It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Key Brain Stem Cell Growth Stumulus Identified

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   


BETHESDA, Md., Sept. 1 (UPI) -- Key compounds that stimulate
stem-cell growth in the brain have been identified, Harvard University
scientists said.

The experts believe the discovery may some day lead to restored
function for people afficted by strokes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's
disease and a wide range of neurological disorders.

The report, in the current issue of The FASEB Journal, says the findings
provide important clues as to which compounds may be responsible for
causing key brain cells called neurons to regenerate and ultimately
restore brain function.


SOURCE:
Science Daily


This is very interesting and cool.
Hopefully because of this and other findings like it by 2030 half
the neurolgical disorders that plague humans will be solved.


Comments, Opinions?




posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
very interesting, too bad they didn't give a hint how they did it. i'd wager the ultimate challenge is promoting cellgrowth in vivo, no surgery required...


did you find it strange that brain cells have the capability to regenerate but normally don't use it? where's the evolutionary sense in that?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
did you find it strange that brain cells have the capability to regenerate but normally don't use it? where's the evolutionary sense in that?

Maybe it's an evolutionary glitch, or something that hasan of and
on switch that gets turned off for the majority of life.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
very interesting, too bad they didn't give a hint how they did it. i'd wager the ultimate challenge is promoting cellgrowth in vivo, no surgery required...


did you find it strange that brain cells have the capability to regenerate but normally don't use it? where's the evolutionary sense in that?


The "evolutionary sense" is that too many neural cells will quickly lead to empty synapses. This is the cause of nearly all chemical imbalance issues. The body would have no way of knowing how to mirror the connections amde prior to a massive injury, just as reconstructed muscle often heals differently than the pre-injury muscle.

Mariella



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
The "evolutionary sense" is that too many neural cells will quickly lead to empty synapses. This is the cause of nearly all chemical imbalance issues. The body would have no way of knowing how to mirror the connections amde prior to a massive injury, just as reconstructed muscle often heals differently than the pre-injury muscle.

Mariella


OK, I have a question, in that case would it mean you'd have a different personality, or be a different person than before if the damage had been significant enough?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
The "evolutionary sense" is that too many neural cells will quickly lead to empty synapses. This is the cause of nearly all chemical imbalance issues. ..




The capability of cell division per se does not mean uncontrolled growth (= tumor), does it?. new neural tissue would have to be re-wired from the get-go, that's true, but it still beats a scar or missing tissue by a wide margin.

the 'cost' of having the capability (if such a cost even exists) has already been paid, yet the mechanism remains unused. the real question at this point would be why and how it was evolutionarily developed in the first place, without feedback according to functionality and therefore selective value.

to illustrate my final point about compensation gradual brain damage and its minimal effect (compared to the same damage inflicted traumatically), i suggest www.enidreed.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">this link which leads me to conclude that gradual damage could easily be compensated without side effects IF there was a way to activate it in vivo.


another interesting fact about regeneration in children: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

dormant regenerative capabilities should raise a few eyebrows, imho, anyone can come up with superficially plausible explanations, but how many of these claims have ever been scientifically scrutinized ?



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
but how many of these claims have ever been scientifically scrutinized ?


www.uhn.ca...

www.uhnres.utoronto.ca...

Well it doesn't answer your question, but it does show that the Academic community is taking the cause of Regenerative Medicine seriously. The MRL Mouse study could prove to be a considerably potent catalyst in this field of research.



posted on Apr, 2 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
thanks for the links (especially the 2nd), i've heard of the X- /MRL- mice, iirc, their regenerative capabilites were introduced by accident and incurred serious immunologic side effects (which may or may not be related). i know that people are researching regenerative capabilities, yet look at the responses in this thread; bsl4 immediately summoned cancer to explain why we can't have regeneration, when we a) clearly have them, to a degree and b) stem cell therapy wouldn't work either if the reasoning was valid.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join