6 ms·

Blocking a protein curbs memory loss in old mice: study

93 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
From https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2017/november/when-are-mice-considered-old https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2017/november... it appears that old mice are 18-24 months old. While mouse models in general are hard to apply to humans, I would guess that applying "old" mouse models to "old" humans is likely to be even harder.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hirundo 8y ago
> Impeding VCAM1, a protein that tethers circulating immune cells to blood vessel walls, enabled old mice to perform as well on memory and learning tests as young mice ... it subdued the inflammatory mood of the brain’s resident immune cells So this suggests: ↓ inflammation = ↑ memory. In the short term inflammation generally impedes function, so this is an intuitively reasonable result.
- pfd1986 8y ago
  Specially in light of recent correlations found between inflammation and all sorts of diseases including neurodegenerative ones, previously discussed on HN: https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/inflammation-disease-diet https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/inflammation-disease-die...
  - caprese 8y ago
    I always wonder if this is a design flaw, or if there is another completely worse state that the body is trying to prevent happening, a state we don't even know about until we have "cured" inflammation and all these other diseases sort of like how we wouldn't be studying a lot of this stuff right now if such a large portion of the population hadn't gotten so old
    - DenisM 8y ago
      Having talked to a doc, I learned this for myself: inflammation is simply an immune reaction where body believes that there is something to be fought, either rightly (infection) or wrongly (allergy). You can have low inflammation if you're healthy. But also if you're sick, but your immune system is not putting up a fight. You can have high inflammation if the immune system is fighting a good fight, fending off intruders. But also maybe it's fighting its own host body, or a stray speckle of dust. Can't tell much just from the metric alone. If inflammation is high then something is up for sure, but then... it may or may not need intervention. So not helpful, really. Chronic inflammation is probably a good indicator that the immune system is not winning.
      - louthy 8y ago
        > If inflammation is high then something is up for sure Is that really the case? I have psoriasis on my elbows and knees which is caused by an overzealous immune system attacking the skin and causing excessive new skin cell growth (which causes the dry plaques). I guess there is an underlying systemic cause, but most of the (extreme) treatments are about blocking the immune system response.
        TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I think GP meant that if inflammation is high, something is wrong - either with the body, or immune system itself. In your case, it would be the latter.
    - tylerjwilk00 8y ago
      It could be something similar to the Hygiene Hypothesis [1]. Basically the body and immune system co-evolved in an environment with a higher level of dirt, germs, and injury. Our immune system is designed for that more hostile world but now we live cushy sterile lives free from injury most days. In summary, there is a mismatch between the environment the immune system is designed for and the one it currently finds itself in. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
    - 8y ago
- sametmax 8y ago
  But wouldn't it expose the brain to dangers the immune system is design to protect it against ?
  - scotty79 8y ago
    Yeah, probably you'd want to avoid meningitis if you have the protein snipped. On the other hand you might want to avoid meningitis either way.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      "Yeah removing the seat belt is dangerous in case of accident, but you don't want to have an accident anyway" would be a weird argument while noticing a new car removed seat belt for extra performances.
      - scotty79 8y ago
        What if it was removed because it was causing eventual debilitation and premature death of every driver by strangulation? Seatbelts are bad analogy because they are completely benign if there's no accident. The protein discussed is apparently not.
jonhendry18 8y ago
Before people start eating extreme low protein diets, that should be "Blocking a protein".
- notadev 8y ago
  I would probably have been one of those people. Thank for you clarifying.
- thrower123 8y ago
  Also, there is the whole "in mice" bit. One of the more valuable science twitter accounts to follow is the one that that just retweets every sensationally misleading pop-sci headline that ends up being based on rodent studies with an all-caps IN MICE! comment.
  - pazimzadeh 8y ago
    Trendy, yes. Valuable, not sure. Maybe to keep track of the bleeding edge of basic research. This is much better news than the headline "Nothing we do seems to affect memory loss in mice." It means we're starting to understand how memory works at a molecular level in mammals.
    - thrower123 8y ago
      Right, it's good that we have the very beginnings of an understanding of how the process might work. In mice. Applications to humans are, if previous track records are anything to go on, five to twenty years out and uncertain. Meanwhile, gullible people with poor reading comprehension will see the headline, or hear the badly interpreted third-hand reporting on the study during the science puff piece section of the nightly news. Some fraction of the hypochondriatic will take it up as gospel, and begin preaching it, and the sum total is a contribution to the mountain of medical misinformation that is floating around in the popular consciousness.
- dang 8y ago
  Ok, we put an "a" and a "study" in the title above.
makeszerosense2 8y ago
Protein is dangerous. One of the biggest health hoaxes. https://youtu.be/2R07FL1wVo4 https://youtu.be/2R07FL1wVo4
leptoniscool 8y ago
Are there any foods we can eat to lower inflammation in general?
- bad_user 8y ago
  The study was done on mice and the metabolism of mice is different from ours. In humans refined carbohydrates and hyper-processed food in general (which includes hyper-processed meat) contributes the most to inflammation.
  - Aromasin 8y ago
    There's growing research to say that eating any meat (specifically red meat) increases inflammation. Among other things, it elevates levels of C-Reactive protein, which the liver makes when there is inflammation in the body.[1] Another studied suggests that meat intake increases levels of arachidonic acid, which is another mediator in inflammation and aging.[2] Those are just a couple of studies. There are plenty more where they came from. I highly suggest reading 'How Not to Die' by Dr. Michael Greger, to all those that are interested in way of reducing inflammation in the body. The book is incredibly well referenced, and a joy to read. [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 [3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/&tag=httpwwwdrgreg-20?pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...
    - bad_user 8y ago
      First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years. Both those links are observational studies. The first link even admits that the association is weak. And the second link is a population-level study. Observational studies are important clues, but too weak to base conclusions on, as in such studies it's hard to isolate the variables. For example given that red meat has been a scare crow, you've got the "healthy user bias" [1], in other words the people that tend to eat red meat are also those that tend to engage in unhealthy activities like smoking, eating junk food or not exercising. Scientists of course try to take such factors into account, but that's really hard to do. Also such science is reductionist because it uses markers that may or may not have an impact on all cause mortality on or the quality of life, as such markers need to be read in context (often in relation to other markers). And since you mentioned "arachidonic acid", its rise isn't necessarily unhealthy. Here's an article that debunks the notion that red meat is inflammatory: https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

93 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

From https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2017/november/when-are-mice-considered-old https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2017/november... it appears that old mice are 18-24 months old. While mouse models in general are hard to apply to humans, I would guess that applying "old" mouse models to "old" humans is likely to be even harder.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

hirundo 8y ago

> Impeding VCAM1, a protein that tethers circulating immune cells to blood vessel walls, enabled old mice to perform as well on memory and learning tests as young mice ... it subdued the inflammatory mood of the brain’s resident immune cells So this suggests: ↓ inflammation = ↑ memory. In the short term inflammation generally impedes function, so this is an intuitively reasonable result.

pfd1986 8y ago
Specially in light of recent correlations found between inflammation and all sorts of diseases including neurodegenerative ones, previously discussed on HN: https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/inflammation-disease-diet https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/inflammation-disease-die...
- caprese 8y ago
  I always wonder if this is a design flaw, or if there is another completely worse state that the body is trying to prevent happening, a state we don't even know about until we have "cured" inflammation and all these other diseases sort of like how we wouldn't be studying a lot of this stuff right now if such a large portion of the population hadn't gotten so old
  - DenisM 8y ago
    Having talked to a doc, I learned this for myself: inflammation is simply an immune reaction where body believes that there is something to be fought, either rightly (infection) or wrongly (allergy). You can have low inflammation if you're healthy. But also if you're sick, but your immune system is not putting up a fight. You can have high inflammation if the immune system is fighting a good fight, fending off intruders. But also maybe it's fighting its own host body, or a stray speckle of dust. Can't tell much just from the metric alone. If inflammation is high then something is up for sure, but then... it may or may not need intervention. So not helpful, really. Chronic inflammation is probably a good indicator that the immune system is not winning.
    - louthy 8y ago
      > If inflammation is high then something is up for sure Is that really the case? I have psoriasis on my elbows and knees which is caused by an overzealous immune system attacking the skin and causing excessive new skin cell growth (which causes the dry plaques). I guess there is an underlying systemic cause, but most of the (extreme) treatments are about blocking the immune system response.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I think GP meant that if inflammation is high, something is wrong - either with the body, or immune system itself. In your case, it would be the latter.
  - tylerjwilk00 8y ago
    It could be something similar to the Hygiene Hypothesis [1]. Basically the body and immune system co-evolved in an environment with a higher level of dirt, germs, and injury. Our immune system is designed for that more hostile world but now we live cushy sterile lives free from injury most days. In summary, there is a mismatch between the environment the immune system is designed for and the one it currently finds itself in. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
  - 8y ago
sametmax 8y ago
But wouldn't it expose the brain to dangers the immune system is design to protect it against ?
- scotty79 8y ago
  Yeah, probably you'd want to avoid meningitis if you have the protein snipped. On the other hand you might want to avoid meningitis either way.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    "Yeah removing the seat belt is dangerous in case of accident, but you don't want to have an accident anyway" would be a weird argument while noticing a new car removed seat belt for extra performances.
    - scotty79 8y ago
      What if it was removed because it was causing eventual debilitation and premature death of every driver by strangulation? Seatbelts are bad analogy because they are completely benign if there's no accident. The protein discussed is apparently not.

jonhendry18 8y ago

Before people start eating extreme low protein diets, that should be "Blocking a protein".

notadev 8y ago
I would probably have been one of those people. Thank for you clarifying.
thrower123 8y ago
Also, there is the whole "in mice" bit. One of the more valuable science twitter accounts to follow is the one that that just retweets every sensationally misleading pop-sci headline that ends up being based on rodent studies with an all-caps IN MICE! comment.
- pazimzadeh 8y ago
  Trendy, yes. Valuable, not sure. Maybe to keep track of the bleeding edge of basic research. This is much better news than the headline "Nothing we do seems to affect memory loss in mice." It means we're starting to understand how memory works at a molecular level in mammals.
  - thrower123 8y ago
    Right, it's good that we have the very beginnings of an understanding of how the process might work. In mice. Applications to humans are, if previous track records are anything to go on, five to twenty years out and uncertain. Meanwhile, gullible people with poor reading comprehension will see the headline, or hear the badly interpreted third-hand reporting on the study during the science puff piece section of the nightly news. Some fraction of the hypochondriatic will take it up as gospel, and begin preaching it, and the sum total is a contribution to the mountain of medical misinformation that is floating around in the popular consciousness.
dang 8y ago
Ok, we put an "a" and a "study" in the title above.

makeszerosense2 8y ago

Protein is dangerous. One of the biggest health hoaxes. https://youtu.be/2R07FL1wVo4 https://youtu.be/2R07FL1wVo4

leptoniscool 8y ago

Are there any foods we can eat to lower inflammation in general?

bad_user 8y ago
The study was done on mice and the metabolism of mice is different from ours. In humans refined carbohydrates and hyper-processed food in general (which includes hyper-processed meat) contributes the most to inflammation.
- Aromasin 8y ago
  There's growing research to say that eating any meat (specifically red meat) increases inflammation. Among other things, it elevates levels of C-Reactive protein, which the liver makes when there is inflammation in the body.[1] Another studied suggests that meat intake increases levels of arachidonic acid, which is another mediator in inflammation and aging.[2] Those are just a couple of studies. There are plenty more where they came from. I highly suggest reading 'How Not to Die' by Dr. Michael Greger, to all those that are interested in way of reducing inflammation in the body. The book is incredibly well referenced, and a joy to read. [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 [3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/&tag=httpwwwdrgreg-20?pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...
  - bad_user 8y ago
    First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years. Both those links are observational studies. The first link even admits that the association is weak. And the second link is a population-level study. Observational studies are important clues, but too weak to base conclusions on, as in such studies it's hard to isolate the variables. For example given that red meat has been a scare crow, you've got the "healthy user bias" [1], in other words the people that tend to eat red meat are also those that tend to engage in unhealthy activities like smoking, eating junk food or not exercising. Scientists of course try to take such factors into account, but that's really hard to do. Also such science is reductionist because it uses markers that may or may not have an impact on all cause mortality on or the quality of life, as such markers need to be read in context (often in relation to other markers). And since you mentioned "arachidonic acid", its rise isn't necessarily unhealthy. Here's an article that debunks the notion that red meat is inflammatory: https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias