Slashdot Mirror
First Mammals Observed Regenerating Tissue
ananyo writes "Two species of African spiny mouse have been caught at something no other mammal is known to do — completely regenerating damaged tissue. The work could help improve wound healing in humans. The species — Acomys kempi and Acomys percivali — have skin that is brittle and easily torn, which helps them to escape predators by jettisoning patches of their skin when caught or bitten. Researchers report that whereas normal laboratory mice (Mus musculus) grow scar tissue when their skin is removed, African spiny mice can regrow complete suites of hair follicles, skin, sweat glands, fur and even cartilage (abstract). Tissue regeneration has not been seen in mammals before, though it is common in crustaceans, insects, reptiles and amphibians."
I think you're underestimating the significance of this. A creature such as a lobster can regenerate an entire limb. If you cut a starfish in two, each half will regenerate the missing half so that it becomes two independent starfish. When human flesh heals, it tends to simply fill in the gap with scar tissue rather than replace the missing part. Especially for specialised tissue such as brain and heart tissue, once you've lost it, it's gone for good. If we can figure out how to make these parts regenerate, then it will revolutionize the treatment of all kinds of illness - stroke, heart attack, amputation, etc. Richard
MRL mice have been observed doing this for over a DECADE now. Hell, we've narrowed down the gene responsible, even.
Here's an article from /. in 2002 on the subject: http://science.slashdot.org/story/02/09/26/1211256/human-limb-regeneration-a-possibility?sdsrc=next /. in 2010 on the subject: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/17/1425241/scientists-demonstrate-mammalian-tissue-regeneration
Here's an article from
Here's a video on the subject: http://vimeo.com/19096437
And here's my faith in /.'s editorial staff:
Yeah, but if you read the article you'd know humans suck at regeneration. It's not impressive that we can regenerate (very, very slowly) the extreme tip of a finger or toe (as long as all the knuckles are left intact), or the kidney *MIGHT* regenerate somewhat, but doesn't happen often enough to be in the literature or commonly suspected. And we can regrow a rib or two over the course of *YEARS* as long as the sac surrounding the rib remains intact.
About the only thing we humans are good at regrowing is liver, and that's only with healthy liver, and doesn't work rupture or puncture that isn't cauterized/sutured. We'll completely regrow a new liver if as much of 3/4ths are removed. Which is actually pretty impressive. But not very cool as a superpower....
The point of the discovery is that there's interesting mechanisms at work allowing these mice to heal in an absolutely complete way, never before documented in mammals. And with further study we might be able to apply their biochemistry to the human healing process. There's a lot of potential, and it looks like an interesting, if not promising, avenue for research.
Quit bitching, cuz I'll bet 10:1 if you lose the tip of your finger, you'll likely not regrow it, and if you do, there will be a lot of scar tissue. If you lose a square inch of skin all at once, there WILL be extensive scarring.
These mice don't scar. How is that not awesome.
Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
That's correct. There are creatures on this planet that can regenerate whole limbs. It's nothing new.
However, what part of 'First mammals' in the OP and article flew past you? We have the first -mammals- now that actually perfectly regenerate skin, flesh and cartilage.
This has big implications for the research into what makes this stuff tick, and how it could be reproduced in -other mammals-.
Like, say...humans. These strange, endlessly multiplying mammals
Healing is sealing the wound with fibrous tissue (scar), whereas regeneration is where, instead of a permanent scar forming, the original tissue is rebuilt and full function is restored. It really is black and white; They have distinct definitions.
Per your example, I don't believe the brain "heals" as such; I'm no human biologist, but basic science states that after a certain age your brain is pretty much as is, and any damage is permanent. Your brain may re-train itself to process speech in a different way after a stroke, but I wouldn't call it healing. The area which was damaged is still damaged. It's certainly not regenerated, as that would require complete repair of any damage, which would make degenerative diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons a thing of the past.
Someone else may know more, but this is how I understand it.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/