Biopolymers - Beating the crap out of biomonomers

Actually, I don't know if biomonomers are are better or not. I'm running out of headlines ideas.

GATech, an underappreciated powerhouse of neural engineering, reports that a couple researchers have been using "ACh-like" chemical to stimulate CNS nerve growth (in the spine). I've only got the news bites (linked below), but here's how it goes, I think.

Previous work has shown that laminin induces nerve regeneration by providing a scaffolding signal for the sprouting processes to travel down. Laminin dissolves quickly, though, making it a poor choice when not dealing with a petri dish. Part of regeneration is not only providing the necessary trophic environment, but also activating the growing fibers. Using a polymer with ACh binding domains, these GATechies were able to get both the scaffolding and activation needed to induce regeneration. There are also issues of how much activation is needed, which can be tested by just varying the number of embedded ACh binding sites - in this case they settled on 70% max.

One problem that remains is that the polymer does not dissolve at all, meaning that long term implantation could eventually lead to biocompatibility problems down the road, but I assume that some savvy chemist will make a dissolvable polymer replacement as soon as the timecourse for reinnervation is determined (don't want it dissolving too quick or too slow).

If complete reinnervation isn't possible, this could also be used to direct nerve growth from severed cells, to a biochip interface for using a BCI (depending on how much axon retraction there is).

Reports here and here.

Link purge-o-matic

Wow, tons of work to do on my end here, so with the exception of Super Paper Friday tomorrow, this will probably be the last post until Monday. Here are a bunch o' stories, in no particular order.

- Telepresence/Virtual Reality: An omnidirectional treadmill. Going nowhere fast? Better get one of these!

- Stem cell therapy: Large numbers of human embryonic stem cells turned into neurons. File under "You can be anything you want to be!"

- Alternative input paradigm: Sweet, sweet interactive awesomeness. The ReacTable synth. Watch the video.

- Stroke rehab: Using a Nintendo Wii! As one Digg commenter said, "Wiihabilitation!"

- Mirror Neurons and Gestures: A nice writeup of two conflicting papers, pointing out some of the general flaws of MNS.

- Story follow-up: More details from Keirstead on the whole situation with Geron and the treatments being researched. You might remember his from a previous post. I think this statement speaks volumes about the guy's personal integrity:

I promise that my research team will push towards the goal of treating spinal cord injured people with intellectual rigor and tremendous personal intensity. We understand that our job is to invent safe and effective treatments that may then be evaluated in the clinic. I expect that we will fail and succeed along the way, and thank you in advance for allowing us to do both.

Sounds like an awesome guy all around.

- Neurophilosophy: From, surprise, the Neurophilosopher's blog, some Q & A. I agree with his conclusions about the current state of neurotechnology, but think that many of the issues discussed will work themselves out. Here's a curveball for ya: If we could create a little 'widget' that perfectly mimicked the activity of a single neuron, and we plucked a neuron out of your head, replacing it, and all its synapses, with this little widget, would 'you ' cease to exist? What if we did it with 5 widgets the next day? A thousand the next? A million the next? Your whole brain the next day?

- Epilepsy chip: Purdue researchers are working on an implantable system for detecting epileptic seizures across multiple locations. Just an implantable EEG system, with work being done on the transmitter and pattern discriminator. Nothing for actually TREATING the condition. That'll be a tough sell. More invasive than surface EEG, greater chance on infection, no benefit to the participants, and marginally better data collected. (Okay, significantly better data, but still. Not THAT great.)

- Walking: A Nature Neuroscience paper is stepping up to propose two independent networks for walking. This stride might provide a crucial step for making great leaps and bounds in the area of locomotion. Alright, out of foot puns. I'll post the paper tomorrow in SPF.

Giving

Wired has a couple articles about former motocross racer Ricky James Jr, who tried to donate his life's savings to a Geron, a company set up to perform stem cells research on spinal injury repair. The work, being done by Hans Keirstead, is being done in private industry to get around the idiotic issues (IMO) that the US government has set in place to deter stem cell research. They DO need money to complete the work, and Mr. James Jr thought he would help by donating $200,000.

Keirstead declined the offer, saying, "I explained to Ricky that these fund raisers are aimed at raising money to help people in his situation not to take from them."

I'm going to add a little controversy. Ready? Before you continue to read, I am making an argument, not taking a position. I happen to think that what Keirstead did was appropriate, but here's the other side of the coin. It can be argued that Keirstead took the easy way out, and I offer the following three points:

1) Accepting money from a person hoping that your research produces viable applications for treating their own condition makes the situation personal. You're no longer doing research to treat a condition; you're doing research to treat a person. The reality of the situation is too much.
2) Why deny money from a celebrity, especially in a situation where private funding is necessary? Why is it okay to parade Michael J. Fox around for Parkinson's research, but not accept Ricky's donation? My point is that there is a disconnect. It is easier to not deal with the media implications and attention than turn down the donation.
3) The obligatory journal paper introduction always gives the broader implications of research, but I think either many researchers aren't actually aware of the work to bring a treatment to market, or the journal reviewers have made competition for publication such that these little intro blurbs have expanded to over-generalized and over-summarized to the point where the complexity of the groundwork is lost even to other researchers. My point? Dealing with the real complexities no longer requires a couple paragraphs - it requires a ****load of work.

As I said, these aren't my views, but they underline the complexity of dealing with research on the cusp of application. These are issues any scientist looking to move into industry must deal with, and I thought I would throw them out there. Again, no offense meant, I'm just making a point. I personally applaud Keirstead for his choice, and consider it "the gentleman's approach".