All posts by medical

Physiology

PhDs, peas and cricket teas; Dr Kevin Pyke’s alumni story – The John Innes Centre

Dr Kevin Pyke completed his PhD on leafless and semi-leafless peas, here at the John Innes Centre in the 1980s.

We recently caught up with Kevin, to talk peas, PhDs, four-colour graphs and the John Innes Cricket team.

I started at John Innes on the same day that HaroldWoolhousebecame Director, back in October 1980. I had arrived to work with Cliff Hedley and Mike Ambrose in Applied Genetics on leafless and semi-leafless peas.

A year or so earlier I had speculatively written eight letters around the country asking about PhDs including one to John Innes where my friend, Peter Lumsden had just done a summer placement.

I been interested in nature from an early age and it was my major interest through my childhood both in growing vegetables, collecting cacti and bird watching and general nature studies.It was clear that I was going to have a life involving biology in some way

I was the only child in my class at primary school to pass the 11-plus in 1969, finding myself atHuishs Grammar school for boys in Taunton where the education was excellent. Being passionate about the subject,I excelled in the sciences, especially biology and chemistry.

At that time Undergraduate sandwich courses were very popular where one did placements in research institutes and industry, giving awell-roundedappreciation of how research and development operates.

Thus,I did the Degree in Applied Biology at the University of Bath starting in 1976.

It was afour-yeardegree, the first two years being general biology and the third and fourth years having a choice of specialisations either animal science, crop science, microbiology or plant science.It was clear that I was bound to choose plant scienceand looking back on this I was very lucky as today no such opportunity exists to get that much experience.

On joining the John Innes, I recall there was quite a gulf though between those doing the new fast developing field of molecular biology and the rest of which I was a part.

I also vividly remember how friendly the people were. I quickly made friends with lots of PhD students, in particular PaulLazzeriwho started his PhD on tissue culture the same day as me with Graham Hussey.

A year later Anil Day started his PhD with Noel Ellis and we became friends. I was greatly inspired by Noel and that led to us doing a Southern blot experiment on rogue pea plastid DNA in late 1983 which made it as a chapter in my thesis.

Other memorable people from those times who I got to know well were Trevor Wang, BrianSnoadand Rod Casey.

The thing I remember most about the social side was the John Innes cricket team of which I was a main member during my time. The main organiser of the team and captain was PaulLinsteadfrom Cell Biology (affectionately known as sleepy hollow in those days).

In the summer we played on the UEA cricket pitches weekly in friendlies against local cricket teams from Norwich and surrounding villages as well as playing away matches.

I was a spin bowler and took lots of wickets and in my last year was captain. This was tremendous fun and there were several memorable people in the team in those days including JimDunwell, who opened the batting, Anil Day andNormanSunderlands son who was a young chap who was rather good and helped us out when we were short. On occasion the new Director HaroldWoolhouseused to wander across to watch sometimes and on a couple of occasions he umpired.

During my time at John Innes science evolved rapidly especially molecular biology and computing. I produced lots of data and wrote lots of papers so by the time I graduated I had my name on seven papers and conference proceedings.

I wrote all my thesis on the VAX main frame computer and Tam, D Roys secretary, typed it up on A4 pages for me costing 1 a page. Computing had just bought the first flat bed graph plotter and I printed out all the graphs in my thesis in four colours. At the time that was a major event.

They were wonderful times and I really enjoyed my PhD work looking at the plant physiology and crop physiology of the leafless and semi-leafless mutant phenotypes of pea.

From the John Innes I went on to doa post doc on leaves and chloroplasts with Professor Rachel Leech in York. I ultimately stayed therefor 11 years before getting a lectureship at Royal Holloway in 1994 andfinallymoving toa lectureship In Plant Sciences atNottingham in 1999.

I have worked at the Sutton Bonington campus ever since, researching chloroplasts, leaves and tomato plastids.Hopefully I have also inspired large number of students in the ways of plants and plant sciences over the years.

I took partial retirement in 2018 on turning 60 but I look back on my career in plants science with great affection,especiallymy time at the John Innes.

Thank you to BridgetGillies from the UEA Archives for the photo.

Go here to read the rest:
PhDs, peas and cricket teas; Dr Kevin Pyke's alumni story - The John Innes Centre

Physiology

People’s bodies now run cooler than ‘normal’ even in the Bolivian Amazon – The Conversation US

Feeling under the weather? Chances are you or your doctor will grab a thermometer, take your temperature and hope for the familiar 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 degrees Celsius) everyone recognizes as normal.

But what is normal and why does it matter? Despite the fixation on 98.6 F, clinicians recognize that there is no single universal normal body temperature for everyone at all times. Throughout the day, your body temperature can vary by as much as 1 F, at its lowest in the early morning and highest in the late afternoon. It changes when you are sick, goes up during and after exercise, varies across the menstrual cycle and varies between individuals. It also tends to decline with age.

In other words, body temperature is an indicator of whats going on within your body, like a metabolic thermostat.

An intriguing study from earlier this year found that normal body temperature is about 97.5 F in Americans at least those in Palo Alto, California, where the researchers took hundreds of thousands of temperature readings. That meant that in the U.S., normal body temperature has been dropping over the past 150 years. People run cooler today than they did two centuries ago.

The 98.6 F standard for normal body temperature was first established by the German physician Carl Wunderlich in 1867 after studying 25,000 people in Leipzig. But anecdotally, lower body temperatures in healthy adults have been widely reported. And a study in 2017 among 35,000 adults in the U.K. observed a lower average body temperature of 97.9 F.

What might cause these subtle but important changes? And are these provocative hints of changes in human physiology occurring only in urban, industrialized settings like the U.S. and U.K.?

One leading hypothesis is that thanks to improved hygiene, sanitation and medical treatment, people today experience fewer of the infections that would trigger higher body temperatures. In our study, we were able to test that idea directly in a unique setting: among Tsimane horticulturalist-foragers of the Bolivian Amazon.

The Tsimane live in a remote area with little access to modern amenities, and we know from firsthand experience that infections are common from the common cold to intestinal worms to tuberculosis. Having worked with the Tsimane studying a variety of topics related to health and aging for two decades, our team had a rich opportunity to observe whether body temperatures were similarly declining in this tropical environment where infections are common.

As part of our ongoing Tsimane Health and Life History Project, a mobile team of Bolivian physicians and researchers has been traveling from village to village monitoring health while treating patients. They record clinical diagnoses and lab measures of infection at each patient visit.

When we first started working in Bolivia back in 2002, Tsimane body temperatures were similar to what was found in Germany and the U.S. two centuries ago: averaging at 98.6 F. But over a relatively short period of 16 years, we observed a rapid decline in average body temperature in this population. The decline is steep: 0.09 F per year. Today Tsimane body temperatures are roughly 97.7 F.

In other words, in less than two decades were seeing about the same level of decline as that observed in the U.S. over approximately two centuries. We can say this with confidence, as our analysis is based on a large sample (about 18,000 observations of almost 5,500 adults), and we statistically control for multiple other factors that might affect body temperature, like ambient temperature and body mass.

More importantly, while having certain ailments, like respiratory or skin infections, was associated with higher body temperature during a medical visit, adjusting for these infections did not account for the steep decline in body temperature over time.

So why have body temperatures decreased over time, both for Americans and Tsimane? Fortunately, we had data available from our long-term research in Bolivia to address some possibilities.

For example, declines might be due to the rise of modern health care and lower rates of lingering mild infections now compared to in the past. But while it may be the case that health has generally improved in Bolivia over the past two decades, infections are still widespread among the Tsimane. Our results suggest that reduced incidence of infection alone cant explain the observed body temperature declines.

It could be that people are in better condition, and so their bodies dont need to work as hard to fight infection. Or more access to antibiotics and other treatments means that duration of infection is lower now than in the past. Its also possible that greater use of certain medications like ibuprofen or aspirin may reduce inflammation and be reflected in the lower temperatures. However, while lab measures of system-wide inflammation were associated with higher body temperature during patient visits, accounting for this in our analyses did not affect our estimate of the amount that body temperature declined per year.

Another possible explanation for the historical declines in body temperature is that bodies now dont need to work as much to regulate internal body temperature because of air conditioners in the summer and heaters in the winter. While Tsimane body temperatures do change with the time of year and weather patterns, the Tsimane dont use any advanced technology to regulate their body temperature. They do, however, have more access to clothes and blankets than they previously did.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Understanding why body temperatures are declining remains an open question for scientists to explore. Whatever the reason, though, we can confirm that body temperatures are below 98.6 F outside of places like the U.S. and U.K. even in rural and tropical areas with minimal public health infrastructure, where infections are still the major killers.

We hope that our findings inspire more studies about how improved conditions might lower body temperature. As its fast and easy to measure, body temperature might one day prove to be a simple but useful indicator, like life expectancy, that provides new insight into population health.

Excerpt from:
People's bodies now run cooler than 'normal' even in the Bolivian Amazon - The Conversation US

Physiology

Technology versus talent the great shoe-volution – Daily Maverick

Brigid Kosgei of Kenya heads to the finish line to win with a women world record time of 02:14:04 in the 2019 Chicago Marathon in Chicago, Illinois, USA, 13 October 2019. EPA-EFE/TANNEN MAURY

First published in Daily Maverick 168

Marathon. Half-marathon, 15km, 10km, 5km on the road. One-hour run, 10,000m and 5,000m on the track. These are some of the world records that have fallen in the past two years. What they have in common is that their conquerors have worn one specific shoe. Never before has a sport so traditionally celebrated as a test of human performance been so overtaken by questions about technology.

If world record lists exist as a type of archaeological record for statisticians to examine, they will one day look at the period between 2017 and 2020 and conclude that a seismic event took place to change distance running, ushering in a new era. That event was the creation of super shoes.

In the beginning

It began in 2017, when Nike first put its weight behind the attempt to break the two-hour marathon barrier. A new shoe was part of that, but sceptics had seen and heard this before, and dismissed it as Nike trying to leverage the hype into selling more shoes.

Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge scared that two-hour barrier, appropriately on the Formula 1 motor racing circuit of Monza, thanks in part to a series of contrivances that included a bunch of pacemakers relaying in and out of the race to run in a V-formation to shelter him from the wind, a pancake-flat course with no sharp turns to slow him down, and fluids hand-delivered to bypass the inconvenience of veering off course or slowing down to drink. But it was the shoe that would soon emerge as the real star of the show.

First came the promised research. For once, a marketing claim about performance-enhancing shoes proved to have some substance behind it. At the time of its introduction, the shoe was said to have been called the 4% because laboratory studies had found that it improved something called running economy by that amount.

Running economy is the athletes equivalent of fuel economy in a car it is the amount of oxygen used by the athlete to run one kilometre, and what exceptional distance runners have in common is that theyre all extremely economical. That, allied to a high VO2max (the maximum amount of oxygen a person can utilise during intense exercise) and a lactate threshold (think cruising capacity) are the key elements for the worlds greatest marathon runners.

A research study confirmed that what Nike had figured out was a way to reduce the cost of running at a given speed. Through a combination of a new foam material and a curved carbon-fibre plate, a runner could now achieve the same pace, but use less oxygen.

And by extension, the runner would be able to run faster before bumping up against the physiological ceilings that normally exist because of oxygen supply to the muscles. The 4% running economy advantage does not necessarily create a 4% performance advantage, but the estimate, based on laboratory research models, is for an improvement of 2% to 3%, or two to three minutes in a marathon. It would be like running slightly downhill when everyone else is on a flat road. Or like running with a pair of shoes that weighs only 100g when everyone else is weighed down by 400g shoes.

Game changer

Its an advantage that transformed distance running, contributing to what has in effect been a recalibration of running performances. First it emerged that the 2016 Olympic podiums were owned by the shoe, despite it not being commercially available at that time.

The mens marathon world record went to Kipchoge in 2018. Both the mens and womens half-marathon records were broken. In 2018 and 2019, virtually every major city marathon was won by an athlete wearing the shoe, most in new course records. Many athletes whose sponsorship deals were with other brands painted over the shoe upper to hide their disloyalty to their brands, just to have a chance at success.

Then the sub-two-hour barrier did fall to Kipchoge, in Vienna in October 2019; by then he was powered by a prototype of the third iteration of the shoe, the Alphafly Next%. The original 4% shoe, striking for its midsole thickness, was now even taller, with a 39mm stack height providing the scaffolding for the carbon plate, the elastic energy return of the foam, and serving also to lengthen the leg to further enhance running economy and performance.

A day later, the womens marathon world record was toppled. Paula Radcliffes time, unbeaten for 16 years, was the last monument to a previous era; it was not edged but destroyed by Bridget Kosgei in the Chicago Marathon.

The same technology of foam and carbon-fibre plate found its way into the specialist spikes worn by athletes on the track, and 2020 has delivered the results a womens 5,000m world record, and mens world records over 5,000m and 10,000m. The reality was impossible to ignore running had been recalibrated.

The moral problem

That alone is problematic for a sport that relies heavily on times and history for its value. The value of a world record is that it represents a new horizon for human physiology and is celebrated as a barometer of progress.

Usually, that progress is understood to mean the runner. None would dispute that, over many generations, there is a progressive evolution of technology, knowledge and physiology, which makes it foolish to compare Jim Peters, the marathon champion in the 1950s, with Kipchoge and his peers.

However, the pace of this development was sudden. It happened within a generation, it was unprecedented in impact and it is completely independent of the athlete the same runner, two days apart, might produce performances belonging to different eras, thanks to a shoe. That bothered many people.

Even more concerning is whether the shoes undermine the integrity of the result. Its one thing for records to fall, and for times to be recalibrated such that a 2:05 marathon becomes routine rather than exceptional. At least if everyone had the same benefit, it would leave the fundamental premise of running intact. That premise is that the winner is the athlete whose physiology is superior on the day. Refined and optimised by training, running rewards physiology, and creates the perception of something relatively pure.

But super shoes challenge this premise, for two reasons. The first is that the shoes are not available to all. Initially, it was Nike that had the first-mover advantage. Other brands scrambled to make up lost ground, and most now have their own version, but theyve had to negotiate regulations, patent laws and access to material barriers, and there remains no guarantee that they have closed the gap.

A difference of even 2% caused by shoes would be larger than the typical physiological difference between the top 10 athletes in the world, the result being that if you randomised the allocation of shoes among those 10 athletes, you could completely change the result of a race.

It would be analogous to watching Rafael Nadal outplay Novak Djokovic in Paris, knowing that if they were made to swap tennis rackets after two sets, it would be Djokovic sweeping Nadal off the court. It is anathema to running that technology affects the result more than physiology, but that is the implication if a degree of between-brand parity cannot be restored.

Second, when an item of equipment has the capacity to make such large differences to performance, it will invariably do so in groups of high responders and low responders. The former will see very large benefits if the average advantage from the shoe is 2%, theirs may be 5%.

Others may see no benefit at all. This spread five percentage points in this hypothetical scenario is so large that it is, all by itself, decisive to a race outcome. No longer would the athlete breaking the tape be the best runner, physiologically and psychologically, but rather he or she would represent the best runner/shoe interaction.

Regulatory pushback

Faced with these dilemmas, authorities acted. Sort of. In January, World Athletics hit pause as it introduced regulations that would limit the thickness of the midsole and prevent the excessive, unregulated use of carbon-fibre plates. The controlling bodys upper limit for stack height, conveniently, is exactly the same as the height of the Nike shoes that have rewritten the record books since 2016, and provides enough room for a smart engineer to continue to innovate and explore ways to drive humans ever faster.

The regulations thus leave enough scope for the existing problems to persist, and potentially, for new problems to manifest. A more cautious approach would have been to imitate what swimmings governing body did in 2010, when it banned hi-tech swimsuits after a similar set of outrageous performance leaps and distorted outcomes affected that sport in 2008 and 2009. The policy effectively rewound technology to a point where swimming ability, rather than swimmer/tech interface, would determine the result. World Athletics had the same opportunity, as it could have reduced the maximum allowable thickness of shoes to considerably less than the 40mm currently in place.

It did not, and so the sport moves forward at a pace driven more by engineers integrating super springy foam with carbon-fibre plates than by muscles, hearts, lungs and brains. DM168

Dr Ross Tucker is a sports scientist.

See the original post here:
Technology versus talent the great shoe-volution - Daily Maverick

Physiology

Vanderbilt University anti-inflammatory therapy licensed to Amytrx is now in clinical trials for eczema treatment – Vanderbilt University News

A cell-penetrating, anti-inflammatory peptide developed byJacek Hawiger, Louise B. McGavock Chair and Distinguished Professor of Medicine, and licensed to biopharmaceutical companyAmytrx, has been approved by the FDA for testing as a potential therapeutic for mild to moderate eczema. The peptide, known as AMTX-100, has been in clinical trials since March.

The licensing agreement, facilitated by theCenter for Technology Transfer and Commercialization and the Office of the Vice Provost for Research, enables translation of the product of the Hawiger teamsdecades-long academic research from the lab to a clinical setting. The result is the near-term opportunity to improve the health and well-being of people with a wide range of inflammatory and metabolic diseases, including psoriasis, rosacea, acne, herpes type 1 and 2, and shingles.

The research led by Dr.Hawigerhas immense opportunity to address a variety of conditions connected to inflammation, said Vice Provost for Research Padma Raghavan.

AMTX-100 is a peptide, or chain of amino acids, designed to swiftly penetrate the membrane of inflamed cells that were injured by microbial, autoimmune, allergic, metabolic or physical insults. Once inside of cells, AMTX-100 prevents the cells nucleusa command center of inflammationfrom triggering an otherwise unfavorable inflammatory response. Without such intervention that targets nuclear transport checkpoint, cells produce a myriad of chemicals that mediate inflammation and keep affected organs on fire. This peptide has been developed by Hawigersteam to naturally alter the route through which our own proinflammatory proteins cause swelling, redness, fever, pain, and impaired function, without sacrificing the cells ability to grow and carry out its functions. Research has shown that this approach has significantly fewer side effects and safety concerns than many anti-inflammatory drugs addressing the same issue, creating a potentially significant market opportunity.

We are working to safely address a key mechanism of so many diseases and health conditions that make life more difficult than it should be, saidHawiger, also professor of molecular physiology and biophysics. I am very pleased to be at this phase of translational research that reaffirms our vision, shared byAmytrxco-founder and Director Thomas Andrews, to develop this groundbreaking therapeutic approach withAmytrx.

As a co-founder ofAmytrx,Hawigerwill be involved in further study and research on this transformative anti-inflammatory therapy by conducting preclinical studies in experimental models of human disease with high unmet need.

The progression of this work toAmytrxis in no small part thanks to the dedicated efforts of the Center for Technology Transfer and Commercialization team, Raghavan said. They have been incredibly engaged inbringing game-changing innovation from Vanderbilt research labs to the real world.

Dr.Hawigersanti-inflammatory peptide platformis exceptionally promising, said Dr. MattGonda,AmytrxsCEO, president and co-founder. Meaningful researchwith human applicationslike this cannot be kept to academia.There is a need for a commercialization partner to bring it to fruitionin order toreach the public.Amytrxisthrilled to be working togetherto bringscience with such broad implications for unmet medical needs to the bedside, and our therapeuticsa step closer to patientuse.

Original post:
Vanderbilt University anti-inflammatory therapy licensed to Amytrx is now in clinical trials for eczema treatment - Vanderbilt University News

Neuroscience

Neuroscience study finds political attitudes can influence how the brain responds to information – PsyPost

Neuroimaging research provides new insights into the neural underpinnings of how information is interpreted differently by conservatives and liberals.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found differences in activity in a key brain region among conservatives and liberals who watched an identical set of videos about immigration policy.

I think most of us have seen some demonstration of this phenomenon, or even witnessed in real life show the same news footage to people with different political affiliations, and they see something different, said researcher Yuan Chang Leong, a postdoctoral researcher at the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley.

As an example, he pointed to a recent segment on CBS This Morning, in which conservatives and liberals were shown the same videos but had very different perceptions of who was the aggressor.

Why do people perceive and respond to the same political information differently? As a neuroscientist, I was curious as to how partisan biases relate to information processing in the brain, Leong said.

The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to record the brain activity of 38 American participants as they watched news clips, campaign ads, and public speeches related to immigration policy. The videos were about 1 to 2 minutes long and were selected to represent both liberal and conservative viewpoints on immigration policy.

Prior to being scanned, the participants completed a questionnaire that assessed their support for six immigration policies.

After each video, the participants rated on a scale of one to five how much they agreed with the general message of the video, the credibility of the information presented and the extent to which the video made them likely to change their position and to support the policy in question.

To calculate group brain responses to the videos, the researchers used a measure known as inter-subject correlation, which can be used to measure how similarly two brains respond to the same message.

As expected, political ideology was unrelated to sensory processing. Leong and his colleagues found that the videos resulted in neural responses in the auditory and visual cortices that were shared across participants regardless of the their political attitudes.

But the researchers observed a divergence between conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning participants in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex . The dorsomedial prefrontal cortex has been implicated in a broad range of complex cognitive functions, including episodic memory retrieval, impression formation, and reasoning about other peoples mental states, the researchers said.

This divergence, which the researchers dubbed neural polarization, was increased by the use of risk-related and moral-emotional words in the videos. It was also related to whether the participants changed their views.

Brain responses diverged between conservatives and liberals watching the same videos about immigration policy. For a given individual, the closer their brain activity resembled that of the average conservative or average liberal person, the more likely they were to adopt that groups position after watching the videos, Leong told PsyPost.

This suggests that the more participants adopt the conservative interpretation of a video, the more likely they are to be persuaded to take the conservative position, and vice versa. The divergence in brain responses was strongest when the videos used language that highlighted threat, morality and emotions, suggesting that certain words are more likely to drive polarization.

Together, these results suggest a neural basis for partisan biases in interpreting political messages and the effects these biases have on attitude change. The results also highlight the type of language most likely to drive biased interpretations, Leong said.

But this neural polarization does not imply that conservatives and liberals are hardwired to disagree, Leong continued. Our experiences, and the media we consume, likely contribute to the polarized neural responses.

Future research should also examine whether the results generalize to other political issues.

We scanned participants watching videos about a single issue immigration. It would be important to study if the results would generalize to other polarizing issues, e.g., abortion, gun control. Given that those issues are also often framed in threat, moral, and emotional terms, we believe this would be the case, but we would need to run the study to know with greater certainty, Leong said.

Future research could also examine how neural polarization influences sharing behavior and the distribution of information. Leong hopes to use his findings to inform interventions aimed at narrowing the divide between conservatives and liberals.

Political beliefs have a powerful influence over how people perceive, interpret and respond to new information. People can watch the same news footage and draw completely opposite conclusions. I think this highlights why it is so difficult to bridge the partisan divide, and that trying to persuade partisans with more information might not be the most effective strategy, he explained.

If our goal is to reduce polarization and change minds, we need to think carefully about how we frame and structure political information, for example, by framing messages to appeal to the core values of the respective voter (for e.g., see Feinberg and Willer, 2012, The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes published in Psychological Science).

The study, Conservative and liberal attitudes drive polarized neural responses to political content, was authored by Yuan Chang Leonga, Janice Chen, Robb Willer, and Jamil Zaki.

Visit link:
Neuroscience study finds political attitudes can influence how the brain responds to information - PsyPost

Neuroscience

Neuroscience Market To Play On The Revenue Pulse Of Healthcare Vertical – PharmiWeb.com

Persistence Market Research (PMR), with its latest publication entitled Neuroscience Market, is there to provide a whale of time to the key stakeholders with its drivers, restraints, opportunities, and the corrective/preventive steps suggested to sail through the uncertainties amidst any natural calamities.

Market Report Summary

For Full Information -> Click Here

Read Full Press Release Below

With healthy CAGR of 6.4%, the globalneuroscience marketis likely to grow from US$ 301.6 Mn in 2016 to US$ 520.8 Mn by 2025 end. This growth is mainly fuelled by advancement in neuroimaging and increasing R & D in neuroinformatics. Neuroscience Market: Global Industry Analysis (2012-2016)and Forecast (2017-2025),is the new publication of Persistence Market Research that focuses on merger and acquisition, strategic collaborations and technology, and technology transfer agreements, which play a vital role in the global neuroscience market.

Get Sample Copy of Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/samples/13390

Company Profiles

North America and Europe are expected to dominate the global neuroscience market in the assessed period of 8-years that is between 2017 and 2025.

Global Neuroscience Market: Relevance and Impact of Factors

Get To Know Methodology of Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/methodology/13390

Global Neuroscience Market: Forecast by Component Type

On the basis of component type, the global neuroscience market is segmented into instrument, software and services. Instrument segmented is sub-segmented into MRI imaging systems and neuromicroscopy, while services segmented divided into consulting services, installation services and maintenance services.

Instrument segment dominated the global neuroscience market in revenue terms in 2016 and is projected to continue to do so throughout the forecast period. Instrument segment is the most attractive segment, with attractiveness index of 2.6 over the forecast period.

Instrument segment was valued at US$ 221.6 Mn in 2016 and is projected to be valued at US$ 408.1 Mn in 2025 growing at a CAGR of 7.2% during the forecast period. This segment is expected to accounts for high revenue contribution to the global neuroscience market as compared to software and services segments over the forecast period.

Software segment is expected to be the second most lucrative segment in the global neuroscience market, with attractiveness index of 0.3 during the forecast period. This segment was accounted for 15.4% value share in 2017 which is expected to drop down to 12.9 % revenue share in 2025.

Global Neuroscience Market: Forecast by End User

On the basis of end user, global neuroscience market is segmented into hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, research institutes, and academic institutes.

Diagnostics laboratory segment is expected to be the second most lucrative segment in the global neuroscience market by 2025 end. However, in terms of CAGR and revenue share, hospitals segment is expected to lead he market throughout the estimated period. In 2025, hospital segment is likely to grab 40.2% market share in 2025, expanding at a robust CAGR of 7.3% during the estimated period.

Research institutes segment is expected to be the least attractive segment in the global neuroscience market, with attractiveness index of 0.7 during the forecast period.

Access Full Report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/checkout/13390

Global Neuroscience Market: Forecast by Region

On the basis of region, global neuroscience market is segmented into North America, Latin America, Europe, APAC and MEA. North America dominated the global neuroscience market in revenue terms in 2016 and is projected to continue to do so throughout the forecast period.

North America is projected to be the most attractive market with attractiveness index of 2.3 during the forecast period. Europe is expected to be the second most lucrative market, with attractiveness index of 1.1 respectively during the forecast period.

Europe Neuroscience market accounted for 23.9% share in 2017 and is projected to account for 23.1% share by 2025 end.

Explore Extensive Coverage of PMR`sLife Sciences & Transformational HealthLandscape

Persistence Market Research (PMR) is a third-platform research firm. Our research model is a unique collaboration of data analytics and market research methodology to help businesses achieve optimal performance.

To support companies in overcoming complex business challenges, we follow a multi-disciplinary approach. At PMR, we unite various data streams from multi-dimensional sources. By deploying real-time data collection, big data, and customer experience analytics, we deliver business intelligence for organizations of all sizes.

Our client success stories feature a range of clients from Fortune 500 companies to fast-growing startups. PMRs collaborative environment is committed to building industry-specific solutions by transforming data from multiple streams into a strategic asset.

Contact us:

Ashish KoltePersistence Market ResearchAddress 305 Broadway, 7th FloorNew York City,NY 10007 United StatesU.S. Ph. +1-646-568-7751USA-Canada Toll-free +1 800-961-0353Salessales@persistencemarketresearch.comWebsite https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com

Source MARKITWIRED

Go here to read the rest:
Neuroscience Market To Play On The Revenue Pulse Of Healthcare Vertical - PharmiWeb.com

Neuroscience

PerkinElmer Launches No-Wash Immunoassay for Neuroscience Disease and Therapeutics Research – Technology Networks

PerkinElmer, Inc., today launched the life science industrys first no-wash Ubiquitin phosphorylation at Serine 65 immunoassay for studying defective mitophagy biological mechanisms that have been broadly associated with diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. The new PerkinElmer Cisbio HTRF Phospho-Ubiquitin (Ser65) Cellular Kit takes analysis efficiency and accuracy to the next level compared to existing techniques such as Western blot and is aimed at helping scientists discover new therapeutic candidates earlier in the disease cycle.

The innovative assay leverages TR-FRET technology to bring high sensitivity across a wide range of analytes and greater study specificity to the Phospho-Ubiquitin (Ser65) intersection point that has been shown to play a key role in mitophagy dysfunction and breakdowns in the complex network between neurons and glial cells which can lead to neurodegenerative disease.

Efficient and streamlined workflows and accelerated data delivery are also provided by the immunoassays mix and read method approach and compatibility with microplate readers such as PerkinElmers VictorTM Nivo or EnVision systems. Analysis can also be automated and run in high throughput formats.

With over 70 Million people around the world living with Alzheimers and Parkinsons and the sheer complexity of how neurodegenerative disease develops in the brain, it is critical that scientists have the tools they need to help unlock promising avenues of study such as modulating mitophagy impairment, said Alan Fletcher, VP and GM of Life Sciences, PerkinElmer. With this new immunoassay, researchers now have a more efficient and effective way to study a key biomarker which could lead to exciting new therapeutic candidates.

Read the rest here:
PerkinElmer Launches No-Wash Immunoassay for Neuroscience Disease and Therapeutics Research - Technology Networks

Neuroscience

Neuroscience Refutes Free Will? Addressing an Objection – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

In reply to a post in which I pointed out that neuroscience strongly supports the reality of free will, commenter AaronS1978 makes a point at Uncommon Descent:

First Michael Egnor is wrong about there being no brain wave activity with free wont Patrick Haggard in 2014 discovered accidotal brain waves to free wont

I feel he kind of makes declarations, I understand his position philosophically and I do agree with a lot of it, but saying there is no activity before free wont and saying its immaterial is incorrect

Furthermore why wouldnt there be brain activity when exercising your will?

Wouldnt that just mean that your soul was using your brain?

Isnt consciousness and conscious experience (hard problem of the consciousness) inherently immaterial? This experience is almost inherently immaterial yet is has a direct material component. Nobody as of yet has answered this question hence why its hard, but its hard because we cant find direct neural correlates to experience per say and this experience includes those Appetites he speaks of

Ill get to Haggard et als research shortly. but first lets discuss AaronS1978s point about the complexity inherent to neuroscience of free will. Hes right. The neuroscience of free will faces enormously complex problems.

We have two kinds of appetites (the term that describes our inclinations and decisions to act): sensitive appetite and rational appetite. Sensitive appetite is appetite motivated by particular things like perceptions of objects, images in imagination, emotions, etc.

Included in sensitive appetite is lust, anger, fear, joy, etc. These desires are not will, and they are not free. They are not free because they are driven by material states of our brainan injection of adrenaline can make us angry or afraid, and an aphrodisiac can make us lustful.

For all animals except man, all appetites are sensitive appetites. Animals have no free will. Sensitive appetites are not what is meant by free will.

Free will is appetite based on abstract reason. By reason, I mean the ability to contemplate abstract concepts without particular material objects in mind. I can contemplate morality as an abstraction just as I can contemplate logic or mathematics without any particular physical object in mind. Rational appetite that arises from abstract rational thought is what I mean by free will. I mean it is free in the sense that it is not caused by matter. Free willfree rational appetiteis free because it is immaterial. Intellect and will are immaterial powers of the human soul.

This understanding of appetites is the classical understanding of Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas and it makes beautiful sense of human motivation. We are beset by sensitive appetitestemptations that arise involuntarily from our brain. Yet we, as human beings, retain rational appetitesdesires and decisions based on reason. It is these rational appetites that are our free will. Our moral life is a balance between sensitive appetites which we do not directly control, and our free will, which we do control. We are beset continuously by temptations, and although tempted we are free to choose.

So how can we test this classical understanding of human free will using neuroscience? In this respect, commenter AaronS1978 is right: It is a difficult and subtle question. Only two researchers have addressed this real question of free will with any rigor.

The first was Wilder Penfield, who was the first neurosurgeon to systematically operate on the brains of people while they were awake (he used local anesthetics). He found that he could stimulate all sorts of things that we would call the sensitive appetitesanger, joy, lust etc. But he could not stimulate rational will. He also noted that epileptic seizuresspontaneous abnormal electrical discharges from the braincould evoke sensitive appetites but not rational appetite. Seizures never evoke the willwe dont have morality seizures or seizures that make us do mathematics or logic. Seizures only evoke physical things like movements or sensations or passions. Penfield concluded that the will (and the intellect) are immaterial powers of the soul. In this sense of freedom from materiality, the will is free.

The second was Benjamin Libet, who studied volunteers making choices to push buttons. When Libet measured the brain waves of volunteers, he found that, while the unconscious predisposition to push a button was associated with a specific brain wave, a veto of the decision was not associated with any new brain wave. That is, it seemed that we are tempted to do things based on material processes in our brains but we retain the immaterial ability to veto (or accept) compliance with the temptation. Libet interpreted his research as supportive of free will.

Many neuroscientists have attempted to replicate the Libet-type button-pushing experiments but nearly all of them have used fMRI instead of measuring brain waves. That is the research Haggard and his collaborators have done, to which AaronS1978 referred.

But fMRI is worthless in the neuroscience of free will. To understand why, note that fMRI has very poor temporal resolution. fMRI measures changes in blood flow in the brain in response to activity of neurons, and these changes lag neuronal activity by at least several seconds. Peak fMRI response seems to occur about 6 seconds after neuronal activity occurs, and may persist for up to 40 seconds. fMRI is best though-of as a long-time exposure of brain activity rather than a snapshot, which the measurement of brain waves (EEG) provides. Libets experiments were using brain waves and the time interval in which the immaterial free wont veto occurred was on the order of 200 milliseconds1/5 of a second. fMRI is at least an order of magnitude too insensitive to timing to record this level of change, which is why it is worthless in the neuroscientific study of free will.

Libets work was the bestand essentially onlymeaningful neuroscientific exploration of free will associated with timing of decisions to perform simple acts and his research clearly supports the reality of free will. There is no doubt that these issues are subtle and complexafter all, both sensitive appetite and rational appetite ordinarily occur together. We have emotions (sensitive appetite) associated with reasoning (rational appetite) and it is difficult to tease out the neural correlates of both. But unfortunately, nearly all neuroscientists (except Libet) have tried to tease out these questions using fMRI which, because of poor temporal resolution, is worthless in assessing the reality of free will.

The most convincing neuroscientific evidence for free will is Penfields conclusion that abstract will has never been evoked by brain stimulation or seizure. Thats true. No seizure documented in medical history has involved abstract reasoning or rational will as part of the seizure itself. There are no morality seizures, no logic seizures, no mathematics seizures. Seizures can be complexthere is a whole category of seizures called complex partial seizures that entail walking and a host of complex movements. But there are no free will seizuresno seizures that entail motives based on reason.

If the human will is not free, and is driven entirely by brain processes, then some seizureswhich are spontaneous brain processesshould evoke the will. But seizures never invoke the will, and the obvious interpretation is that the will is not caused by brain processes. In that sense, the will is free.

You may also enjoy:

Neuroscience can help us understand why free will is real. Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and biologist Jerry Coyne, who deny free will, dont seem to understand the neuroscience.

More:
Neuroscience Refutes Free Will? Addressing an Objection - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Neuroscience

Has Psychotherapy Lost Its Mind? – Psychotherapy.net

Losing Our MindIts happening so slowly that we are almost unaware of it. Little by little, psychotherapists seem to be losing their minds. Recent progress in neuroscience has led to the opinion that the mind is out and the brain is in.

recent progress in neuroscience has led to the opinion that the mind is out and the brain is in

The growing prominence of the brain and the body is not only happening within psychosomatic medicine, biological psychiatry, and neuropsychology. Psychotherapists of all persuasions have also been influenced by this paradigm change. Having lost faith in natural observation studies and self-administered tests, an increasing number of mental health professionals have gradually adopted data from biochemistry laboratories and neuroimaging data to explain why people do what they do. Psychological theories are now disposed of as primitive and unfounded folk psychology and have been replaced by scientific evidence from neuroscientific discoveries. The recent popularization of epigenetics has only reinforced this conviction. At every stage of these new findings, it seems as though psychotherapists are gradually losing another piece of their minds. Perhaps large-scale genomic analysis will deliver the final death blow to the mind?

psychotherapy should be informed by neurobiology and become neuropsychotherapy

Such neuro-talk is highly appealing to us because we have always had a problem with words such as the soul, spirit, consciousness, self, and personality. Neuronal circuits, on the other hand, or specific parts of the brain, can be observed and investigated. It is, therefore, easier for us to accept that they may in fact regulate what we do, think, and feel. This new language has been extended to everything that is happening in psychotherapy. As a substitute for talking about unconscious childhood trauma that causes later emotional problems, we now search for the various long-term biological effects of early life stress. Instead of talking about the id, ego, and superego, we now regard them as functions of the amygdala, the hippocampus, and the prefrontal cortex. Instead of suggesting that the unconscious is running our lives, we now investigate how the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine system, and the neural circuits in various parts of our brains are affecting us. Freuds recommendation of putting the ego in the place of the id is now replaced with advocating a better homeostatic balance within all physiological systems. To remain relevant, neuro-psychoanalysis has assimilated this new language into its work.

As a result of this embracing of the brain, more hands-on avenues of healing are now called for when people feel down; psychopharmacological solutions, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), or neurosurgical interventions, to name a few. Anything might work that takes the mind out of the equation. If classical psychotherapy is nevertheless recommended, the goal is no longer to achieve an open mind, but a well-regulated body in balance with environmental stress. It should be firmly based on a medical model of diagnosis, with a focused treatment plan and a follow-up outcome evaluation. Only evidence-based approaches that have been scientifically proven to be effective for specific disorders are recommended. Psychotherapy should be brief, focused, and goal-directed. Even the names of the recommended methods are abbreviated with only a few acronyms (e.g. ACT, CBT, DBT, EMDR, NLP, PE, PT, or SIT). They require following a strict protocol in which the therapist is implementing specific interventions to achieve the desired neurobiological results. If consciousness is at all endorsed, it is achieved through the manipulation of neurotransmitters (e.g. serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, and glutamate), rather than by gaining more personal insights. Everything should work quickly, efficiently, andmindlessly. Therapists have no patience with a prolonged process of analyzing abstract dreams or unconscious fantasies. When the word head-shrinking is at all mentioned today, it refers to a reduction of brain cells and the decrease of synaptic connections in aging. It has even been suggested that a neuroscience-based diagnostic approach would be more useful than the present descriptive approach.

Personal memories, which were regarded as the most important parts of our minds, remain relevant only insofar as they can be neuroanatomically located. Such memories have been reduced to engrams: the electrochemical nerve-endings that store and deliver messages between one another. They are now studied as either explicit or implicit and in terms of their affiliation to the old reptilian brain, the limbic system, or the neo-cortex. Rather than talking about past traumatic experiences, episodic memories of fear are assumed to be located in the hippocampus. Nothing escapes such neuroscientific investigations. Even the location of consciousness itself has been sought. Contradicting Descartes view that it was situated in the pineal gland, some researchers have suggested that it may be found within the posterior cortical hot zone.

Whereas classical psychology was separated from the physiology of the nervous system, it now seeks to explain how the brain makes us behave, think, and feel. As a result,

neuroscience has also become dominant in academic psychology

In our overstimulated world, we are not even asked to keep things on our minds anymore. Its all stored in our computers and smartphones, before disappearing into the cloud. As our lives have become less mindful (and less meaningful), many have turned to mindfulness training. But as long as it is practiced as a quick fix within a biological and evidence-based framework, its effectiveness will be more doubtful than mindful.

Humanistic psychology, group therapy, and family therapy have been out of fashion for a long time. The interpersonal feedback promoted in these approaches has been replaced by bio-feedback, such as brainwaves, skin conductance, and heart rate monitors. This feedback is now regarded as more reliable than a compilation of biased human beings.

All of this is, of course driven, by technological progress. Sophisticated machines, such as large computers, optogenetics, electron microscopy, and fMRI, can uncover parts of our minds that were previously hidden. Neuroscientists all over the world are searching vigorously for the neural correlates of all mental phenomena and publish their findings in neuroscience journals such as Psychoneuroendocrinology or Cerebral Cortex, where they later become popularized through the online access of neuroscience blogs.

despite all the recent signs of humankind losing their minds, the mind is still very much alive and kicking

If we can completely lose our minds, we will be able to celebrate the creation of a true bionic human-machine: a mindless zombie without any complex human spirit. Weve heard this before. In Vance Packards 1959 The Hidden Persuaders, he predicted that eventually, the depth of manipulation of the psychological variety will seem amusingly old-fashioned, and the biophysicists will take over with biocontrol, the new science of controlling mental processes by bio-electrical signals.

Researchers couldnt find the source of Einsteins genius by analyzing his brain. Nor have they been able to diagnose or treat the personal beliefs, feelings, and thoughts of people by analyzing their brains. While a brain scan (or any other biomedical assessment procedure) may detect electrical currents and anatomical irregularities, they dont necessarily add much additional information about our subjective vital force.

With all neuroscience researchs progress, we would assume that it could significantly improve the diagnosis and therapy of various mental disorders. However, at least until now, the data gathered from neuroscience have not made a substantial contribution to psychiatry. Most psychiatric disorders cannot be validated by laboratory tests, and diagnostic biomarkers are absent from psychiatry.

psychotherapists still need a more integrative bio-psycho-social explanatory model in their efforts to understand their clients

The mind and body are probably interconnected and interdependent. And even though neuroscience cannot prove the existence of consciousness itself, it has presented valuable data on how our brains function. But at the end of the day, psychotherapists still need a more integrative bio-psycho-social explanatory model in their efforts to understand their clients.

References

1. Schmidt, U., Vermetten, E. (2017). Integrating NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) into PTSD Research. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 38, 69-91. doi:10.1007/7854_2017_1

2. Kellermann, N.P.F. (2018). The search for biomarkers of Holocaust trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress Disorders and Treatment, 7(1), 1-13.

3. Chalmers, D. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200-219.

2020, Psychotherapy.net

Original post:
Has Psychotherapy Lost Its Mind? - Psychotherapy.net

Neuroscience

PerkinElmer Launches Industry First No-Wash Immunoassay For Phospho Ubiquitin Ser65 to Help Drive Neuroscience Disease and Therapeutics Research…

The innovative assay leverages TR-FRET technology to bring high sensitivity across a wide range of analytes and greater study specificity to the Phospho-Ubiquitin (Ser65) intersection point that has been shown to play a key role in mitophagy dysfunction and breakdowns in the complex network between neurons and glial cells which can lead to neurodegenerative disease.

Efficient and streamlined workflows and accelerated data delivery are also provided by the immunoassays mix and read method approach and compatibility with microplate readers such as PerkinElmers VictorTM Nivo or EnVision systems. Analysis can also be automated and run in high throughput formats.

With over 70 Million people around the world living with Alzheimers and Parkinsons and the sheer complexity of how neurodegenerative disease develops in the brain, it is critical that scientists have the tools they need to help unlock promising avenues of study such as modulating mitophagy impairment, said Alan Fletcher, VP and GM of Life Sciences, PerkinElmer. With this new immunoassay, researchers now have a more efficient and effective way to study a key biomarker which could lead to exciting new therapeutic candidates.

The new PerkinElmer Cisbio HTRF Phospho-Ubiquitin (Ser65) Cellular Kit, joins PerkinElmers range of immunoassay kits and reagents for neuroscience applications across HTRF, Alpha, LANCE and DELFIA. For more information please visit: https://learn.cisbio.com/lp/guide-neurodegenerative-diseases-and-neuroinflammation-pathways; https://uk.cisbio.eu/dd/by-universe/neuroscience

About PerkinElmer

PerkinElmer enables scientists, researchers and clinicians to address their most critical challenges across science and healthcare. With a mission focused on innovating for a healthier world, we deliver unique solutions to serve the diagnostics, life sciences, food and applied markets. We strategically partner with customers to enable earlier and more accurate insights supported by deep market knowledge and technical expertise. Our dedicated team of about 13,000 employees worldwide is passionate about helping customers work to create healthier families, improve the quality of life, and sustain the wellbeing and longevity of people globally. The Company reported revenue of approximately $2.9 billion in 2019, serves customers in 190 countries, and is a component of the S&P 500 index. Additional information is available through 1-877-PKI-NYSE, or at http://www.perkinelmer.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201026005820/en/

See the original post:
PerkinElmer Launches Industry First No-Wash Immunoassay For Phospho Ubiquitin Ser65 to Help Drive Neuroscience Disease and Therapeutics Research...