Slashdot Mirror


Zebrafish Regenerative Ability May Lead To Help In Humans

esocid tips us to news out of Duke University Medical Center, where researchers have discovered a type of microRNA that is related to the ability of zebrafish to regenerate lost or damaged organs. This is the result of a study initiated after it was discovered that zebrafish were able to recover from "massive injury" to the heart through their own regenerative biology. The scientists hope to be able to use this information to bring about similar healing in humans. Zebrafish have also been helpful in cancer research. "In zebrafish, one or more microRNAs appear to be important to keep regeneration on hold until the fish needs new tissue, the Duke researchers say. In response to an injury, the fish then damp down levels of these microRNAs to aid regrowth. Poss and many other cell biologists believe that mammals may have the same tissue regeneration capability as zebrafish, salamanders and newts, but that it is locked away somewhere in our genome, silenced in the course of evolution."

17 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. heh by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Funny

    if i had a tail i'll play with it all day...

    1. Re:heh by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you know the etymology of Latin "penis", then your comment ends up saying something more than you probably intended.

  2. wouldn't get my hopes up by nguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Human life expectancy is quite long by animal standards, so it seems like we probably just don't need this anymore. On the other hand, there are usually tradeoffs with these kinds of mechanisms, and turning it on again may have rather negative side-effects.

    1. Re:wouldn't get my hopes up by gravesb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exactly. There must be some evolutionary reason to turn it off, as it seems that this gene, in and of itself, would lead to sturdier off-spring, and thus propagate. It would be interesting to know why it got turned off, though. Rampant cancer, maybe?

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    2. Re:wouldn't get my hopes up by nguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cancer is a likely risk. I doubt it's rampant, though; just enough to make it problematic.

      There is one ray of hope: some of these genes may have been turned off not because they are harmful, but because they use energy and have been made largely redundant. If you have good eyes and a good brain, for example, you are less prone to injury. Since energy isn't a problem anymore, reenabling these genes may make you both slim and healthy. It's a possibility, but I still wouldn't get my hopes up...

  3. The unavoidable question is, by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ... what is the evolutionary benefit that mammals get from not regenerating?

    I'm reminded of a story from Analog in the 60s, where they figure out how to stimulate toot regeneration. Except that, once the technique has been in use for a while, they find out that it doesn't stop producing new teeth ...

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:The unavoidable question is, by FatalChaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well one problem with regenerating is that it probably requires a LOT of energy, which would speed up metabolism a lot. Maybe our regenerating ancestors couldn't find enough food to support the feature, and plus if food is scarce and you are pooling a lot of energy to support this regeneration, this might lower your overall muscle mass or brain size, etc.

    2. Re:The unavoidable question is, by vertinox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... what is the evolutionary benefit that mammals get from not regenerating?

      Given the hostile everyday nature of the wild, an animal has a far better chance of surviving in the long run if he gets back on his feet after an injury even if it isn't a full one. Its far quicker for scar tissue to reform than it is to recreate all the tissue back in a perfect fashion.

      So rather having an open wound for several weeks on on end, a wild mammal would have a scab within 24 hours and then later initial scar tissue within a week

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  4. Lend me your ears by pizzach · · Score: 5, Funny

    AGH! I have ears regenerating all over my body! Get them off!

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  5. Why would regeneration ability be lost in mammals? by temcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In my fairly limited understanding of evolution theory, the features that help to survive are retained through the natural selection. Regeneration ability seems to help to survive - why would it be lost then? Could it be that the time required to naturally regenerate was so long that the animal weakened by the injury died anyway by natural (lack of food and/or water access, climatic factors) or violent (predators) death?

  6. Homeotherms by overshoot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Rampant cancer, maybe?

    That would be my guess. There's a good bit of research where they tinkered with mouse genes to accelerate or slow telomere erosion, and found that the natural mouse is pretty close to the maximum lifespan possible. Faster erosion causes the mice die of old age sooner, but slower erosion results in more cancer deaths.

    Regeneration may well have similar costs. Since all of the natural regenerators are poikilotherms, I would speculate that their overall lower metabolic rate has less risk of cancer. Giving up regeneration may well be the price we pay for warm blood.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Homeotherms by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but on the other hand, if we are able to reactivate an ancient yet problematic self-repair mechanism, there remains the possibility that we might fix it. Evolution doesn't guarantee optimal solutions by any means.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Homeotherms by 11223 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I saw that episode of SG: Atlantis. It never ends well.

  7. Re:Can we grow our heads back? by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

    With Puppeteers it's slightly more "believable", because a Puppeteer's brain is under its back. The "heads" hold only the eyes and the mouth, as well as serving to manipulate objects like hands.

  8. Re:Why would regeneration ability be lost in mamma by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Forever young" this is not.

    Maybe not ... but as another poster pointed out, if this capability were activated on a temporary basis solely for the purpose of regenerating lost or damaged tissue, it would prove invaluable. Hell, if this did become practical, one could chop out diseased parts of an organ and simply regenerate them. Transplants could become a thing of the past. Lose an extremity? Regrow it!

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  9. Re:Can we grow our heads back? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Informative

    The autodoc didn't grow his head back. It grew his body back, starting from only a head.

  10. Re:Mighty Mice regenerate organs too by Morten+Hustveit · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently contacted Ellen Heber-Katz, asking how the regenerating mice were progressing; they have not published anything about them in nearly two years. She replied that the mice are in fact still alive and breeding, which means that they have passed their life expectancy by at least half a year. She also said they will be releasing "lots of papers" in 2008.