Slashdot Mirror


Gene Therapy Cures Color-Blind Monkeys

SpuriousLogic writes "After receiving injections of genes that produce color-detecting proteins, two color-blind monkeys have seen red and green for the first time. Except in its extreme forms, color blindness isn't a debilitating condition, but it's a convenient stand-in for other types of blindness that might be treated with gene therapy. The monkey success raises the possibility of reversing those diseases, in a manner that most scientists considered impossible. 'We said it was possible to give an adult monkey with a model of human red-green color blindness the retina of a person with normal color vision. Every single person I talked to said, absolutely not,' said study co-author Jay Neitz, a University of Washington ophthalmologist. 'And almost every unsolved vision defect out there has this component in one way or another, where the ability to translate light into a gene signal is involved.' The full-spectrum supplementation of the squirrel monkeys' sight, described Wednesday in Nature, comes just less than a year after researchers used gene therapy to restore light perception in people afflicted by Leber Congenital Amaurosis, a rare and untreatable form of blindness."

16 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Colors - for the first time by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Upon seeing the new colors, the monkeys also made the signs for "far out" and "trippy, dude".

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Colors - for the first time by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Given those results, I say we give the human trials a green light!

      --
      Be relentless!
  2. Re:biotech rocks by overbaud · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not as much as geology rocks...

    --
    Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
  3. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now all those poor monkeys will finally be able to get unrestricted pilot licenses!

  4. Next step: Tetrachromatism by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about those crazy women with 4 color receptors. They are real life mutants! Are we going to get some gene therapy like that? I want 2 receptors for green! I'll be like a human HDTV! In fact, that will be my crimefighting name: The Human HDTV! I fight crime in 1080i! (it would be in 1080p but that's as high as my TV goes)

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Next step: Tetrachromatism by 1+a+bee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why not go infra-red? From the article..

      Williams, however, was quicker to speculate. âoeUltimately we might be able to do all kinds of interesting manipulations of the retina,â he said. âoeNot only might we be able to cure disease, but we might engineer eyes with remarkable capabilities. You can imagine conferring enhanced night vision in normal eyes, or engineering genes that make photopigments with spectral properties for whatever you want your eye to see.â

      âoeThis study makes that kind of science fiction future a distinct possibility, as opposed to a fantasy,â continued Williams.

      Aye. A story deserving of being /.

    2. Re:Next step: Tetrachromatism by keeboo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about those crazy women with 4 color receptors [tomes.biz]. They are real life mutants! Are we going to get some gene therapy like that?

      I'm not sure I would want that.
      All color movies and photographs up now are recorded for a audience of tricromats. Watching movies, seeing your family pictures, browsing the internet etc would probably look poor to tetracromats.

    3. Re:Next step: Tetrachromatism by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Informative

      > So? Glasses to filter out all but visible light (today's visible light) should be trivial. Just like those blue & red 3D glasses.

      Women believed to be tetrachromatic don't see light trichromats can't see... they recognize two variants of "green" as being different, the same way green and red are different to you. If you were genuinely tetrachromatic in the sense the women are believed to be, TV, film, photographs, and printed images would almost ALWAYS look like shit to you, because the "green" would be "wrong" in ways you couldn't really explain.

      Here's an example: suppose you were a trichromat, living in a world where 94% of the population couldn't distinguish between red and green, and for all intents and purposes "yellow" was just a darker or brighter shade of red/green. Color film wouldn't be based on red, green, and blue... it would be based on blue and yellow. Your RGB monitor would be a BY monitor. To everyone else, the whole idea of "RGB" would be silly, because they could get the exact same image quality from just blue and yellow. You'd be the unfortunate person who kept babbling about there being a difference between "red" and "green", and that they were somehow different from the color everyone else knew as "yellow". Anyway, getting back to the example, a tetrachromatic woman wouldn't want RGB... she'd want RGgB, where "G" and "g" were slightly different frequencies of green. An RGB monitor to a tetrachromat would look just as artificial, fake, and bad as a Blue-Yellow monitor designed for deutranopes and protanopes would to you.

  5. Cerebral achromatopsia by mindbrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cerebral achromatopsia will give you a different take on colour blindness as a result of brain damage. Localized brain damage can drain all the colour from your world and leave you in a world of the grey hued zombies. What we tend to think of as our vision isn't just a straight run from the retina back to the occipital lobe, and, much of what we think of a vision is a complex production of various brain modules.

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Cerebral achromatopsia by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is so cool. I love that some people don't even realize they're seeing grey. They can still name colors perfectly fine (they can pick out the "blue flavored" gatorates in the supermarket at a glance), but they don't have the experience of color available to their consciousness. This sort of deconstruction of consciousness's functions is, IMO, the strongest evidence against Cartesian dualism.

      This reminds me of an experiment Bill Nye did. He wore a pair of goggles that flipped his vision upside-down. After a few days (I think) of headaches he completely got used to it and was able to function normally with it upside down. I think I remember him saying that it didn't seem upside down to him, and when they took off the goggles at the end the world seemed upside down again. The really fascinating part was that there wasn't a moment of "flipping" during the experiment: the upside-down image became his expected norm. In other words, the optic nerves don't correspond directly to some raster format where they're tied directly into our Video In consciousness jack. They're interpreted as needed and presented to our consciousness experience post-processing.

      And the simple experiment didn't prove this but I suspect that there's no relative relation between optic nerves either. Like they're just haphazardly bundled together and shipped off to the brain, and the brain's processing adaptively grows to sort and make sense of the random signals. So I suspect that if you sever the optic nerve and connect the nerves randomly your brain will eventually be able to just interpret the new signals as the norm like Bill Nye did.

      The reason I suspect that is because of the really cool electronic sensing technology that's been developed in the last few decades. I think I've read something like they can just send signals into nerves (obviously with sensible modulation/frequency/amplitude) and make the signals vary in some way based on the external world and after awhile patients are able to sense it naturally. Like audio signals to the eardrums and such.

      Oh yeah I found it. This. By just shocking areas of the tongue a blind patient can develop a kind of sight. If the top left pixel is dark you shock the top left area, etc. Again, I think that you could completely mix up all of the inputs and after awhile it would be perfectly natural.

      Think of feeling with your hand. A priori you have no idea which nerves in that thick bundle of nerves correspond to a particular finger. But by observing and noticing that when you twitch a certain way a particular finger moves and when you touch something you get an input only on particular nerves you eventually build up an intuitive grasp of which nerve is which (handled transparently of course). The problem is complex and we see side effects all the time. I'm sure everyone's had the experience of being in a weird position with their arms or legs twisted up and you can't really tell which limb is which. You may experimentally try to move a particualar leg that you see and move the wrong one!

      This whole field is fascinating

  6. Impossible to imagine by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone who is color-blind (severely red/green), this news just astounds me.

    The basic fact is that I have no idea, no point of reference to even understand what it is I don't see. It is impossible for me to imagine what "Purple" actually is, since to me it is merely a dark blue. Not hard to imagine, like an unusual experience is, but as far as I'm concerned impossible to imagine.

    Until seeing this article today, I had assumed that I would never be able to understand what most people saw. Having the possibility open up is simply mind-blowing. Imagine what kind of leap that would be for more serious conditions like actual blindness.

    1. Re:Impossible to imagine by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's nice to see someone else that thinks the color purple is a conspiracy that all the "normal" vision carry out on us. I can't tell you how many "purple" shirts my daughter has convinced me to buy. There is no such thing as "purple" it's all a conspiracy.

  7. Re:We prefer to be called "Chromatically Challenge by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They wouldn't let me join the army because I am "color blind". No-one mentioned this to me when I was in Cadets, and it's not like the topic didn't come up. I remember one day we all lined up in front of a field:

    Instructor: Right. Everyone, listen up. Today we are doing a sweep search exercise. Hidden in this field are 6 soldiers, all highly trained in the skill of camouflage. You will form a single line, one arm length seperation, and walk this field. Be attentive, they may be right in front of them and you won't see them.

    [I raise my hand]

    Instructor: Yes cadet, what is it?

    Me: Do you mean [pointing] that guy, that guy, that guy, that guy, that guy, and that lady?

    Instructor: [Sigh]. Ok smart-ass, you're dismissed. Everyone else, turn around while we reconfigure.

    But hey, at least they won't draft me.

     

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  8. Re:biotech rocks by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ditto here. I saw the article at discovery dot com today, and read it. Man, it would be GREAT to get a shot or six, and start seeing all those colors people SAY that they see. I could swear that people are involved in a conspiracy to convince people like me that we're nuts. Purple, lilac, lavender, and a whole lot of others are ALL THE SAME!!

    Oddly enough, the little sample color vision chart they stuck in the article? I was able to see the eye in it. Not real clearly, but when I read the tag caption, I was able to see the eye. The real charts just don't work, though.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  9. Re:biotech rocks by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Informative

    > Could you imagine being able to see halfway down the IR spectrum, or well past UV on the other end

    IR might be do-able, but UV is almost structurally impossible for the human eye to meaningfully view. The spectral peak of "blue" cones is actually closer to violet than blue. If you look at a sensitivity curve for human blue cones, you'll notice that its peak is just slightly above violet, and its lower third is simply chopped off or attenuated away. The problem is the cornea -- it blocks most UV light. What the cornea doesn't block, the fluid inside the eye absorbs and scatters. There have been reports that people who've had cataract surgery are able to perceive UV as hazy, diffuse "purplish-yellow" light. The idea that something can be purple and yellow is strange, but not as crazy as it sounds when you consider that the color we call "purple" is NOTHING like spectral violet, and is actually an artifact of human vision caused by a nonlinear slope in blue sensitivity. There's a tiny area where the upper end of blue overlaps with the lower end of red, with a small ripple in blue that introduces just enough error in that region to make purple possible.

    There's another problem: chromatic aberration. Ever notice that you can make a fake 3d-like pic using pure red and pure blue, so the blue parts seem to be floating in space compared to the red? That's chromatic aberration at work. The cornea can only focus light from a relatively narrow band. The lower you go, the less-focused the light would be. Similar distortion would become problematic in the infrared range, though not as quickly as at the blue end.

  10. You know what they say: by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Monkey see, monkey blue"