Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 171819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 277

Thread: Doctors in China carry out world first spine surgery

  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Just because a peripheral motor neuron starts in the CNS does not make it equivalent to a motor neuron that starts in the brain! Peripheral nerves are different than brain / spinal cord nerves. Even different neurons solely inside the central nervous system have different genetic makeup. That's why only certain axon tracts regenerate with PTEN, while others don't.
    I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, it is imo, a significant reason, and one that must be overcome in order to achieve any robust regeneration .

  2. #262
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    There is a lack of a cellular bridge for axons to travel.

    Most importantly, is that adult neurons don't regenerate their axons. It is genetic. You can get rid of any scar obstruction, provide a beautiful bridge to cross, but the axons would still not move. You may find proof of .0001% that may move a few mm's but the overwhelming majority intrinsically do not move. This is why genetic therapy is really the only way to get host axons to regenerate, imo.

    Even if you could get them to miraculously regenerate, they wouldn't know where to go. SCI is like a brain injury, only with the cord (same tissue as brain).
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Just because a peripheral motor neuron starts in the CNS does not make it equivalent to a motor neuron that starts in the brain! Peripheral nerves are different than brain / spinal cord nerves. Even different neurons solely inside the central nervous system have different genetic makeup. That's why only certain axon tracts regenerate with PTEN, while others don't.

    I didn't say it was the sole reason. However, it is imo, a significant reason, and one that must be overcome.
    You said above adult neurons don't regenerate their axons. I think that is too broad of a statement, because CNS neurons can regenerate their axons given the right environment (peripheral NS) and cellular circumstances (type of glial cell, mechanism/severity of original injury, etc).
    You say "peripheral nerves are different than brain/spinal cord nerves", which is also too broad of a statement. A peripheral axon comes from a central neuron. There are no peripheral "nerves", only peripheral axons whose neuronal cell bodies are in the spinal cord (or lower parts of the brain if we're talking cranial nerves). If a peripheral axon is severed, the neuron from which it comes (an adult neuron located in the spinal cord, i.e. in the central nervous system) can regenerate the axon given the right circumstances. People fully recovery from brachial plexus injuries all the time. A brachial plexus injury quite literally is an injury to a peripheral axon. How can people naturally recover from those injuries if the neuronal cell bodies in the spinal cord are not able to regenerate those axons?

    A motor neuron that starts in the brain (an upper motor neuron) is obviously different than a motor neuron that starts in the spinal cord (a lower motor neuron). Obviously, a corticospinal axon is much harder to regenerate, but propriospinal axons have shown robust regeneration with functional outcomes without gene therapy in an animal model. The introduction from this paper sums it up nicely:

    "Classic studies have repeatedly demonstrated (Ramon y Cajal, 1928; Aguayo et al., 1981) that a favorable environment for CNS axon regrowth can be created by engraftment of a segment of peripheral nerve, which can be further augmented via the addition of growth factors (Cheng et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2002b; Tsai et al., 2005). However, the lack of significant exodus of axons from the graft had derailed the use of the peripheral nerve bridging strategy since it was first implemented by Tello in Ramon y Cajal's laboratory nearly a century ago (Ramon y Cajal, 1928). Importantly, recent papers have shown that a buildup of inhibitory reactive glial-derived chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) at the peripheral nervous system (PNS)/CNS interfaces is a major impediment that curtails regenerating axons from entering but especially exiting the bridge (Houle et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2006; Busch and Silver, 2007; Alilain et al., 2011).
    ...
    We provide physiological, anatomical, and pharmacological evidence of a surprising degree of regeneration from particular brainstem centers past the distal graft/cord interface, with some axons reaching all the way to lumbo-sacral levels and with return of bladder control."

    Source: Lee Y-S, Lin C-Y, Jiang H-H, DePaul M, Lin VW, Silver J. Nerve Regeneration Restores Supraspinal Control of Bladder Function after Complete Spinal Cord Injury. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33(26):10591-10606. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1116-12.2013.

    So yes, the CNS axons may have trouble leaving the peripheral nerve graft, but they can enter and grow along the nerve graft without any spurring along from gene re-engineering.

    It would seem there is a LOT of evidence to support the idea that some kinds of neurons CAN regenerate their axons if provided the right environment, whether in the periphery or the central nervous system. This is not to say that axonal regeneration isn't a significant obstacle, as it can still (and obviously needs) to be enhanced. But for many kinds of axons, it seems that the environment in the CNS and/or injury site is a more significant obstacle to regeneration.
    Last edited by tomsonite; 08-27-2015 at 02:27 PM.

  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    You said above adult neurons don't regenerate their axons. I think that is too broad of a statement, because CNS neurons can regenerate their axons given the right environment (peripheral NS) and cellular circumstances (type of glial cell, mechanism/severity of original injury, etc).
    You say "peripheral nerves are different than brain/spinal cord nerves", which is also too broad of a statement. A peripheral axon comes from a central neuron. There are no peripheral "nerves", only peripheral axons whose neuronal cell bodies are in the spinal cord (or lower parts of the brain if we're talking cranial nerves). If a peripheral axon is severed, the neuron from which it comes (an adult neuron located in the spinal cord, i.e. in the central nervous system) can regenerate the axon given the right circumstances. People fully recovery from brachial plexus injuries all the time. A brachial plexus injury quite literally is an injury to a peripheral axon. How can people naturally recover from those injuries if the neuronal cell bodies in the spinal cord are not able to regenerate those axons?
    The nerve (axons) are part of a neuron.

    You are taking the fact that I said "adult neurons don't regenerate" and are running with it. I was being general. I meant neurons fully within the brain and spinal cord do not (aka spinal cord injury). Yes, peripheral nerves, that branch out of spinal cord (but extend out to body), can regenerate. They are different cells. I don't care if their cell nucleus starts in spinal cord, that is irrelevant. When your peripheral nerve gets injured, your body, is genetically programmed to regenerate, whereas a spinal cord injury is genetically programmed to not.

    I have never seen images of robust regeneration of spinal cord axons. Could you provide me with some? Are you talking about like .001% of axons regenerating? I have never seen 25-100% of axons regenerating even a cm. Wouldn't a scaffold bridge, nerve bridge, and/or chase to clear the 'scar' create an environment that then gets robust regeneration (25-100%)?

    I agree that environment is a factor. But the prettiest environment (to an axon) won't mean sh*t to the spinal cord without an intrinsic push, again, imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    A motor neuron that starts in the brain (an upper motor neuron) is obviously different than a motor neuron that starts in the spinal cord (a lower motor neuron). Obviously, a corticospinal axon is much harder to regenerate, but propriospinal axons have shown robust regeneration with functional outcomes without gene therapy in an animal model. The introduction from this paper sums it up nicely:

    "Classic studies have repeatedly demonstrated (Ramon y Cajal, 1928; Aguayo et al., 1981) that a favorable environment for CNS axon regrowth can be created by engraftment of a segment of peripheral nerve, which can be further augmented via the addition of growth factors (Cheng et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2002b; Tsai et al., 2005). However, the lack of significant exodus of axons from the graft had derailed the use of the peripheral nerve bridging strategy since it was first implemented by Tello in Ramon y Cajal's laboratory nearly a century ago (Ramon y Cajal, 1928). Importantly, recent papers have shown that a buildup of inhibitory reactive glial-derived chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPGs) at the peripheral nervous system (PNS)/CNS interfaces is a major impediment that curtails regenerating axons from entering but especially exiting the bridge (Houle et al., 2006; Yang et al., 2006; Busch and Silver, 2007; Alilain et al., 2011).
    ...
    We provide physiological, anatomical, and pharmacological evidence of a surprising degree of regeneration from particular brainstem centers past the distal graft/cord interface, with some axons reaching all the way to lumbo-sacral levels and with return of bladder control."

    Source: Lee Y-S, Lin C-Y, Jiang H-H, DePaul M, Lin VW, Silver J. Nerve Regeneration Restores Supraspinal Control of Bladder Function after Complete Spinal Cord Injury. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33(26):10591-10606. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1116-12.2013.

    So yes, the CNS axons may have trouble leaving the peripheral nerve graft, but they can enter and grow along the nerve graft without any spurring along from gene re-engineering.

    It would seem there is a LOT of evidence to support the idea that some kinds of neurons CAN regenerate their axons if provided the right environment, whether in the periphery or the central nervous system. This is not to say that axonal regeneration isn't a significant obstacle, as it can still (and obviously needs) to be enhanced. But for many kinds of axons, it seems that the environment in the CNS and/or injury site is a more significant obstacle to regeneration.
    In that Dr. Silver study, what % of axons regenerated. Axons from all spinal tracts or just one or two? Did sensory axons also regenerate through the newfound friendly environment? I'm not convinced at all that bladder function was even restored.
    Last edited by Nowhere Man; 08-27-2015 at 09:52 PM.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    The nerve (axons) are part of a neuron.

    You are taking the fact that I said "adult neurons don't regenerate" and are running with it. I was being general. I meant neurons fully within the brain and spinal cord do not (aka spinal cord injury). Yes, peripheral nerves, that branch out of spinal cord (but extend out to body), can regenerate. They are different cells. I don't care if their cell nucleus starts in spinal cord, that is irrelevant. When your peripheral nerve gets injured, your body, is genetically programmed to regenerate, whereas a spinal cord injury is genetically programmed to not.

    I have never seen images of robust regeneration of spinal cord axons. Could you provide me with some? Are you talking about like .001% of axons regenerating? I have never seen 25-100% of axons regenerating even a cm. Wouldn't a scaffold bridge, nerve bridge, and/or chase to clear the 'scar' create an environment that then gets robust regeneration (25-100%)?

    I agree that environment is a factor. But the prettiest environment (to an axon) won't mean sh*t to the spinal cord without an intrinsic push, again, imo.



    In that Dr. Silver study, what % of axons regenerated. Axons from all spinal tracts or just one or two? Did sensory axons also regenerate through the newfound friendly environment? I'm not convinced at all that bladder function was even restored.
    I know that axons are part of a neuron...you seem to be using the words "nerve", "axon", and "neuron" interchangeably which is why I was trying to clarify.

    Saying it is intrinsic that adult neurons don't regenerate their axons is not being general. It is being quite specific.

    ALL neurons are fully within the brain or spinal cord. There are no neurons in the peripheral nervous system. You are talking about axons that don't regenerate.

    The neuronal nucleus being in the spinal cord is NOT irrelevant. They provide proof that adult neurons can regenerate their axons.

    A spinal cord injury not being able to naturally regenerate does not mean that all neurons are genetically programmed to not regenerate their axons after injury. The CNS is a much different environment than the PNS and that is a much bigger factor than you are giving it credit for. You say that the prettiest environment "won't mean shit to the spinal cord...imo". Well, what is your opinion based off of? What actual evidence can you present to me besides your own opinion? Just because you haven't seen axons regenerate long distances doesn't mean it's an intrinsic capacity of neurons to not regenerate their axons.

    A scaffold bridge, nerve bridge, or ch'ase would NOT create an environment that gets robust regeneration (in fact, in the source I cited, it talked about how a nerve bridge alone doesn't create significant nerve regeneration). There are way more factors than that which are involved in creating a favorable environment for axons to grow. Once again, you are over simplifying. You are not taking into account how to organize oligodendrocytes or astrocytes, two complex cells that are not found in the PNS. You are not taking into account the neuronal cell bodies that might have died when the CNS was injured. You are not taking into account proteins like PCAF, which are found in the peripheral nervous system that allow for axonal regeneration, but are not found in the CNS. And even then, as you and I both have already stated, SOME neurons are intrinsically able to grow axons better than others (corticospinal tract vs. propriospinal tract, for example).

    The paper by Dr. Silver is public access.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?t...0propriospinal

    I don't know what % of axons regenerated, it clearly wasn't a high percentage. However, the axons regenerated a long distance (relative to the size of the animal) and significant, but not full, bladder function was restored.

  5. #265
    1)
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    ?The neuronal nucleus being in the spinal cord is NOT irrelevant. They provide proof that adult neurons can regenerate their axons.?
    I'm not making the statement that no adult neurons can regenerate. You are arguing semantics. When I said 'adult neurons', I was being general, as this is an online board of non-specialists. The neurons in the brain & spinal cord that make up the spinal cord tracts do not regenerate (That is why we are in wheelchairs for life). Those are the adult neurons I was talking about. I don't care if neurons with peripheral nerves regenerate and they have a nucleus in the spinal cord. They are different neurons with a different purpose. The fact that they regenerate doesn't prove one way or another if environment vs intrinsic capacity is the bigger cause for why spinal cord axons don't regenerate. That is why it is irrelevant.

    Axons are part of the neuron. Nerves are collections of axons. So I often interchange the terms.

    2)
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    ?corticospinal axon is much harder to regenerate, but propriospinal axons have shown robust regeneration with functional outcomes without gene therapy in an animal model.?
    Well how do you define robust? Compared to a control (basically 0 axons) or compared to the total number of propriospinal axons? The images in paper didn't look robust to me. Nor is there any concrete proof of recovery of function. I would love to see a nice clear visual of this robust axon growth, with same point of view as the one in the link. Even if it were true, only 1 spinal tract out of what 15?

    3)
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    ?A spinal cord injury not being able to naturally regenerate does not mean that all neurons are genetically programmed to not regenerate their axons after injury. The CNS is a much different environment than the PNS and that is a much bigger factor than you are giving it credit for. You say that the prettiest environment "won't mean shit to the spinal cord...imo". Well, what is your opinion based off of? What actual evidence can you present to me besides your own opinion? Just because you haven't seen axons regenerate long distances doesn't mean it's an intrinsic capacity of neurons to not regenerate their axons."
    Try not to get bogged down by 'All'. If just 1 axon out of millions/billions regenerates, then 'Some' axons can regenerate. Which of course means nothing. My opinion is based on scientists who are looking into Gene therapy to cure SCI. Especially from Dr. Murray Blackmore. In fact my next point is taken straight from him. Embryonic neurons can grow axons even in a hostile SCI environment. For example, embryonic neurons implanted into 14 day complete SCI were able to grow axons far and in great amount (visually) through a hostile SCI. Here is an excerpt from Mark Tuszynski's 2012 paper: "Long-Distance Growth and Connectivity of Neural Stem Cells After Severe Spinal Cord Injury" :

    "Thus, properties intrinsic to early stage neurons can overcome the inhibitory milieu of the injured adult spinal cord to mount remarkable axonal growth resulting in formation of novel relay circuits that significantly improve function."


    Here is a beautiful, clear image of axon growth through hostile environment. (it won't let me paste image).

    Link --> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...432/figure/F6/

    So when Dr. Steward tried to replicate the Neural Stem Cells + Fibrin, he says that the EMBRYONIC neurons extended axons very far & plentiful inside a hostile SCI environment. But NOT the adult host neurons.

    Exp Neurol. 2014 Jul;257:186-204. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.04.008. Epub 2014 Apr 18. ?A re-assessment of long distance growth and connectivity of neural stem cells after severe spinal cord injury.? Sharp KG1, Yee KM1, Steward O2.

    "There was extensive outgrowth of GFP labeled axons from the graft (embryonic stem cell neurons), but there was minimal ingrowth of host axons (host adult neurons) into the graft revealed by tract tracing and immunocytochemistry for 5HT. There were no statistically significant differences between transplant and control groups in the degree of locomotor recovery. Our results confirm the previous report that NSC transplants can fill lesion cavities and robustly extend axons, but reveal that most grafts do not create a continuous bridge of neural tissue between rostral and caudal segments."
    Last edited by Nowhere Man; 08-31-2015 at 05:10 PM.

  6. #266
    4)
    Quote Originally Posted by tomsonite View Post
    A scaffold bridge, nerve bridge, or ch'ase would NOT create an environment that gets robust regeneration (in fact, in the source I cited, it talked about how a nerve bridge alone doesn't create significant nerve regeneration). There are way more factors than that which are involved in creating a favorable environment for axons to grow. Once again, you are over simplifying. You are not taking into account how to organize oligodendrocytes or astrocytes, two complex cells that are not found in the PNS. You are not taking into account the neuronal cell bodies that might have died when the CNS was injured. You are not taking into account proteins like PCAF, which are found in the peripheral nervous system that allow for axonal regeneration, but are not found in the CNS. And even then, as you and I both have already stated, SOME neurons are intrinsically able to grow axons better than others (corticospinal tract vs. propriospinal tract, for example).
    I hear a lot of talk about scar being a barrier. Ok. Chase or Dr. Silver’s peptide breaks down that barrier (so they say). No robust regeneration. I hear about a lack of a bridge being a barrier. So there have been scaffolds and nerve grafts. Yet I have seen no robust regeneration of host axons. I fully understand that the environment is more complex than that. Yet with neural stem cells and fibrin, I see robust axon growth through a hostile spinal cord environment but only from embryonic stem cells. So fibrin + other non-neuronal neural stem cells (added environment) is a good enough environment for embryonic neurons but not host adult neurons. This leads me to have the OPINION that the intrinsic factors that prevent axon growth of adult host spinal tracts are stronger (not the only) factors than a hostile environment. By a lot.

    5) So what is your opinion based on? Just that peripheral nerves regenerate?

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    4)

    I hear a lot of talk about scar being a barrier. Ok. Chase or Dr. Silver’s peptide breaks down that barrier (so they say). No robust regeneration. I hear about a lack of a bridge being a barrier. So there have been scaffolds and nerve grafts. Yet I have seen no robust regeneration of host axons. I fully understand that the environment is more complex than that. Yet with neural stem cells and fibrin, I see robust axon growth through a hostile spinal cord environment but only from embryonic stem cells. So fibrin + other non-neuronal neural stem cells (added environment) is a good enough environment for embryonic neurons but not host adult neurons. This leads me to have the OPINION that the intrinsic factors that prevent axon growth of adult host spinal tracts are stronger (not the only) factors than a hostile environment. By a lot.

    5) So what is your opinion based on? Just that peripheral nerves regenerate?
    One aspect that could be very important is what signals from the injured axon (injury site) get to the cell body. It seems that in the PNS you have different signals than in the CNS traveling to the cell body that cause a cascade of events that result in regneration of the axon. It is probably more complex than this, but that seems a possible part of the problem..
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    One aspect that could be very important is what signals from the injured axon (injury site) get to the cell body. It seems that in the PNS you have different signals than in the CNS traveling to the cell body that cause a cascade of events that result in regneration of the axon. It is probably more complex than this, but that seems a possible part of the problem..
    I agree. I also think those signals would be vital to guiding a regenerated axon, because they have no idea where to go. It just goes to show how highly complex a problem like SCI truly is, and how far away an effective treatment really is. People need to stop looking at the finish line and start looking at the starting gate.

  9. #269
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Numurkah, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    209
    I'm sorry but if you don't have the finsih gate in sight then the start gate won't happen. you need the end gate to have a goal of what you want to achive or all you doing is piss furting around without getting any where at all

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    ... You are arguing semantics. When I said 'adult neurons', I was being general, as this is an online board of non-specialists...
    Semantics are important if the SCI community is going to educate itself enough to take well-educated positions when advocating for curative research. That's why I'm making such a big deal about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    The neurons in the brain & spinal cord that make up the spinal cord tracts do not regenerate... I don't care if neurons with peripheral nerves regenerate and they have a nucleus in the spinal cord...The fact that they regenerate doesn't prove one way or another if environment vs intrinsic capacity is the bigger cause for why spinal cord axons don't regenerate.
    It doesn't prove anything, sure, but does that really make them irrelevant? I don't think so. There is much to learn about from how the peripheral nervous system regenerates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    Well how do you define robust? Compared to a control (basically 0 axons) or compared to the total number of propriospinal axons?
    If function is restored, the regeneration is robust. Many high functioning incompletes have visual chunks of their spinal cord missing. You don't need 100% of your axons to be very high functioning. I don't think most animals would care about what the image of their spinal cord looks like if they can take a piss.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    ...Nor is there any concrete proof of recovery of function...
    Are you really looking for concrete proof of anything when reading scientific literature?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    ...then 'Some' axons can regenerate. Which of course means nothing.
    Having just one function back vs. no functions back means nothing? I have been told differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    My opinion is based on scientists who are looking into Gene therapy to cure SCI. Especially from Dr. Murray Blackmore. In fact my next point is taken straight from him. Embryonic neurons can grow axons even in a hostile SCI environment. For example, embryonic neurons implanted into 14 day complete SCI were able to grow axons far and in great amount (visually) through a hostile SCI. Here is an excerpt from Mark Tuszynski's 2012 paper: "Long-Distance Growth and Connectivity of Neural Stem Cells After Severe Spinal Cord Injury" :

    "Thus, properties intrinsic to early stage neurons can overcome the inhibitory milieu of the injured adult spinal cord to mount remarkable axonal growth resulting in formation of novel relay circuits that significantly improve function."


    Here is a beautiful, clear image of axon growth through hostile environment. (it won't let me paste image).

    Link --> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...432/figure/F6/

    So when Dr. Steward tried to replicate the Neural Stem Cells + Fibrin, he says that the EMBRYONIC neurons extended axons very far & plentiful inside a hostile SCI environment. But NOT the adult host neurons.
    ...
    Murray Blackmore is someone I have heard talk extensively about how hard it is to regenerate the corticospinal tract - more so than any other tract. That is one of the reasons the corticospinal tract is his main goal.
    The link you posted does show pretty significant regeneration. In the full paper, they talk about significant functional recovery, which now forces me to play devil's advocate - do you see any solid concrete proof of recovery of function in this article? Or is all you take from it the axonal regeneration?
    It is perfectly plausible that the embryonic neurons could extend their axons far, especially if pushed along by fibrin. I should point out that I haven't ever said that adult neurons are capable of regenerating just as well as they would be at any other point in their life cycle. It is perfectly plausible that embryonic neurons extend axons better then adult neurons since they are genetically pre-dispositioned to. But that doesn't mean the environment is a less significant factor. How would the embryonic neurons have fared without fibrin? How would the adult neurons have fared if we were capable of more significantly re-engineering the injury site and given the animals neuromodulatory therapies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post

    I hear a lot of talk about scar being a barrier. Ok. Chase or Dr. Silver’s peptide breaks down that barrier (so they say). No robust regeneration. I hear about a lack of a bridge being a barrier. So there have been scaffolds and nerve grafts. Yet I have seen no robust regeneration of host axons. I fully understand that the environment is more complex than that. Yet with neural stem cells and fibrin, I see robust axon growth through a hostile spinal cord environment but only from embryonic stem cells. So fibrin + other non-neuronal neural stem cells (added environment) is a good enough environment for embryonic neurons but not host adult neurons. This leads me to have the OPINION that the intrinsic factors that prevent axon growth of adult host spinal tracts are stronger (not the only) factors than a hostile environment. By a lot.
    Again, your opinion is that the regeneration isn't robust - I see return of function and would imagine that is "robust", given what people with SCI have told me. While your argument is a sound one, you must acknowledge that it was embryonic stem cells + fibrin + non-neuronal stem cells, which are a change to the CNS environment. It could be that those factors react better with embryonic neuronal stem cells than adult cells. Are there any studies showing robust (by your definition) regeneration of spinal cord axons with embryonic neural stem cells alone, and no other additions/changes to the environment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nowhere Man View Post
    So what is your opinion based on? Just that peripheral nerves regenerate?
    I'll reiterate in case I actually have made it that difficult to extrapolate what my opinion is based on from what I've already written. Remember the argument I'm trying to make is that some adult neurons can regenerate their axons, and that the environment of the entire CNS (not just of an SCI) is a VERY significant barrier to axonal regeneration:
    -Neurons in the CNS can regenerate their axons that are in the PNS
    -There are many more kinds of glia in the CNS that make axonal regeneration much more complicated than in the PNS
    -We have evidence of axonal regeneration that has led to functional restoration in mammals without genetic re-engineering
    -There are many proteins and growth factors that are found in different quantities between the CNS and PNS, and some are found in the PNS that are not found at all in the CNS (PCAF, as I already mentioned).
    -In Murray Blackmore's presentations at W2W, he has talked about how despite successfully changing the genetic make-up of some neurons in the animal brain, significant function has not been restored (I'm not sure how much axonal regeneration there was, but if it doesn't lead to functional restoration, it's pointless).

    I'm not saying that all we have to do is create a better environment in the CNS and everything will be peachy. I'm not discounting that gene therapy could absolutely have its place and play a significant role. But it seems to me that we can't discount that the adult central nervous system alone just doesn't seem to be built for axonal regeneration, and that's a big piece of the puzzle we still need to figure out. There are a lot of questions to answer before we can say definitively whether intrinsic regenerative properties or the environment is definitely the biggest factor.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-13-2015, 11:15 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-14-2011, 09:17 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-21-2005, 11:10 AM
  4. Spine doctors raise hope of electric cure
    By CarThief in forum Cure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2005, 03:42 PM
  5. First Transatlantic Spine Surgeries Bring Doctors Together
    By Leo in forum Health & Science News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-03-2003, 05:26 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
  •