Researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem were able to cure birth defects in animals by using stem cells that replaced the damaged cells in their brains.
The research is headed by Prof. Yossi Yanai from the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the Institute for Medical Research in the Faculty of Medicine of the Hebrew University, who collaborated with Prof. Tamir Ben-Hur, Head of the Department of Neurology at the Hebrew University and Prof. Ted Slotkin from Duke University in North Carolina.
There is difficulty in treating congenital neurological defects and congenital behavioral defects (such as: learning disabilities) compared to treating defects whose causes are known (such as: Parkinson's disease or Alzheimer's disease). This is due to the fact that the substances that cause defects in the embryonic stage are dispersed throughout the brain and cause many injuries that are not always related to each other.
Prof. Yanai and his research colleagues managed to overcome this difficulty by using neural embryonic stem cells in experiments on laboratory mice. These cells move in the brain and when they encounter a damaged area following the prenatal exposure to harmful substances or conditions, they undergo transformation (transformation) into the cells necessary to repair the defect.
Stem cells are characterized by the fact that they can develop into any type of cell in the body. At some point the stem cells classify themselves for a certain function. The scientist can intervene in this process and direct the development of the cell in the direction he wants, such as brain stem cells. In later developmental stages, the neural stem cells become more defined functions such as nerve cells or helper cells for nerve cells in the brain.
In an experiment conducted by the researchers, they were able to correct learning disabilities manifested by poor performance in mazes in the offspring of pregnant mice exposed to organophosphate (a pesticide) and heroin. This is done with the help of transplanting neural stem cells into the brains of the newborns. The recovery was almost 100% as demonstrated by behavioral tests in which the treated mice were able to function normally after the transplant. Even in the tests conducted at the molecular level, the results indicated a normal chemical balance in the brain.
The researchers asked themselves how the stem cells could function even in cases where some of them died in the brain where they were transplanted. This prompted the researchers to continue the research and discover that the neural stem cells managed before their death to cause the brain to produce many stem cells on its own to repair the defect. This discovery provided the answer to one of the main questions in the field of stem cell research, aroused great international interest and was recently published in the prestigious journal "Molecular Psychiatry" which also dedicated its cover page to the discovery.
The researchers are now engaged in developing ways that will enable the application of the method in a less invasive way, so that stem cell therapy is practical and clinically applicable, by injecting the stem cells into blood vessels from where they will reach the brain. Most stem cells are taken from individuals who are genetically different from the patient in whom the transplant is to be performed. Therefore, there is a fear of treatment failure due to the rejection of the transplanted body. For this reason, another important avenue of research deals with ways to circumvent this obstacle by using cells from the patient's body, returning them to the developmental stage of stem cells and then transplanting them back into the patient's brain through the bloodstream. Another important advantage of this treatment method would be to put an end to the ethical problems and controversies concerning the use of embryonic stem cells.
21 תגובות
Is learning disability always caused by pregnant mothers exposed to organic phosphorus (pesticide) and heroin? Maybe disabilities are caused simply because the DNA dictated by chance the birth of a child with less academic ability? And in this case will the method still work?
I guess even if the method doesn't work in the last case it's still an amazing and useful discovery
This is an article I prepared for another entity, and if it advertises to anyone, it is to the university and its researchers. The fact that in this case it is a development with practical implications, it still does not make it an advertisement. We occasionally try to provide news about practical solutions of both universities and companies - especially startups. If not us, who even looks at the universities in the Israeli media?
And besides, I always make sure to have at least one study a day, if not 3-4, but it's not always possible. Example These days there is an important astronomical conference and the sites I am in contact with are flooded with research.
Michael:
I raised this argument myself in the last response and answered it.
"You can argue that it is absurd on my part to demand the whole truth, and that is true, but in this case it seems to me that even if it is clear that there is no room in this article to develop a discussion about animal experiments, there is also no room for blurring and avoiding the issue."
In the end it seems that I think it is better not to ignore the moral aspect, and you think there is nothing wrong with that. So we will remain divided...
Ido:
The article is intended to tell the truth but there is no obligation to tell the whole truth.
After all, no one knows the whole truth!
what? Do you expect the author of the article to write in it, for example, the list of readers of "Hidan"?
Would you be satisfied with the description "pregnant mice exposed to organic phosphorus and heroin"?
What about adding the word "cruelly" somewhere in the sentence? Wouldn't that be more true, don't you think?
The author of the article chooses - naturally and deliberately - the topics he wants to write about and naturally he does not allude to other aspects - even if they are true - of reality.
There is nothing wrong with that and the use of the word "revealed" is intended to make the discussion deal with what the writer intended to discuss and not with other things (our discussion shows that this goal was not achieved).
Michael:
The fact that this word, in exactly this usage, appears in many texts, does not contradict my claim.
Example: "So-and-so suffers from neurological damage as a result of electric shocks to which he was exposed."
My claim is that such a wording, which differs from the sentence I was "caught" in the article only in that, in contrast to it, it mentions suffering, is euphemistic, boring, and in the end even (yes, yes!) immoral, since it obscures a certain aspect of the phenomenon it apparently reports on In objective and clean language, an aspect that has moral importance.
This sentence is (I assume) true to the truth, but not the whole truth. You can argue that it is absurd on my part to demand the whole truth, and that is true, but in this case it seems to me that even if it is clear that there is no room in this article to develop a discussion about animal experiments, there is also no room for blurring and evading the topic.
Of course, no reasonable reader would think of the hypothetical possibilities I raised in the first response, but if you believe that the sentence "pregnant mice exposed to organic phosphorus and heroin" is the same as the sentence "pregnant mice exposed by scientists to organic phosphorus and heroin", then you are simply wrong. This is the power of language, of rhetoric if you will.
I think it is important to understand such phenomena, and it is appropriate to respond to them.
A defect is a product that should not be created from a system.
A mutation, if you will, but not only.
A defect in the weld can be formed from its infancy in its mother's womb, as a result of a bad environment, or the mother's poor diet. Let's not forget that genetics can even lead to hereditary defects, which are only manifested when both partners provide them.
A defect can also be, as mentioned - a mutation (cancer for example - it is not a genetic thing for the most part).
As for the philosophical content of the word defect - it has no weight in these scientific discussions, since we are aware that defects prevent us from existing, which means surviving, since this is the mechanism for which our genetics strives. Therefore, any change in genetics that prevents him from surviving will be considered a defect (Darwinism, someone said?).
Ido:
I understand the irony but the perception of the word is not justified.
This word, precisely in this usage, appears in many texts. No one is trying to say that things happened by chance and the connotation that Atza gives to the word is your own.
When I reveal someone's intentions, their intentions are revealed - and not by accident.
point:
I think you're wrong.
Apparently the authors of the article also think like me.
For my part, you can compile statistics yourself and check.
Here, for example, is what Babylon writes when given the word "flaw":
flaw, defect, fault, shortcoming, weakness, failing, faultiness, fisheye, impairment, impediment, imperfection, incompleteness, kink, objection, slur, vice, blemish, blot
This is completely inconsistent with your words, so even the authors of Babylon disagree with you.
Michael,
I am not re-inventing any dictionary.
In no dictionary does it appear that a defect indicates a feature that is different from the majority. For such a phenomenon, other concepts are used such as exception, exception, etc.
Defect means a fault or deficiency, and such a thing cannot exist in any (natural) biological system. Defects can only be in systems that have a plan. Then the defect will be relative to the specific program.
It seems to me that everyone understands and agrees on this simple matter.
Michael:
My first reaction was to express irony.
"Exposed" in the context of laboratory mice, this is a euphemism: the tolerant building creates a sense of a phenomenon that happened by itself. I am sad about that.
Fetal stem cells are the forefront of science in the medical field? Otherwise, how could you explain the tremendous boom in healing with their help in recent years?
point:
It seems to me that what you are trying to do is redefine the language.
People use words as they are used and everyone understands each other. All our definitions are "social" and this is a result of the assumption that language is "social". You can define what you want, but if you try to use the same words you defined arbitrarily and different from the accepted definition - no one will understand you and you will understand no one.
The condition of an injured person is abnormal from a medical point of view (which is a human social definition of a situation that causes distress or suffering to a person), but under no circumstances should it be said that it is abnormal from a biological scientific point of view (from a biological point of view, everything works fine, the injured person suffers or dies...).
And if you want, then it is more correct to say that all of life is one huge flaw that is made up of a huge collection of accumulated flaws, and the still one is the normal one.
point:
What did you just show?
You showed that planning is not necessary for us to define something as normal or defective.
We have other criteria and I have no doubt you know that.
I guess you wouldn't define the condition of a person who fell off a cliff 100 meters high as "normal" even though there was nothing supernatural about him reaching this condition and his continued functioning after the fall is also in accordance with the laws of nature.
Michael. A car is defined as normal if it works according to its design.
As far as I know, humans do not have any planning and blueprint that defines what a normal person is.
point:
"Defect" is defined in relation to what is defined as "normal".
Even a car driven on Shabbat still operates according to the laws of nature. Is it not damaged?
Ido:
I am not talking about the moral problem but about the innovations in Hebrew that you tried to instill in us on that occasion.
The mice were indeed exposed - not by the hand of chance and not by themselves, and yet they were exposed.
To remind you that "hasf" is the declension of the verb "hasf" in the passive tense.
There is no such thing as a "birth defect". The DNA will always function properly according to the laws of biology. Therefore, everything that comes out at the end of the process is normal.
Michael:
A stripper exposes, and in the process is exposed.
The mice, needless to say, revealed nothing.
Ido:
Your language innovation is interesting.
Please explain the meaning of the word stripper.
"...pregnant mice exposed to organophosphate (pesticide) and heroin."
Were exposed, that is, accidentally tripped over a syringe full of heroin, or accidentally passed by a container full of organic phosphorus?