Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

isn't this actually an insignificant amount of recovery?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    isn't this actually an insignificant amount of recovery?

    Rewired glycosylation activity promotes scarless regeneration and functional recovery in spiny mice after complete spinal cord transection



    https://www.cell.com/developmental-c...elatedArticles

    This "sounds" good and I am slowly trying better understand sci research lingo...anything significant here?
    "That's not smog! It's SMUG!! " - randy marsh, southpark

    "what???? , you don't 'all' wear a poop sac?.... DAMNIT BONNIE, YOU LIED TO ME ABOUT THE POOP SAC!!!! "


    2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
    Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature

    #2
    You'd think that they would right two versions of each article: One for the research community, and one for the layman.

    I was watching a Charles Murray talk, and, apparently, one of the reasons that researchers write these articles in the way that they do, is because if they write it in a simplistic fashion; the elitists in the field won't take it seriously, and it may not get published...

    That being said, what I gathered as far as recovery goes, is that if you were translate the results in the Acomys to humans, it would amount to being able to stand, and possibly take assisted steps, as well as bladder function.

    Was that what you were looking for?
    Last edited by Spergilicious; 5 Jan 2022, 11:32 PM.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Spergilicious View Post
      I was watching a Charles Murray talk, and, apparently, one of the reasons that researchers write these articles in the way that they do, is because if they write it in a simplistic fashion; the elitists in the field won't take it seriously, and it may not get published.
      I don't think this is quite right. Research is about the science. It's supposed to be reproducible. It's very important to be extremely precise in your wording and measurements. Research is not meant for mass consumption or sound bites and I'd say 99 out of 100 headlines that you see on websites summarizing an article are misleading, some maliciously, but most because you cannot distill the nuance of their findings simplistically enough for a headline, much less a sentence or three.

      Getting published is no problem, there are garbage "journals" out there that will publish whatever you submit if you include $1500 with your article. But for those doing real science and publishing in real journals they should use the simplest wording that conveys precisely what they mean. That's not "elites" (whoever that might be) not taking them seriously, it's the "elites" demanding that they submit something with meaningful, precise and reproducible data before they disseminate it.


      Comment


      • Spergilicious
        Spergilicious commented
        Editing a comment
        I may have conveyed the wrong message, here. It's not that the study won't get published if it isn't written in the most complex manner possible; it's that it won't be taken as seriously when read by those in Academia, i.e., the afore mentioned "elitists". An acquaintance of mine is a research scientist, and he's spoken of similar situations.

        Now, I do believe that when Dr. Murray was discussing this, he was mainly referring to the social sciences -- Psychology, Sociology, etc. -- but I have a sneaking suspicion that it carries over into the hard sciences, as well.

        Nonetheless, it should still be made a point to write two versions of these types of reports -- one for the layman, and one for the scientific community. We used to be able to rely on journalists to take these findings and convey them in an easily understandable way to ordinary people, but more, and more, these journalists are putting their stuff behind paywalls.

      • funklab
        funklab commented
        Editing a comment
        Definitely agree that we've lost any reliable media sources for disseminating this kind of information. Is either hyperbolic, partisanist, or just clearly done by someone with a 4th grade education who doesn't speak very good english. So hard to find reliable summaries of academic journals. You used to be able to count on the newspaper or evening news to do that kind of thing, but alas both of those are effectively gone.

      #4
      Originally posted by Spergilicious View Post
      You'd think that they would right two versions of each article: One for the research community, and one for the layman.

      I was watching a Charles Murray talk, and, apparently, one of the reasons that researchers write these articles in the way that they do, is because if they write it in a simplistic fashion; the elitists in the field won't take it seriously, and it may not get published...

      That being said, what I gathered as far as recovery goes, is that if you were translate the results in the Acomys to humans, it would amount to being able to stand, and possibly take assisted steps, as well as bladder function.

      Was that what you were looking for?
      thank you ...in truly chronic injury?
      "That's not smog! It's SMUG!! " - randy marsh, southpark

      "what???? , you don't 'all' wear a poop sac?.... DAMNIT BONNIE, YOU LIED TO ME ABOUT THE POOP SAC!!!! "


      2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
      Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature

      Comment


        #5
        Originally posted by lunasicc42 View Post

        thank you ...in truly chronic injury?
        "Remarkably, Acomys started to regain motor function at 2 WPI showing an average Basso mouse scale (BMS) score of 2 (i.e., extensive ankle movement), whereas Mus remained with the initial BMS score of 0 (i.e., no ankle movement) (Figures 1C and 1D)."

        Two weeks post-injury seems to be chronic/sub-acute in mice, I do believe. So, whatever the mechanism of action is, it may translate to Chronic injury.

        Comment


          #6
          Originally posted by Spergilicious View Post
          You'd think that they would right two versions of each article: One for the research community, and one for the layman.

          I was watching a Charles Murray talk, and, apparently, one of the reasons that researchers write these articles in the way that they do, is because if they write it in a simplistic fashion; the elitists in the field won't take it seriously, and it may not get published...

          That being said, what I gathered as far as recovery goes, is that if you were translate the results in the Acomys to humans, it would amount to being able to stand, and possibly take assisted steps, as well as bladder function.

          Was that what you were looking for?


          Perhaps I can help. In the lab where I work we are also working on this same project (slightly different focus). Actually seeing this here is quite a bummer for us because that means we got "scooped" after about 5 years of hard work (these authors published first).

          Dont think of this paper as a translational paper, or anything that has immediate potential to help humans. Essentially the "spiny mouse" is a rodent like creature (closer to a gerbil than a mouse) that is found in Africa. They are desert dwelling critters and super cute. They are known for one thing, regenerative abilities. If you try to grab them by the skin it just "fluffs off", super gross, but the skin regenerates with near perfect architecture. We wanted to know if this will also happen in the spinal cord, and if so, what can we learn from them that may lead to future treatment approaches.

          Short answer: no, they dont regenerate near perfect architecture in the spinal cord. However, their injury responses are very, very, very different and that allows for "some" endogenous regeneration to occur which otherwise does not occur in any other mammalian system. So, also in short, there is something to be learned about this species difference that may lead to an "actionable target". It looks like that difference may be something related to extracellular matrix like CSPGs or something that we are already aware of. Still might be a ton to learn.

          The functional differences though is a bit more interesting. In this paper the authors transect the cord to ensure that all axons are lost, and then find that motor abilities improve actually quite a lot. Then they re-cut the cords after the animals got better, what this does is validate that function improvements are likely due to regeneration and not some "plasticity" that occurs bellow the lesion that is purely reflexive. Personally from my experiences though this method of validation, while seemingly sound, can actually be misleading. I did a similar study after stem cell transplants and found that even if the recovery is all reflexive, after a couple of days, the inflammation process renders that reflexive improvements dysfunctional, therefore making it difficult to determine if regeneration actually underlies functional improvements if you wait more than 3 days post-second transection. In this study, they injured, then waited a whole week, which doesnt necessarily allow to discriminate regeneration vs reflex the way we want it to. (super nuanced and only something that could be known by someone with experience doing these methods, and to the best of my knowledge what I just said has not yet been identified or published yet). Also dont get caught up when they talk about regaining bladder function, bladder function return is quite normal in other species of rodents like rats, even if regeneration did not occur, and actually what this does for me is just validate that much of the control over their function could indeed be reflexive in nature. HOWEVER, the authors also did electrophysiology and found something quite interesting.

          What I mean by electrophysiology is that they electrocuted the spinal cords of mice above the lesions before euthanizing them and recorded below the lesion to see if any signal crossed the lesion, which it indeed did. The magnitude of effect was very, very small, but it still got across and that is exciting. This is exciting because maybe that little amount of signal "can" account for the extensive functional abilities observed. Personally I dont think much about the re-injury methods they used because I know how it can mislead, but it also doesnt necessitate that nothing happened. It merits further investigation but also could merit the use of this spiny mouse as a model to study how a tiny bit of regeneration may help functional abilities a ton. In my opinion though, more work is needed to validate that this regeneration is indeed essential to the function, personally I am only slightly convinced by the methods.

          Much of the benefits coming from this paper will likely actually come from understanding how the scaring response differs in spiny mice compared to other mammalian systems to help us figure out what exactly it was that made "the difference" (in terms of function it is impressive, a BMS score of 1 vs 4 is basically flaccid paralysis vs walking, but finding any re-connection from electrophysiology is quite exciting even if its small in nature). At the present moment i cannot tell you if this has implications for acute or chronic SCI because we still dont know exactly why things were different. These authors identify a possible mechanism contributing to things which I will read more about and detail upon request, but like most things in biology, usually getting laser focused on a single molecule doesnt paint the whole picture.

          Please let me know if you want more details or a deeper analysis, For now i just sort of skimmed the paper but i plan on reading it later. I just see that much of the work is almost exactly the same as our lab, findings as well.
          Last edited by ActionXPotential; 9 Jan 2022, 7:14 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X