5 ms·

In "mice that had been genetically altered to express human tau"

bux93 2y ago
https://x.com/justsaysinmice https://x.com/justsaysinmice used to "in mice" to sensational health headlines where this is the case. They stopped in 2019, maybe they got overwhelmed.
tim333 2y ago
Although there seems no reason apart from health and safety that you couldn't try it in humans. That they can bypass the blood brain barrier is interesting.
- multimoon 2y ago
  I’m no medical scientist by the slightest means, but couldn’t this open the route to a lot of other treatments for unrelated conditions?
  - throwthrowuknow 2y ago
    Maybe arterial plaque or even prion disease? Seems very promising.
    - BizarroLand 2y ago
      I think anything that can treat arterial plaque would be great. Take it once every other year as a part of your regular checkup, prevent any issues known to be caused by arterial plaque.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > no reason apart from health and safety You're not wrong, but this is the reason all of my various partners in adult life have veto me making a Farnsworth fusor or attempting CVD diamond processing at home, and they're not wrong either.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    The only difference there being there are no international governing bodies that specialize in subjecting dicey industrial DIY projects to weapons-grade safety testing and documentation requirements.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      In general, if you want to bio-hack your own body, you're allowed, nobody will stop you. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4 (even going past the first treatment he did on himself, to the updated version that's not yet human-rated, it's the creator going "please don't" rather than anything enforced). The health and safety concerns about stuff like this are mostly about other people getting hurt.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Avoiding fusors won't do you any harm. On the other hand alzheimers is miserable. I'd personally be ok to try a treatment where the odds were 50% cure 50% death.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Quite a lot of people would be very happy with those odds, too. Trouble is, at least if I understand right, for random new treatments still in the animal trials, the odds much much worse than that (there's also a third option, does nothing, and a fourth option of treating the condition but with side effects).
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
I don’t think the “in mice” torpedo is as effective in this case. As long as the human tau protein they are modified to express is the same protein targeted in humans then the action of this antibody should be equivalent. We’re talking about extracellular processes here so it should be very similar to how it would work in any animal. ie we don’t have to worry as much about the other differences normally present inside cells of genetically modified mice. Yes there could be confounding variables present in the space between the cells but if this interaction works both in vitro and in vivo it should be generally the same anywhere. All that’s left is safety which should be determinable in the usual ways eg more animal trials.
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  >As long as the human tau protein they are modified to express is the same protein targeted in humans I would be surprised if any of this was true. Protein does not behave this way: https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb?query=Tau https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb?query=Tau
  - drekk 2y ago
    You linked a database of Tau proteins naturally expressed by different species of animals. The mice in this study are a breed of mutants that express the human version of the Tau protein.
- ta988 2y ago
  Unfortunately those mice are really not a great model. They express the human tau yes, but that expression is sensitive to a lot of factors which makes human-inactive treatment work well on them.

https://x.com/justsaysinmice https://x.com/justsaysinmice used to "in mice" to sensational health headlines where this is the case. They stopped in 2019, maybe they got overwhelmed.

tim333 2y ago

Although there seems no reason apart from health and safety that you couldn't try it in humans. That they can bypass the blood brain barrier is interesting.

multimoon 2y ago
I’m no medical scientist by the slightest means, but couldn’t this open the route to a lot of other treatments for unrelated conditions?
- throwthrowuknow 2y ago
  Maybe arterial plaque or even prion disease? Seems very promising.
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    I think anything that can treat arterial plaque would be great. Take it once every other year as a part of your regular checkup, prevent any issues known to be caused by arterial plaque.
ben_w 2y ago
> no reason apart from health and safety You're not wrong, but this is the reason all of my various partners in adult life have veto me making a Farnsworth fusor or attempting CVD diamond processing at home, and they're not wrong either.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  The only difference there being there are no international governing bodies that specialize in subjecting dicey industrial DIY projects to weapons-grade safety testing and documentation requirements.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    In general, if you want to bio-hack your own body, you're allowed, nobody will stop you. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4 (even going past the first treatment he did on himself, to the updated version that's not yet human-rated, it's the creator going "please don't" rather than anything enforced). The health and safety concerns about stuff like this are mostly about other people getting hurt.
- tim333 2y ago
  Avoiding fusors won't do you any harm. On the other hand alzheimers is miserable. I'd personally be ok to try a treatment where the odds were 50% cure 50% death.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Quite a lot of people would be very happy with those odds, too. Trouble is, at least if I understand right, for random new treatments still in the animal trials, the odds much much worse than that (there's also a third option, does nothing, and a fourth option of treating the condition but with side effects).

throwthrowuknow 2y ago

I don’t think the “in mice” torpedo is as effective in this case. As long as the human tau protein they are modified to express is the same protein targeted in humans then the action of this antibody should be equivalent. We’re talking about extracellular processes here so it should be very similar to how it would work in any animal. ie we don’t have to worry as much about the other differences normally present inside cells of genetically modified mice. Yes there could be confounding variables present in the space between the cells but if this interaction works both in vitro and in vivo it should be generally the same anywhere. All that’s left is safety which should be determinable in the usual ways eg more animal trials.

1970-01-01 2y ago
>As long as the human tau protein they are modified to express is the same protein targeted in humans I would be surprised if any of this was true. Protein does not behave this way: https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb?query=Tau https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb?query=Tau
- drekk 2y ago
  You linked a database of Tau proteins naturally expressed by different species of animals. The mice in this study are a breed of mutants that express the human version of the Tau protein.
ta988 2y ago
Unfortunately those mice are really not a great model. They express the human tau yes, but that expression is sensitive to a lot of factors which makes human-inactive treatment work well on them.