3 ms·
Ah, you mean the mice? In the near-IR study it's not clear (to me, yet) whether all the cones are altered, or just some of them. If all of them are altered, the
by improbable22 8y ago
Ah, you mean the mice? In the near-IR study it's not clear (to me, yet) whether all the cones are altered, or just some of them. If all of them are altered, then for sure, same N=2 as normal mice.
The monkeys are in a different study, the one I linked a few posts above.
- buboard 8y agosorry i was referring to the nanoparticles. Indeed rhodopsins are used so routinely in neuroscience that one wonders why it has not been used to treat colorblindness in humans yet.
- improbable22 8y agoOK! I was told was that inserting genes with a virus like this had a tendency to cause cancer, which is why it wasn't done on humans (least of all for something not life-threatening). But I don't know if that is still accurate. The nanoparticles sound to me like they could be safer? Would be interesting to know whether they can be non-uniformly spread, so that only half the green cones can see one.