PZ Myers had a good take on this a few days ago - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-pr... > What I didn’t do with my experiments in aldehyde-preserved brains was claim that I was preserving all the information necessary for nervous system function. I was quite aware that I was chemically nuking all the proteins in the tissue; I was washing out most of the chemistry; I was destroying most of th…
Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
21–30 of 35 posts
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a load of bull. Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches. Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down…
Cool story, bro. Cryonics as it currently exists being profitable is 1) irrelevant to whether it works or not, and 2) a persistent myth.
And to your point, the metaphor was not about cryonics being profitable, reading comprehension failure on your part.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high…
Yes, but we had this building block for a long time and to claim it is novel or even worthy of mentioning as a breakthrough is dishonest at a minimum.
Did someone already arrive at their solution, and simply not try to claim the prize money?
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#24PZ Myers had a good take on this a few days ago - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-pr... > What I didn’t do with my experiments in aldehyde-preserved brains was claim that I was preserving all the information necessary for nervous system function. I was quite aware that I was chemically nuking all the proteins in the tissue; I was washing out most of the chemistry; I was destroying most of th…
On the other hand, if you think that the physical structure is sufficient (I don't) then figuring out how to preserve whole human brains is pretty important. There's a long time to figure out how to read the information off the preserved brains, but any unpreserved (or improperly preserved) ones are gone for good. So I see why Hayworth etc are interested in high-quality preservation of larger and larger animals and aren't focusing on the reading portion.
"I'm more inclined to believe their goal is to pocket lots of money exploiting people’s fear of death. ... Fruit flies and nematodes won’t pay them a substantial annuity to have their brains vitrified and stored, and their gratitude upon being resurrected wouldn’t be at all remunerative."
I've met Hayworth, this really doesn't fit him. He is genuinely interested in better preservation methods as a way to fight death. As a neuroscientist working in connectomics his association with cryonics only hurts him professionally.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but we had this building block for a long time and to claim it is novel or even worthy of mentioning as a breakthrough is dishonest at a minimum.
What I get from reading the article and comments is that while the elements of the prize winner's solution have been available, the novelty is in their application. Did someone already arrive at their solution, and simply not try to claim the prize money?
A quick search turned up this protocol, labeled 2006: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/pharmacology/CRGweb/internal/l...
I don't know when it was first used, it's one of those protocols that every lab has sitting in an ancient three-ring binder. The procedure is essentially the same everywhere, with minor variations depending on the tissue you're working with, the stains, etc:
1. Knock the animal out somehow (usually isoflurane or similar)
2. Perfuse with Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) followed by 2-5% Paraformaldehyde (PFA). You can also use glutaraldehyde, which is better for EM, while PFA is usually better for histochemistry
3. Rinse in PBS for a while
4. Drop the brains into sucrose solutions, let them sit there until they sink. Usually labs will have a few sucrose baths they like to use (e.g. start in 10%, then switch to 30%). Sucrose is the cryoprotectant here
5. Dunk in liquid nitrogen, coat with OCT, mount on cryostat and start sectioning
6. Go about your business staining, etc
The only novel thing here, really, is that they perfused the cryoprotectant instead of just letting the brains sit in it for a few days. Letting a rabbit brain soak up sucrose likely takes longer than a mouse, so perfusing would definitely speed up that step.
But it's a rather moot point, since fixed brains can chill in refrigerated PBS for a month or two. There's no rush once it's fixed ... that's the point of fixing. I'm with the other folks, this was really just a grab at some money imo. And fancy headlines. There is nothing interesting here.
Credentials: worked in neuroscience wet-lab for 5 years.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#26PZ Myers had a good take on this a few days ago - http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-pr... > What I didn’t do with my experiments in aldehyde-preserved brains was claim that I was preserving all the information necessary for nervous system function. I was quite aware that I was chemically nuking all the proteins in the tissue; I was washing out most of the chemistry; I was destroying most of th…
His criticism bad (as ever), since he assumes all information needed for nervous system function is the same as all information needed to replicate a given nervous system. Most of the information needed for function in any system is generic across similar systems. We are only interested in the information that is specific to the individual.
Not necessarily; there's a lot of value to be had in the non-specific information, too.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original." And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its original purpose) to have a very high…
Given the state of computing power, this might happen first: Become skilled at transplanting rat brains. Raise identical twin rats. Train one rat to run a maze. Sacrifice the maze-running rat. Stabilize its brain and scan it at high resolution. Use an organ printer to create a duplicate of the rat brain from the scan. Transplant the new brain into the living twin. Put the chimera rat in the maze. Observe the result.…
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#28The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large…
What a load of bull. Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches. Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down…
Cryopreservation is an attempt to stop the man with the hammer. By preserving your brain, you give yourself a chance that you can be revived, if technology advances that far. Which certainly seems very likely.
It is a tragedy that the majority of people who die are not cryopreserved. It's absolutely silly. Even if there is only a small chance it will work, it is still absolutely worth doing.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#29Aldehydes covalently bond and crosslink the proteins and irreversibly kill all of the fixed cells. There is zero hope that this provides a solution to cryopreservation except in the slice it up and look at it under the microscope sense.
Re: Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize
#30The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been rigorously demonstrated to work in large…
What a load of bull. Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches. Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very large hammer smashes down…
I might have misunderstood this bit (in which case, oops). I see way too many people making the assumption that cryonics is somehow primarily profit motivated. Taking money out of the cryonics trust to "buy drinks" would potentially cost the lives of patients, as the organization must remain stable in addition to the revival being achievable to begin with. The incentive is towards long term savings.
> So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting better at smashing watches, that's for sure."
This analogy doesn't make much sense to me. Cryonics is about trying to prevent something that will inevitably be smashed from being smashed as badly. Saying cryonics is about smashing things is like saying seat belts are about cars crashing into each other.