this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
341 points (97.8% liked)

science

24035 readers
604 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In our latest attempts to make lab rats immortal, a new compound has been shown to reverse late stage Alzheimer's disease in lab mice. This is a rare case where the title isn't even clickbait.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 1 points 34 minutes ago

Unfortunately, mice don't get Alzheimer's disease. This has been a claim for a while in animal models. I'm sure it's good scientific work, but the press release is making wild claims.

[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 2 points 1 hour ago

Oh bullshit I saw that Stargate guy get sick and then it was monkeys monkeys monkeys.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 hours ago

I bet the mice wish they could forget they are stuck in a lab

[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

On the one hand, I really really want it to be a world-changing breakthrough for real this time. I've been losing my dad to Alzheimer's for several years now and even if it's too late for him I would just hope that nobody else has to go through that in the future. On the other hand, knowing that it's someone's business model to jerk at my hope and heart-strings for ad engagement has me more or less ready to fire futurism into the fucking sun

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Right so Alzheimer's results in the death of neurons.

Humans cannot regrow neurons. Most animals cannot.

The few exceptions are in one small area of the brains limbic system.

Again. Not supported to happen in humans. But some theories say it might.

Even so. There is no drug that can restore neurons lost.

No drug that can restore the connections between neurons that are lost.

There already were drugs discovered 20 years ago that cure rats of AD related plaques and tau proteins. Doesn't work in humans . Probably because those rats are genetically engineered to produce plaques and tau proteins.

Not the same as a human disease model.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

There is no drug that can restore neurons lost.

Might be a stupid question, but could stem cells do that?

[–] daannii@lemmy.world 1 points 50 minutes ago* (last edited 21 minutes ago)

So a few things.

The brain tissue is formed in layers.

Each layer has specific types of neurons and specific types of connections. Which connect specific regions.

when your brain develops as an embryo, there are two primary ways that neuron connections are formed to make sure the right type of neuron with the right pathway is made.

  1. Scaffolding. Othe types of neurons and cells are grown in a way so that neurons can "grow up them". Think of like lattice fences for vine plants. Chemical signals are also sent that tell these neurons where to grow and where to connect. Kind of like a "hey buddy, over here".

  2. The other big one is folding of brain sections.

This part is kinda insane but as the brain is developing it starts sectioning out pretty early and then these sections do this folding thing. Where they sort of turn themselves inward. This folding also helps form the layers of the brain within the sub organs of the brain. Like the brain stem, hippocampus thalamus (other parts of limbic system) etc. There are a lot of sub organs in the brain.

And I guess the 3rd thing I should mention even though you probably figured it out is that these two things cannot occur in adults.

The scaffolding thing isn't quite as simple as I've said. But trust me. It can't occur in adults either.

So now you know two fundamentals of neuro development that even a fair number of people in my field seem to be ignorant of.

Now what does this mean. ?

It means you can't just "repair" or "replace" missing tissue.

This is why there aren't any mammals that regrow brain tissue. None regrow cortical tissue.

The only neurogenesis (neuron growth) observed is a small tiny area in the hippocampus (part of limbic system ) and that's a whole other complicated thing. But I'm willing to give you the basics if you want. Just ask.

Okay so. Back to fixing the brain.

Same problem as fixing severed nerves in the spine but actually worse. You can't get a neuron to make a connection if there isn't scaffolding. So you can strengthen something if there is something there that new connections can follow. This is why some people can restore some nerve loss. If there are some nerves still connected then with physical and occupational therapy, new connections can be formed and strengthened. (I'm talking about limbs, not brain. Such as with spinal injury. In strokes it works differently; by reprogramming existing architecture).

But if there is nothing then that is not possible.

You also can't easily tell a stem cell to grow into a very specific type of neuron and connect in the right way.

A large portion of neurons are inhibitory. And they must be placed properly.

I give this example to explain why stem cells can't fix a brain

Let's say you have a circuit board. And some circuits are burnt out. So you cut up a bunch of pieces of solder and thin wires and scatter it on top of the circuit board and try to power it up.

There is pretty much no way that adding stem cells to the brain won't result in bad things happening.

There was a study that did this.. It gave people brain tumors.

There are still on going studies to potentially use stem cells but honestly there is a very good reason why mammals can't regrow cortical tissue.

I did a quick search and was surprised to see people still trying to do this line of research. As I said with the circuit board example, you can't control the errors that would be created.

Brain neuron connections (aka the architecture) is the mind. You can't alter these without people loosing something.

A few years ago (7 ish years?) when the study I'm thinking of came out, there was a lot of talk and a lot of studies were cancelled. I was working in pharm Alzheimer's research at the time at a clinic. I remember people thought it was going to be some miracle fix. But the brain is much more complicated than , like regrowing a damaged kidney or something.
Which also isn't currently possible with modern medicine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_cerebral_cortex

Here this "neural tube" is talking about that folding I was referring to. During embryo development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_tube

There is also cortical folding (brain wrinkles) that form during later development. That's a different thing but also ads to the difficulty of repairing the brain.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 2 hours ago

the problem would be getting a specific type of stem cell to do that, likely a pluripotent rather than a totipotent(which is usually a blastocyst after fertiliation) to differentiate into a nerve cell and not continue growing or dividing. because cancer behaves pretty much like a stem cells, if not some are stem cells themselves.

[–] MojoMcJojo@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You should really look up human brain organoids, how they are created, and what we are doing with them. You can rent one and make it..do..think things. Sometimes they grow eyes.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Sometimes they grow eyes.

They don't just randomly sprout eyes, you have to give them the hormone that makes eyes develop to have them start.

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

Not until after the orange man is gone. Please.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 11 points 20 hours ago

Where is that comic about reporters creating misinformed headlines about science?

[–] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago (1 children)

An unforgettable moment for those mice

[–] krimson@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Underrated comment.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 9 points 1 day ago

Odds are it is at least somewhat bullshit, oversold, to garner more funding.

[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 78 points 1 day ago (6 children)

In a mouse model. The mice don't have alzheimers they have... something we gave them that looks like it... Hopefully it is similar enough

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

We... we gave... Alzheimer's to mice...?

Are we the baddies?

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We did something to the mice then rescued it in a different way. Hooray! Next we'll save test tubes from cancer...again.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I feel like if the average person had any remote idea just how gloriously, horrifyingly complicated the human body is, we would be simultaneously far more skeptical of press releases, and far, far more invested in the actual science going on to figure out how to keep the whole cathedral from collapsing.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you can’t get excited by incremental advancements, you should probably unsubscribe from science as a topic.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

There are ways to do good, approachable, clickable science communication without resorting to lies, ommission, or exaggeration which is futurism.com's whole schtick. There's so much happening in science that doesn't get covered by these low-quality sensationalist outlets because a misleading headline about petri dish cancer or mouse Alzheimer's gets more clicks and requires far less research than an article about whatever interesting advancements actually happened in science this week.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I agree the field is full of subpar sensationalist coverage. I didn’t find this case so terrible as such things go. People in the thread were all freaking out about how “It’s not really Alzheimer’s, it’s something like Alzheimer’s which we did to the mice! Nothing to see here!”

Which is an overreaction. On the one hand it should be obvious up front that mice cannot have actual human Alzheimer’s because they are fucking mice. So setting those semantics aside, something happened here, and people seemed disappointed that it wasn’t everything.

So I think both of our points are valid here. Yes, coverage of science is terrible, but anyone who wants to follow science should be prepared for some very incremental advancements.

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Dude it's worse than that. I was a working neuroscientist for almost twenty years. So...jaded.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

This is why almost everyone does development, not research.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

There has been a fucking epidemic of MD/scientists running to the media with miracle cures lately.

Mice do not get Alzheimers, they were engineered to show one aspect of the disease that has been promoted by fraudulent studies. As for the reversal, mouse brains are highly plastic and similar to a human baby, nothing like a >60 year old.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

HAH HEY EVERYONE THIS GUY THINKS MICE HAVE BRAINS MADE OF PLASTIC /s

Well I hear we are adding more plastic to the brain through micro dosing micro plastics in our every day lives. Wait...

load more comments (3 replies)

Oh, yeah? How come they still cant tell us how fucking magnets work?

Eat shit, "science."

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mouse grandpa: John?

Mouse Grandson: Grampa, you remember me?

Mouse grandpa: Yes, I remember. It's all coming back now. You ate my cheese and fucked my wife you piece of shit!

Sounds of mouse battle reverberating

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I believe this population of super-mice we are making that are immune to all disease will be the dominant life form on earth after we have extincted ourselves. Im in favor of this future.

[–] halfsalesman@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Scientific advancements often seem like the only good news we ever seem to get.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 23 hours ago

Any drug would cost 20 million a course. Not even exagerating there either. A new one is doing dynamic pricing, charging some as much as 3 million and others over 1 million for a course. For drugs developed with goddamned charity money.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't worry, they'll get monetized to hell.

load more comments (1 replies)

it's lab mice. it's NAD+. i can't remember because i'm not an ad researcher, but there are 3 models of AD. one is NAD+, two aren't. Most of the research was going into NAD+ or another, and they discovered that that specific model was not going to help human patients. It did nothing to effect research or funding. that was about... 15 years ago? so forgive me if i don't get up.

load more comments
view more: next ›