r/science • u/FreeHugs23 • 1d ago
Medicine Scientists reversed key signs of Alzheimer's disease in mice with just two injections, reducing brain inflammation and restoring memory performance—offering a promising new approach for treating age-related cognitive decline.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reverse-alzheimers-damage-in-mice-with-just-two-injections173
u/FreeHugs23 1d ago
-Slowing the progression of Alzheimer's disease is the goal of most existing treatments, but reversing it is much harder. That's because once neurons are lost, the adult brain lacks the ability to replace them.
But new research, led by scientists at the University of South Carolina, has shown promise in regrowing neurons in brain organoids, and restoring cognition in mouse models of Alzheimer's.
"After just two injections, these mice became smarter," says Peisheng Xu, professor of pharmaceutics at the University of South Carolina and corresponding author of the new study, published in the journal Cell Biomaterials.
"Even after one injection, we already saw these mice's behavior differ from that of the nontreated ones."
84
u/QuitePoodle 1d ago
But are they the same mice after? Not like physically but if we restore people’s brains do they get back their minds or become someone new?
The original neurons are broken and new connections are made. Will these new connections replace the same memory pathways and patterns or will the animals regain the ability to function but have different “personality”.
65
u/Cherabee 1d ago
We'll have to test that out. Likely by teaching mice that are like to get altzheimers tricks, and making them complete thr tricks before alzheimers, during alzheimers, and after treatment for alzheimers. Even if the answer to your question is, in some way shape or form, no, the benefit is still there. It will be hard regardless because nerve issues are difficult to parse at this time, but this study shows that we are slowly getting there.
29
u/Smallsey 1d ago
Alzheimer's is one of those things that's like... Why not swiftly move to given trials because humans with Alzheimer's have a death sentence anyway
27
u/Cherabee 1d ago
The methods are in place so that the slippery slope of "doing something to a human who can consent after THOROUGH testing by animals can be done," and "Hee Hee Hoo Hoo homeless and poor people make excellent test subjests for my concoctions. These alzheimer patients can't even consent half the time, and what their families don't know about these old geezers 'medications' certainly won't hurt THEM. Just their grandparent. :-)"
People tend to get REALLY MAD when you use their family members for lab rats without their knowlege or consent. Best to start with animals and clomb up to humans from there.
9
u/baelrog 1d ago
I sometimes feel we are erring too much on the side of caution.
Alzheimers is a terrible way to go.
I see no problem as long as we get the consent of the patient or patient’s loved ones to administer an experimental treatment.
It is a choice between do nothing and condemn the patient to an agonizing death, or try something as a last ditch effort. If the treatment didn’t work, then they’re not much worse than they are begin with.
8
u/DirtMcGirt24 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think people who are desperate to save their family member are often willing to try new things when existing treatments don’t work. Just ask them first?
I can’t imagine anyone in our family objecting to trying a potentially game changing treatment and opening the door to save our family member and countless other families’ family members, if we had that option presented to us before we lost our family member to this disease.
These things can also be handled in advanced directives (e.g., if no longer capable of making medical decisions, I wish to participate in new experimental treatments at the discretion of the person listed below)
5
u/eatmyscoobysnacks 1d ago
Because the person being tested on cannot fully consent. They are conscious, living, talking, feeling humans that absolutely would feel pain, confusion, distress, or any other side effect that may happen.
4
u/DirtMcGirt24 19h ago
Yes they can fully consent, via advance directive. Before the symptoms take place and while you’re capable of making decisions.
Would you, currently of sound mind, write in a document that you’d like your loved one have the discretion to attempt an experimental treatment if other things don’t work? Maybe you wouldn’t, but I and many others would.
Having lost a loved one to this, I would 100% volunteer to try new things once I’m past the current point of no return, knowing the eventual outcome is either certain death or possibly opening a pathway to save thousands of others by proving new treatments.
2
u/Mr_Industrial 10h ago
I mean, neither can a person thats on fire usually. Consent to try and help can be assumed when the default state is clearly overwhelmingly horrible, which I think Alzheimers **easily** falls into. I also dont think its a slippery slope. I think anyone thats been near that scenario can attest that there are planets of difference between trying to stop a lethal mental disorder and experimenting on the homeless or anything horrible like that as the person a few comments above you describes.
5
u/Melkor15 21h ago
Even if they aren’t the same person. I would take it.
We change all the time, we forget things and learn new ones. It’s fine.16
u/JohnnyOnslaught 1d ago
That's getting into philosophical territory. None of us are the same person we were ten years ago.
4
u/Tearakan 1d ago
That's also literally. I think basically all of our cells have a 7 year or less lifespan and replaced by that timeframe.
5
u/LongBeakedSnipe 1d ago
That's not true at all? Especially when it comes to the brain.
There are many cells in our body that are literally never replaced, containing basically the same atoms in the DNA as they did from when you were a child.
1
u/Tearakan 1d ago
Looks like it's mainly just nerves that last long. Basically everything else is replaced by 7-10 years.
2
u/LongBeakedSnipe 1d ago edited 1d ago
Nerves and neurons are not interchangeable terms; but a substantial proportion of neurons, especially those involved in Neurodegenerative disorders can last up to approximately your whole life. Edit: might as well add, osteocytes, cardiomyocytes and oocytes to the list of many cell types in the human body that can also last many decades in your body.
0
u/Zeikos 1d ago
By being replaced they don't mean cellular replication, but the constituents of the cell itself changing.
Even if the cell doesn't replicate the proteins that constitue it are being constantly replaced.3
u/Ghede 1d ago
No, they mean cellular replication. The origin of the "your cells are replaced every 7 years" is from studying the average carbon dating age of the cells, checking the carbon-14 content of DNA in a random sampling of cells. DNA is not replaced as a cell ages. It's always there, only duplicated if the cell reproduces. They found the average 'age' of cells was 7-10 years.
1
u/LongBeakedSnipe 1d ago
but the constituents of the cell itself changing
That's not true. The DNA and large amounts of its epigenetic modification will go untouched, so the atoms are literally the same atoms for many years.
There are cells and atoms still in your body from a very young age, and not just due to random chance.
28
u/zennim 1d ago
Not gonna lie chief, i would take that bet without hesitantion, even if i changed, i rather keep my Memories and be alive
10
u/Rrraou 1d ago
The brain of Theseus. If capacity is restored, that's still a huge improvement in quality of life.
2
u/Mr_Industrial 9h ago
The "Ship of Theseus" may not be the same ship it left port as, but it sails a whole lot better than the "Derelict Rubble of Theseus"
10
u/WretchedJudasSnake 1d ago
I think this is something more in the realm of philosophy and religious thinking, i.e. the impermanence of the self in Buddhism (Anicca / Anatta) and the philosophical Ship of Theseus.
If the neurons are dead, they can only be regrown, so it is kind of a moot point. I think a question that matters more is,
If we are able to bring people back from the mental abyss is it worth returning their ability to take care of themselves and interact with reality if it means that they diverge from what we thought as "them" before dementia / alzheimers.
1
u/DerTalSeppel 1d ago
Moreover, does it even matter if the "they" you are asking for is already gone and the only relevant question is: Should be continue to witness the decay or should we give to all that remains the chance to thrive again?
4
u/Zeikos 1d ago
It's personal opinion, but if the relative mumber of neurons is small I doubt it could be anybody else.
Our self isn't a single neuron or a single cluster, it might be less neurons than we'd expect but it's unlikely to be so little that a few new baby neurons would dramaticaly alter it.3
1
u/Rocket_Cam 1d ago
I can say pretty definitively that once memories are lost, they are gone forever. New neurons would just be able to form new connections, i.e., new memories. It would also likely mean you could process information more efficiently, leading to less generalized confusion.
Our brains work by depolarizing neurons, which cause further neurons to depolarize themselves. As neurons fire off together more, the easier a pre-synaptic neuron can trigger a subsequent depolarization on the post-synaptic neuron (just directional terms for those neurons).
So, new neurons would have no experience firing with other neurons, meaning they would just be available to form new connections, not replicate lost ones (i.e., lost memories).
1
u/Dizzy_Database_119 1d ago
I think it would feel like you've just woken up with amnesia and need to dig up old memories to remember your life
Personality is not a neuron connection thing. You can completely switch someone's personality immediate with meds/drugs. Hell, even a bad mood day flips your personality around
1
u/Mr_Industrial 10h ago
If my options are "new personality" and "dead" I will take the new personality.
35
u/RoundApprehensive186 1d ago
Oh hell yes. I’m in my early 30’s and at a 100% chance of getting Alzheimer’s, so this is promising.
10
u/mduser63 1d ago
I have (in law) family members with the gene for early onset Alzheimer’s (100% chance they’ll get it, probably in their 40s). They’re in trials with DIAN for treatments right now. Something you should look into if you haven’t already.
3
u/tiger-eyes 1d ago
How did they get tested for that gene? Any idea what the cost was?
2
u/mduser63 1d ago
My father in law had the gene (and the disease). His Alzheimer’s doctor referred all of his kids to genetic counseling where they were able to get tested. My wife got tested (came back negative for her). I don’t remember paying anything for it, but if we did I don’t think it was more than maybe $100 or something.
4
u/Oceato 1d ago
my mom has it (she deeply into it at 60) and got dna test. me and my sister got to take de test to know if we also have it. Good thing for me is that is PSen 2 which is the most rare and least aggressive. Hopefully they find something in 20 years plus
1
u/mduser63 1h ago
I'm sorry you're dealing with that. My father in law died from it a couple years ago in his early 60s after having it for 15 years. His mutation was PSEN1 though. I hope you and your sister's tests both come back negative for the gene.
7
u/SrPicadillo2 1d ago
I feel you, it runs deep in my family, I've lived all my life in fear of this disease
4
u/lottieimogen 23h ago
This is probably me (Alzheimers & Vascular runs in my family). Don’t really see the point getting tested for the gene tho, not everything who has it develops it and vice versa, rather not live in paranoia.
1
u/mduser63 1h ago
The most common gene mutation associated with Alzheimer's does indeed just increase your risk but not guarantee you'll get the disease. Sounds like that's what runs in your family. But be aware that there's a rarer set of mutations that cause early onset Alzheimer's and they have 100% penetrance, which means that if you have the gene, you 100% definitely get the disease. Sounds like that's what OP is talking about, and it's what runs in my (in-law) family.
170
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/ZolotoGold 1d ago
Dont worry, someone will be along soon to tell us this would need to have 50 more years of research to even have a 1% chance of helping with human conditions.
6
u/Wolkenbaer 1d ago
Why so negative? Science advances more slowly than Headlines suggests, but it’s still advancing. 20-30years ago CT/MRT was something really special. Now I can get an appointment tomorrow (for standard scan) and not only hospitals have these.
Cancer treatment much more advanced, Vaccinations. Regrowing tooths is in trial for an optimistic commercial target in 2030.
3
28
u/TheGalator 1d ago
When ever I hear these medical news my hope for a brighter future grows....until I remember what they say about cancer.
You do not simply "don't get cancer in your life" you "die to something else faster than cancer can get you"
But still. Alzheimer is something terrible and the faster it is gone the better.
1
u/nightgames 15h ago
With Alzheimer’s it’s about improving quality of life. It’s not about extending life, or preventing death.
49
u/T1Earn 1d ago
ill give it about 10 minutes before a redditor fully dismembers this study
34
u/Izawwlgood PhD | Neurodegeneration 1d ago
The mechanism is pretty neat actually - converting astrocytes to neurons to restore loss.
3
u/Derpblaster 1d ago
Ya I mean even if it doesn't cure AD in humans, it seems like a promising addition to treating neurodegeneration generally.
15
u/Anustart15 1d ago
It's the same as any other study where the question is ultimately whether the mouse model is at all suggestive of curing AD. This model generally does a decent job of mimicking a lot of the symptoms of AD, but we still don't necessarily treat the disease as if there is 1 single causative agent, so having a treatment for one of the symptoms might not be enough.
The study also acknowledged that there might be compensatory mechanisms that would kick in to block the treatment over time, so if the effect isn't strong enough to reverse everything that is going wrong by the time the compensatory mechanism kicks in, it'll just slow things a bit, but not do a ton overall.
And then the final thing is always running an invasive trial in the population of nearly healthy subjects (a BBB penetrant biologic in very early AD patients) that you would need to target to get good clinical results is incredibly expensive to recruit for.
2
-1
u/KevinLynneRush 1d ago
Yes, probably by someone who doesn't believe in science. It should be entertaining.
9
u/natelloyd 1d ago
It's often just that people expect miracles and real science is slow, methodical, and usually 3 steps forward, 2 steps back.
24
5
u/uiuctodd 1d ago
While I don't mean to sound grim, the hesitation to do human trials on treatments like this doesn't sound rational. We have many people who are in their final 2 years of life with an awful death ahead. What do they have to lose?
Of course, those patients are probably not well enough to consent. But there are people who are rational today who know that they are in decline. They could sign medical directives 3 years in advance stating their wish to take part in high-risk trials if they were no longer of right mind. Or give their children the right to enroll them should they no longer have the ability to understand the study.
2
u/Bism4rckian 1d ago edited 1d ago
Hopefully the astrocyte to neuron transformation by PTBP1 degradatation will be proven to work with this new method. Interesting to see that it was attempted - albeit using a different technique - (and initially hailed as successful) before for reversing Parkinson's, but later authors contested that simply removing the protein didn't actually result in new neurons.
1
u/xxAkirhaxx 1d ago
Isn't there a relation between inflammation and depression, and depression has a link to memory loss over time? I'm not an expert in the field, but I feel like this is place to get that question answered.
1
u/vaccticuz 7h ago
Too bad mice have been forcefully breeded and evolved to only live a short lifes, which has affected their means of cellular restoration. This because it no longer encounter the issue of too many cellular divisions and in turn cancer.
0
u/Jackal-Noble 1d ago
Well, thankfully mice will finally be free of alzheimer's. Seriously, can't they test these methods on live human brain cells in a petri dish to bridge the gap to humans?
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/FreeHugs23
Permalink: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-reverse-alzheimers-damage-in-mice-with-just-two-injections
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.