Slashdot Mirror
Light Helps Injured Mice Walk Again
Mantrid42 writes "Researchers have been able to affect the brains of lab mice using light. Working in a new field called Optogenetics (optical stimulation plus genetic engineering), scientists injected lab mice with genes that can stimulate or inhibit neural activity based on the color of the light they're exposed to, and can be targeted to infect only on certain cell types. Additionally, another gene has been added to make neurons glow green when firing, allowing two-way communication between a brain and a machine."
Does that make them..... Optical Mice?
The operation is a real breakthrough for crippled mice everywhere, but they have to avoid kaleidoscopes for the rest of their lives...
what a neat idea this and a laser at the right wavelengths(s) could manipulate a transparent surface of connected neurons very nicely, and like multi layer dvd technology, they could probably stack the layers. never heard of anything like this before.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
This is getting into some scary territory...
It's a little disorienting at first, but after a few segfaults and cold boots you get used to it.
In principle, at any rate, it should be. Viruses are constantly hot-patching cells to modify their behavior, that is how they survive and multiply. A suitably modified virus could presumably be made to carry this particular payload. Not something you'd want to use prior to extensive testing(injecting viruses into someone's brain not being an obviously safe procedure); but it isn't implausible.
Not to rain on the parade, but electrical activity does not correlate with "intelligence". Otherwise all epileptics would be super-gifted during their fits...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This is the DNI we've been waiting for... The surgeon pops open your skull, injects some strategic locations with some gene altering viruses and installs some flashing lights. Now you can do two-way communication with a computer. What you experience depends on which cells were modified, and what program you're running. With sufficient funding for targeted research, we could see this technology in new kinds of: cochlear implants for the deaf, vision implants for the blind, artificial limb control and feeling for amputees.. and the continued improvement of those technologies will eventually lead to full sensation virtual reality immersion for anyone who can afford it. And we haven't even gotten into the gritty details of what we can learn about the brain using this technology.. reverse engineering is so much easier when you can poke as well as peek.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Actually, most forms of gene therapy don't require growing cells to work. If you use a virus to carry the genes of interest into the cell, your cell will read the inserted DNA just as if it were your own. There are two routes you can go with viral vectors. You can use a retrovirus, which will actually insert genes into your permanent genome, which will cause those genes to be copied and passed on if the infected cells divide. Or you can use adenoviruses or adeno-associated viruses, which can give genes to infected cells, but those genes will not be passed on. The retroviral approach carries added risks of inserting genes in the wrong places (causing some cases of leukemia in clinical trials), and having genes pass to dividing cells is of little benefit if you want to infect the neurons of an adult brain.
Of course, adeno-type viruses (either a weakened or non-pathogenic strain is used) are not without risk, particularly if you're planning to use them to infect your brain- meningitis seems like it'd be a real concern here. Right now, viral vector gene therapy is at the level of being an early experimental treatment for conditions like cancers and inherited immunodeficiencies- making your thoughts produce light would be a very off-label use.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
I mostly love this article, but it kinda glosses over how much more difficult it is to read out information out optically than it is to stimulate neurons with light. When you stimulate neurons you just need any ole photon, doesn't matter how many times it bounced around, or where it came from.. which is good because the brain isn't so much transparent, its kinda a milky haze. However, when you want to record optically from them you have to make an image of the neurons (unless you want all the neurons signals to get mixed together) and so you care about where all the photons came from. In order to take really effective pictures in the brain you need a fancy two photon microscope, and although some people are playing around with making tiny ones that one could potentially carry around on ones head.. they aren't really going to every be practically chronic implants for anyone, for many reasons.. but first of all you need to hook them up to a large, expensive infrared laser to make it work. That's not to say all this optical reading isn't really awesome, because scientists can make use of it to learn things about brains in more constrained situations.. i just wouldn't look to it to be the missing link in brain machine interfaces anytime soon.
Most amazing piece I've read on science in a long time. This makes the genome projects look like stepping stones. If you read the whole thing and can't see the amazing power of this field you will hopefully be one of the early benefactors because you need it.