13 ms·
> Purified recombinant Reelin was injected bilaterally into the ventricles of wild-type mice. We demonstrate that a single in vivo injection of Reelin increased
by AlexErrant 2y ago
> Purified recombinant Reelin was injected bilaterally into the ventricles of wild-type mice. We demonstrate that a single in vivo injection of Reelin increased activation of adaptor protein Disabled-1 and cAMP-response element binding protein after 15 min. These changes correlated with increased dendritic spine density, increased hippocampal CA1 long-term potentiation (LTP), and enhanced performance in associative and spatial learning and memory.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166788/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166788/
Published 2011. It's been a while... I wonder what it would take to reach human trials.
- trallnag 2y agoHumans have to become mice to advance
- loa_in_ 2y agoFuture mice-kind archaeologists will have a treasure trove of research to dig through
- bamboozled 2y agoThat's a funny thought, we experiment on mice, then one day we accidentally create super mice while trying to solve diseases. From that day, it will be the mice who dominate our world. I welcome our cute new overlords.
- grioghar 2y agoWhen the Yogurt Took Over…
- bitwize 2y agoThe Secret of NIMH mentioned. Let's go!
- unsupp0rted 2y agoThat's the premise of the (newer) Planet of the Apes movies
- benregenspan 2y agoWould expect to see research focused on compounds that increase Reelin expression too, in addition to direct supplementation. A mouse study a couple years later showing nicotine increasing Reelin expression: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23385624/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23385624/
- siliconc0w 2y agoNicotine has been really interesting for Dementia or Alzheimer's so this checks out. The one study I know that is ongoing is mindstudy.org. It's well tolerated, cheap, and widely available. Not a Doctor but if I had a loved one at-risk or experiencing age-related cognitive impairment, it's probably worth trying rather than waiting for scientific consensus which may take years and will probably be blocked by the FDA so some pharma company can develop patented neuro-nicotine or whatever.
- DoubleDerper 2y agoHuberman has also espoused nicotine's benefits, so before someone reading this runs headfirst into a nicotine addiction, please be aware of the withdrawl symptons. https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingZyn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingZyn/
- com2kid 2y agoFrom my layman's understanding, in the US, it is almost impossible to get FDA approval for drugs that "improve" or "enhance" human biology. The tl;dr is if you invented a drug tomorrow that stopped human aging, you wouldn't be able to get FDA approval to sell it. This sadly means that research into how to improve human life and potential are very limited. An alternative explanation is that it may just be super hard to make into a useful pill or convenient injectable, limiting commercial viability! Most drug companies aren't going to dumping $ into a chemical that may cure a disease but has no practical way to get it to the target site!
- loeg 2y agoSure, but treating Alzheimer’s is a big deal.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago> almost impossible to get FDA approval for drugs that "improve" or "enhance" human biology What is the rationale for this?
- cowmoo728 2y agoI recently spoke with someone in biotechnology who was doing a deep dive on "exercise pills". she told me that it would only be approved if it treated a specific disease, like muscular dystrophy, because the FDA views any potential negative side effect as too risky to approve for healthy people. Long term negative side effects are tolerable in Duchenne muscular dystrophy because those people are going to die without intervention. Once people with DMD show the safety profile it can be evaluated for more conditions.
- ted_dunning 2y agoThis wasn't necessarily an informed opinion. Note their "layman's opinion" qualification.
- com2kid 2y agoYou can only make drugs to treat medical problems of some sort. I think the argument is that the cost/benefit is never positive for drugs that aren't attempting to just bring you back to baseline. Basically imagine you are perfectly healthy, and you take a drug that has a 99.9% chance of increasing your IQ by 20 points, or a 0.1% chance of reducing your IQ by 5 points. The FDA would basically say "no way in fucking hell, you don't need the extra IQ points to cure any problem, and there is a risk of brain damage". Now if that same drug was instead marketed towards helping people with traumatic brain injuries heal, then it could maybe get approval. There was a petition a few years back to the FDA to change this to allow research into life extending drugs, but AFAIK it didn't go anywhere.