Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Glial scars

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    I think scisucks asked very good questions. It's interesting to me that you ignored these questions, while you paied attention to my posts. Thanks for that honor BTW.

    I suspect some people might think if you really knew the answers you would have just answered scisucks and ignored my posts.

    Paolo
    No, you're wrong again. It's not interesting at all. I suspect you think some people might enjoy your entertainment as the same old boring clown, wasting time and blowing bags of hot air on your opinions and theories for lack of anything constructive to do. Ignoring your circus acts isn't any kind of flattery, so there's no need for you to feel pumped and honored over anything.

    Scisucks member was addressing Jim in his post with a quotation, not you unless you've had a name change. So why butt in? It's NOT a position of honor if that's become your definition, nor are you being particularly clever here. He has absolutely no need for a troll to pump me for answers on his behalf (it's called trolling). You've tried this two other times in the past two weeks with the man and it's not working, so just give it a rest already. The man speaks up well for himself and doesn't need you troll baiting someone like me for assistance at CareCure. If Jim wanted to respond to him, he could have done so. If I had noticed their conversation earlier and wanted to join in with them, I would have quoted one or the other and then made my statement in the conversation with them.

    We'll go back to ignoring your nut posts and rude troll behavior since you refuse to tell us who these researchers are that have no idea what the glial scar is made of nor provide us links for these goofy wind bag statements. You can play the carecure troll until the cows come home, but I've got much more important things to do with my time than wait for your non-existent references/citations and silliness no matter how honorable you think all of that phony baloney is.
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 11-13-2014 at 01:18 PM.

  2. #32
    Hi Moe, sorry I read the thread one more time and saw that the issue discussed wasn't the actual inhibitation.
    Debating on CareCure is like participating in the special-olympics. You may win, but you're still disabled.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    No, you're wrong again. It's not interesting at all. I suspect you think some people might enjoy your entertainment as the same old boring clown, wasting time and blowing bags of hot air on your opinions and theories for lack of anything constructive to do. Ignoring your circus acts isn't any kind of flattery, so there's no need for you to feel pumped and honored over anything.

    Scisucks member was addressing Jim in his post with a quotation, not you unless you've had a name change. So why butt in? It's NOT a position of honor if that's become your definition, nor are you being particularly clever here. He has absolutely no need for a troll to pump me for answers on his behalf (it's called trolling). You've tried this two other times in the past two weeks with the man and it's not working, so just give it a rest already. The man speaks up well for himself and doesn't need you troll baiting someone like me for assistance at CareCure. If Jim wanted to respond to him, he could have done so. If I had noticed their conversation earlier and wanted to join in with them, I would have quoted one or the other and then made my statement in the conversation with them.

    We'll go back to ignoring your nut posts and rude troll behavior since you refuse to tell us who these researchers are that have no idea what the glial scar is made of nor provide us links for these goofy wind bag statements. You can play the carecure troll until the cows come home, but I've got much more important things to do with my time than wait for your non-existent references/citations and silliness no matter how honorable you think all of that phony baloney is.
    I don't mind if you will ignore me in the future.

    Paolo
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    Nowhere Man,

    Kai Liu presented results in the Nanjing meeting n September that shows that PTEN deletion in mice will stimulate regeneration of axons in chronically injured mice. If my memory serves me correctly, he injured the mice with hemisection and transections, kept the mice for 3-6 months, and then knocked out the PTEN gene in the cortex. At 3 months, he did not see any regeneration. However, when he waited 6 months or longer, he saw corticospinal axons regenerating across the injury site in large numbers. Anyway, I believe that the results will be published soon.

    Wise.
    That is really great to hear. That would be the first regeneration at chronic time-frame. I look forward to the publication. Hopefully they don't charge for it.

    a) I remember hearing/reading somewhere that the mouse spinal cord doesn't get a huge glial scar as compared to a rat. Is that correct?

    b) Isn't there much less glial scar in transection injury as opposed to contusion?

    c) I called the PTEN "mildly successful" because the amount and distance of regeneration (nominally), and recovery of function is very small. I know that it was still ground-breaking. In the 2010 acute study, I believe it was in both a transection & contusion model. Looking at the image of regeneration in the contusion model, it is clear there is a barrier to the regenerating axons. I would say that the axons that do cross are only crossing through in an area about 5% of the diameter of the tract. The axons are not just growing straight across as if there is no barrier. It is as if they found a few tiny bridges and are all crossing on it. In image (d), underneath that white square, the whole bottom half of the CST tract just hits that cavity wall. Nothing is getting through. That looks as if there is still a physical barrier to regeneration. This was in an acute injury, I wonder how tough that barrier is after months/years. If it?s not a glial scar then what else could it be? I ask that seriously.


    Last edited by Nowhere Man; 11-13-2014 at 11:14 PM.

  5. #35
    I removed off topic post and personal statements.

  6. #36
    Here are some of the results of the va chABC gene therapy to turn on the chABC gene also Mary Bunge is doing similar studies with Schwann cells and va chABC. The biggest problem with chABC injections is that the chABC gets carried away before it can complete the task which requires repeated injections.

    http://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2014/Gene-Therapy-Improves-Limb-Function-Following-Spinal-Cord-Injury
    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/14/4822.short?sid=1c561411-c698-4c18-9e12-a276c3161751
    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/14/i.full

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwilsonsfc View Post
    Here are some of the results of the va chABC gene therapy to turn on the chABC gene also Mary Bunge is doing similar studies with Schwann cells and va chABC. The biggest problem with chABC injections is that the chABC gets carried away before it can complete the task which requires repeated injections.

    http://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2014/Gene-Therapy-Improves-Limb-Function-Following-Spinal-Cord-Injury
    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/14/4822.short?sid=1c561411-c698-4c18-9e12-a276c3161751
    http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/14/i.full
    On top of the fact that there is no human grade injectable chABC for SCI on the market, but the bigger problem is going to be getting the gene therapy chABC into human clinical trials.
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 12-17-2014 at 10:25 PM.

  8. #38
    Nowhere man,

    Neither the mouse nor the rat develop "a huge glial scar" after a contusion injury. Probably the most effective barrier to regenerating fibers at the injury site are gaps or cysts in the tissues, since axons don't grow across empty space. In some contused spinal cords, fibroblasts may have crept into the area and glial cells may have proliferated to wall off the fibroblasts. However, in my experience, these seldom are the main barriers to axonal growth.

    Yes, the injury site does block axonal growth but the blockade is not absolute. The pictures that you are showing from the original Liu paper are very typical of what happens when spinal cords regenerate. Regrowing axons pile up on the proximal side and, when they find a bridge (even a small one), many axons will flood across that bridge to the other side.

    Wise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    That is really great to hear. That would be the first regeneration at chronic time-frame. I look forward to the publication. Hopefully they don't charge for it.

    a) I remember hearing/reading somewhere that the mouse spinal cord doesn't get a huge glial scar as compared to a rat. Is that correct?

    b) Isn't there much less glial scar in transection injury as opposed to contusion?

    c) I called the PTEN "mildly successful" because the amount and distance of regeneration (nominally), and recovery of function is very small. I know that it was still ground-breaking. In the 2010 acute study, I believe it was in both a transection & contusion model. Looking at the image of regeneration in the contusion model, it is clear there is a barrier to the regenerating axons. I would say that the axons that do cross are only crossing through in an area about 5% of the diameter of the tract. The axons are not just growing straight across as if there is no barrier. It is as if they found a few tiny bridges and are all crossing on it. In image (d), underneath that white square, the whole bottom half of the CST tract just hits that cavity wall. Nothing is getting through. That looks as if there is still a physical barrier to regeneration. This was in an acute injury, I wonder how tough that barrier is after months/years. If it?s not a glial scar then what else could it be? I ask that seriously.



  9. #39
    For those of you that say NOT to remove the gliosis look at the following youtube video from Dr. Young starting at minute 40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCTk5xVhjw

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwilsonsfc View Post
    For those of you that say NOT to remove the gliosis look at the following youtube video from Dr. Young starting at minute 40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCTk5xVhjw
    Very interesting.

    Thanks for sharing.

Similar Threads

  1. Scars
    By wtf in forum Life
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-17-2008, 02:05 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-23-2007, 08:45 PM
  3. SCARS, dr Young, scars!
    By Cripply in forum Cure
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-18-2006, 11:51 AM
  4. Scars
    By ButtMonkey in forum Care
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-04-2006, 08:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-20-2002, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •