Slashdot Mirror
Humans Produce New Brain Cells Throughout Their Lives, Say Researchers (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Humans continue to produce new neurons in a part of their brain involved in learning, memory and emotion throughout adulthood, scientists have revealed, countering previous theories that production stopped after adolescence. The findings could help in developing treatments for neurological conditions such as dementia. Many new neurons are produced in the hippocampus in babies, but it has been a matter of hot debate whether this continues into adulthood -- and if so, whether this rate drops with age as seen in mice and nonhuman primates. Although some research had found new neurons in the hippocampus of older humans, a recent study scotched the idea, claiming that new neurons in the hippocampus were at undetectable levels by our late teens.
The recent article saying that we get no new neurons was causing me stress, which of course was killing my neurons, and thinking about that was causing me MORE stress.
But now, a new article, with a much better claim!
I feel the stress draining away, as new brain cells are born to replace the ones I lost last week.
Yes, this one contradicts last month's study saying that contrary to previous belief humans do NOT grow new neurons: https://www.npr.org/sections/h...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/health/new-brain-cells-adulthood-study/index.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-adult-brain-really-grow-new-neurons/
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So at age 72 we'll all be stable geniuses.
It doesn't actually contradict last month's study.
This study demonstrates a lingering neuro-generative capacity (at the tissue level). The previous study demonstrates a paucity of neuro-generative reality (with a bias toward the functional view).
Most old dogs are set in their ways, but some old dogs do indeed learn new tricks.
Oh noes, CONTRADICTION, time to ostrich my head into the nearest dune.
Haven't I read at least a few articles that say keeping your mind active as you age can perhaps prevent age-related mental problems like dementia and Alzheimers?
All makes perfect sense to me. You don't use your muscles, they atrophy, because there's no reason for your body to dedicate resources to something that's not being used; why should it be any different with your brain? Keep learning your whole life, keep yourself interested in something, and your brain will last as long as possible. Having a purpose in life, whether bestowed on you or of your own devising would probably help.
From the article:
Dr Mercedes Paredes from the University of California San Francisco, an author of last month’s paper suggesting adults do not develop new neurons, said she was not persuaded. “For now, we do not think this new study challenges what we have concluded from our own recently published observations: if neurogenesis continues in the adult human hippocampus, it is an extremely rare phenomenon,” she said. “It boils down to interpretation of equivocal cells which we took extra steps to characterise extensively and showed not to be new neurons as they first appeared.”
I would also note that this study's subjects were "between 14 and 79" and the previous study stated "only a few isolated young neurons are observed by 7 and 13 years of age". Thus, this new study finding little decline between 14 and 79 could be entirely accurate if the bulk of the decline was over by 14. It is an apples and oranges comparison.
As an aside, I feel that there is a great argument forming for completing secondary education by 14 as we used to. We hurt ourselves by not getting more of our foundation in place during that more biologically capable time period.
new neurons in the hippocampus were at undetectable levels by our late teens.
Have our adults detect them. Next issue.
Every end has half a stick.
With today's constant bombardment of reporting of scientific studies - many times dumbed down to be meaningless - we are getting to many mixed messages.
This is nothing new; it's just gotten somewhat worse over time. Traditional media companies used to have science-trained reporters and editors dedicated to science reporting, and even they sometimes got things wrong. Things got significantly worse when those positions were eliminated, but that happened a good 20 years ago now.
For well over a deacde we've been in the age of science-by-press-release where, basically, a scientist well write a paper, some PR flunky with no real understanding of it will put together a press release, and then reporters will either publish that press release verbatim or put their own spin on it. It's a game of broken telephone, played by people who are hard of hearing.
This process is further undermined by quacks (like, for example, Seralini) who skip the science part entirely and publish misleading press releases straight to the media before their "research" has been vetted by the scientific community. And reporters don't care because bad science generates just as much interest from readers as good science (if not more).