?
We did something to the mice then rescued it in a different way. Hooray! Next we’ll save test tubes from cancer…again.

I feel like if the average person had any remote idea just how gloriously, horrifyingly complicated the human body is, we would be simultaneously far more skeptical of press releases, and far, far more invested in the actual science going on to figure out how to keep the whole cathedral from collapsing.
If you can’t get excited by incremental advancements, you should probably unsubscribe from science as a topic.
There are ways to do good, approachable, clickable science communication without resorting to lies, ommission, or exaggeration which is futurism.com’s whole schtick. There’s so much happening in science that doesn’t get covered by these low-quality sensationalist outlets because a misleading headline about petri dish cancer or mouse Alzheimer’s gets more clicks and requires far less research than an article about whatever interesting advancements actually happened in science this week.
I agree the field is full of subpar sensationalist coverage. I didn’t find this case so terrible as such things go. People in the thread were all freaking out about how “It’s not really Alzheimer’s, it’s something like Alzheimer’s which we did to the mice! Nothing to see here!”
Which is an overreaction. On the one hand it should be obvious up front that mice cannot have actual human Alzheimer’s because they are fucking mice. So setting those semantics aside, something happened here, and people seemed disappointed that it wasn’t everything.
So I think both of our points are valid here. Yes, coverage of science is terrible, but anyone who wants to follow science should be prepared for some very incremental advancements.
Dude it’s worse than that. I was a working neuroscientist for almost twenty years. So…jaded.
Do tell
There is a lot of incremental research that gets transformed into ZOMG YOU GUYS!!! by the research office. The journals are full of papers demonstrating a complete rescue of a disease model ( and I’m an author on some of them). What the papers are really demonstrating is the inadequacy of the animal model.
This is why almost everyone does development, not research.
There has been a fucking epidemic of MD/scientists running to the media with miracle cures lately.
Mice do not get Alzheimers, they were engineered to show one aspect of the disease that has been promoted by fraudulent studies. As for the reversal, mouse brains are highly plastic and similar to a human baby, nothing like a >60 year old.
HAH HEY EVERYONE THIS GUY THINKS MICE HAVE BRAINS MADE OF PLASTIC /s
Well I hear we are adding more plastic to the brain through micro dosing micro plastics in our every day lives. Wait…
Yeah, I didn’t read the whole thing but apparently only in 5xFAD mice. I wish they would have also tried it in a Tau model like PS19.
Both pointless. Mice do not get neuronal loss like human disease. These diseases have been stalled for 30 years on animal models generating “high impact” manuscripts that go nowhere.
Meanwhile, in human research, just taking vaccines can lower AD incidence by 30%. For real, proven. Not “soon”, not “within 5 years” . That is far mor relevant than animal model studies.
If you’re talking about the infectious brain hypothesis, I agree. I’m submitting a manuscript on this topic right now. I wouldn’t say that all mouse studies are pointless though. People just tend to design and/or interpret them poorly due to ignoring limitations. Mouse and human physiology are in fact more dissimilar than the majority of researchers seem to acknowledge.
Mouse grandpa: John?
Mouse Grandson: Grampa, you remember me?
Mouse grandpa: Yes, I remember. It’s all coming back now. You ate my cheese and fucked my wife you piece of shit!
Sounds of mouse battle reverberating
Ew.
Oh, yeah? How come they still cant tell us how fucking magnets work?
Eat shit, “science.”
I believe this population of super-mice we are making that are immune to all disease will be the dominant life form on earth after we have extincted ourselves. Im in favor of this future.
42
They will do our bidding in forever thanks to us.
Scientific advancements often seem like the only good news we ever seem to get.
Any drug would cost 20 million a course. Not even exagerating there either. A new one is doing dynamic pricing, charging some as much as 3 million and others over 1 million for a course. For drugs developed with goddamned charity money.
Don’t worry, they’ll get monetized to hell.
While often true, they still end up making life better for millions of people often enough to be worth it.













