Scientists regenerate neurons that restore walking in mice after paralysis from spinal cord injury::In a new study in mice, a team of researchers from UCLA, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and Harvard University have uncovered a crucial component for restoring functional activity after spinal cord injury. The neuroscientists have shown that re-growing specific neurons back to their natural target regions led to recovery, while random regrowth was not effective.

  • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference though is that this treatment would require hundreds of hours of ongoing work from medical professionals for each treatment. What they did was use single cell RNA sequencing to determine which subpopulations of cells are supposed to connect and where, before stimulating cell growth and guiding each RNA mapped subpopulation to where it’s roughly supposed to go. That’s one thing for anatomically complete sub-millimeter spinal cord injuries in mice, but a massive endeavor for human spinal cords.

    If you’ve seen the bioengineered cancer treatments where researchers grow immune cells to target a single individual’s tumor, the amount of specialized work that goes into that pales to what current technology would require for this sort of spinal regeneration, and that’s for relatively simple small scale lesions. Multiple lesions or large scale cell death could result in attempting to selectively guide millions of microscopic axons in neat clusters for over a foot.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if insurance companies refused to pay for cell regrowth, and instead went for implants that are comparatively much simpler to install and modify in brain-computer interfaces that skip over the damage. This is a great advancement and does open the door for recovering from spinal cord damage, but this is one of those treatments that people are going to get because they need to fill FDA trials and won’t charge, or because the patient is filthy rich.

    • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Everything is complicated and expensive at first, that’s ok. If the technology continues to evolve, things should get better and maybe they’ll learn other things we can use along the way.

      • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        While that’s true, this isn’t a specific engineering problem. You need to grab a single cell from each relevant subcluster of neurons in the spinal cord, spatially record the exact positioning, send it off to have RNA seq. done, sample all of the subclusters of the target area, spatially record exact positioning, send it off to have RNA seq done, resample based off of RNA seq data, begin axon regrowth of a single subcluster, and then repeat after every growth cycle to ensure the targeting is holding.

        You can improve RNA sequencing machines to reduce runtime, improve spatial tracking to make it easier to keep track of the anatomy, but without sci-fi advances in implant technology you can’t get around the sheer amount of procedural time requiring MD-PhDs and post docs to be involved in every visit.

        One of the issues with medical technology is that we know far more about how the human body operates than we can control, so compared to biological structures our manipulation of biology at the cell specific level is relatively crude. I’m not saying tech won’t catch up, but it’s going to be ruinously involved for a very long time.

        • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah. I’m still waiting to be able to regrow a new tooth instead of getting a filling or crown. I read about it, probably 20 years ago. Saw something again in the news within the last year. I’ll probably be dead or beyond help by the time it ever gets to market. And that sounds like a much easier problem than this.

          • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Confused me for a second, because I just saw this about growing teeth, which is aiming for reaching market in 2030, which is relatively soon. So hopefully you’ll be able to see that before people start shoveling dirt at you.

              • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It kinda was, remember our tech advancemt between the early 2000s and now has been more or less exponential.

                Also it helps that we are finally able to use computers for a lot more biological research. Imagine trying to research something on vista, xp, or god forbid millenium edition.