Category Archives: Neuroscience

Neuroscience

Merck to build 1B London R&D hub for its first ex-U.S. early research center – FierceBiotech

Making good on its 2017 promise to back post-Brexit Britain, U.S. Big Pharma Merck is set to spend 1 billion ($1.31 billion) on a new unifying early research hub in Englands capital city.

The new hub, which will bring together staffers from across the region to a central hub in London, will be the company's first early-stage R&D center outside of its native U.S. The focus will be on diseases of aging, predominately in neuroscience, an area with high risk but major unmet need.

Merck had made moves to create the hub back in 2017, a year after the U.K. voted to leave the EU, and was hailed by politicians as a positive investment.

Humanized Mouse Models for Drug Discovery: The NOG Portfolio

Human immune system mouse models are leading to breakthroughs in a wide range of research applications. In this white paper, explore the NOG portfolio and the unique benefits of each model to determine the appropriate choice for your study.

It has been somewhat delayed, given how tight space is in London (the same issues New York has with lab space) and it wanting to be in the life sciences hub by the Francis Crick biomedical research institute in north London. Merck, known as MSD in Europe, already has a major five-year neuro R&D pact with the Crick Institute.

It will be called, quite simply, the London Discovery Research Centre, and it should be up and running by 2025, with work starting late next year, should it cut through the red tape. On top of the moving scientists and staffers from its other areas into the center, it also expects to create about 120 new jobs for scientists and technicians.

In all, it expects to employ 800 people at the 25,000-square-metersiteand to spend 1 billion all told on the hub.

We currently view the U.K. as a world leader in developing science, driven by the long-term emphasis on building a strong research and development infrastructure, said David Peacock, MSD managing director for the U.K. and Ireland, speaking to the Financial Times.

View post:
Merck to build 1B London R&D hub for its first ex-U.S. early research center - FierceBiotech

Neuroscience

The Importance of Blood Tests for Alzheimer’s Disease Patients: 2 Neuroscientists Explain the Recent Find – Science Times

Steven DeKosky, University of Florida and Todd Golde, University of FloridaAug 14, 2020 10:34 AM EDT

A blood test to diagnose Alzheimers disease moved closer to reality this week after new findings were announcedat the Alzheimers Association International Conference on July 29, 2020. The test showed extremely high accuracyaround 90%for detecting chemicals in the blood that are specific for Alzheimers.

Those who treat patients with Alzheimers say that the tests need only a bit higher level of accuracy before they can be used clinically, which could be in two to three years. This breakthrough could perhaps allow doctors to not only identify symptomatic patients with the disease, but also to identify people with no symptoms who are at risk of developing the disease, and thus begin interventions.

About 5.7 million people in the U.S.live with Alzheimers, but that number could triple by 2050, the Alzheimers Association estimates.

While blood tests have been slowly increasing their diagnostic accuracy, the new blood testanalyzing the amount of a brain protein, p-217, in the bloodappears to be accurate in over 90% of cases in a study looking at blood samples from people with definite Alzheimers disease. Accuracy rates of other tests will likely increase over time. But this result shows that a breakthrough test is indeed possible. Before the tests are available to the public through FDA approval, well need another two to three years to complete the studies.

(Photo : pxhere)Testing a suspected Alzheimers patient for biomarkers isnt easy or cheap. Although the accuracy of an Alzheimers diagnosis has improved over the decades, it is still difficult.

As researcherswho have spent our professional livesstudying this disease and treating patients with it, we think this news is especially important. It represents a significant leap forward in our ability to use peripheral blood tests for detection of Alzheimers and possibly as a marker of effectiveness in developing medical treatments. Here is why.

Just one year ago, we wrote a piece for The Conversation on blood tests for Alzheimers disease, ending it with the hope that several promising blood tests would soon emerge as accurate and specific. Now, it appears they have. The tests have been centered on the ability to test for either beta amyloid or tau, the characteristic proteins that are deposited in the brain in Alzheimers disease, and the tau tests lagged behind the beta amyloid tests. Now tau testing has jumped into the lead.

Until the early 1990s, with the routine use of brain MRI scans, it was difficult to be certain whether a person with cognitive loss had Alzheimers. Even the best neurologists would get the diagnosis wrong about one in four times. MRIs increased accuracy; it could show vascular disease and atrophy characteristic of Alzheimers or other dementias, but could not confirm the diagnosis with certainty. Diagnosis was even harder in people over 80, where the changes in thinking and memory with aging were not always easy to separate from early Alzheimers symptoms, and normal age-related atrophy made differentiation from disease-based brain shrinkage more difficult.

Until this century, the only definitive diagnosisof the disease occurred after death, at autopsy, by finding certain levels of two specific lesions, or areas of abnormal tissue. Those two lesions are beta-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tangles.

And it was not unusual to find, following autopsy, that someone diagnosed clinically with Alzheimers disease had another neurodegenerative disease, disease related to blood vessels in the brain, or some combination of these.

RELATED: A Promising Blood Test May Diagnose Alzheimer's Disease

Over the last two decades, however, the medical field has made progress in detecting the disease by identifying specific diagnostic biomarkers, or biological signs of disease. MRI scans helped by showing shrinkage of the areas of the brain that underlie memory. But they are not specific for Alzheimers.

Two key biomarkers, amyloid protein, found in plaques, and tau protein, found in tangles, became the targets outside of the brain tissue itself, since their presence in the brain defines the disease.

With the identification of these biomarkers, doctors could test patients to see if either amyloid or tau, or both, were abnormal in patients in whom they suspected Alzheimers. But the testing has not been easy or cheap.

One way was a spinal tap, whereby doctors could obtain cerebro-spinal fluid, the fluid around your brain and spine, and measure levels of tau and amyloid, which change if the disease is present. While doctors consider this procedure safe and routine, it is not a favorite among patients.

Another method involves imaging the brain using a positron emission tomography (PET) scan following administration of compounds (amyloid or tau tracers)that bind one of the proteins that accumulates in the Alzheimer brain. The amyloid scans came first, about 15 years ago, and revolutionized research in Alzheimers; tau scans have been developed over the past several years, and reveal neurofibrillary tangles on the PET scans. Although extremely safe, individual PET scans are expensivetypically from US$3,000 upand Medicare does not pay for them.

The impact of these advances is huge, especially in research and clinical trials, where maximum likelihood of the right diagnosis is required. But the medical community badly needs a more convenient, less expensive, less invasive way to diagnose Alzheimers. Enter a blood test.

READ MORE: Elderly Who Retain Sense of Smell Are at Lower Risk of Dementia

For years, efforts to find such an easily obtainable Alzheimers diagnostic biomarker in the blood came up emptythey were not accurate enough.

A major reason for inconsistency of the prior reports was the extremely small amounts of these protein fragments in the blood. The tests have to be sensitive enough to detect either amyloid or tau, and be accurate enough that the blood level changes occurring in people with Alzheimers can be clearly different from those of non-affected people.

Now, several publicationsand presentations at the recent Alzheimers Association International Conference have demonstrated that blood tests measuring amyloid and tau proteins have become much more sensitive and accurate enough to allow their possible future use as routine aids in Alzheimers disease diagnosis.

These various tests are at different stages of validationassuring theyre accurate across many different patient populations. And, for each protein, there are several different methods for making the blood measurements. However, the research community is excited about the possibilities.

And one new tau blood test appears to meet a number of criteria necessary.

To be useful, the tests have to be nearly perfect predictors. Many arent there yet; so far, they seem to get it right up to over 85% of the time. And the accuracy will be very important if theyre to be used to screen people for positive tests and enter those people into clinical trials.

The newest blood assay for the tau protein, developed to look for a different site on the tau molecule than other tau tests, has now emerged with the highest accuracy yetwith data from three different large populations of patients.

In these studies, the sensitivityor the ability to detect the disease when it is really thereand the specificitynegative test in people who do not have Alzheimerswere above 90% to 95%. It even detected elevated tau in the blood of people who had the disease in their brains but had not yet had any symptoms, identifying people at risk for the disease to enroll in trials to prevent the disease. It is the result of advances in the technology of the assays, or analysis techniques, and the collaboration of researchers to provide blood samples from proven Alzheimers cases.

These tests mark real progress. Cost-effective screening and diagnostic tests will help us reach our goal of finding novel treatments that can better treat the clinical symptoms of Alzheimers or delay its development, or both.

READ NEXT: Educational Attainment Affects Risk of Dementia, Study Says

This article is updated from an original version, which was published Aug. 7, 2019.

This article is republished from The Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. | Authors:Steven DeKosky, Deputy Director, McKnight Brain Institute, Aerts-Cosper Professor of Alzheimer's Research, and Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience,University of FloridaandTodd Golde, Director, Evelyn F. and William L. McKnight Brain Institute Director, 1Florida Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, Professor, Department of Neuroscience, College of Medicine University of Florida,University of Florida

The rest is here:
The Importance of Blood Tests for Alzheimer's Disease Patients: 2 Neuroscientists Explain the Recent Find - Science Times

Neuroscience

Recalling Memories From a Third-Person Perspective Changes How Our Brain Processes Them – Technology Networks

Adopting a third-person, observer point of view when recalling your past activates different parts of your brain than recalling a memory seen through your own eyes, according to a new paper.

Our perspective when we remember changes which brain regions support memory and how these brain regions interact together, explained Peggy St Jacques, assistant professor in the Faculty of Science's Department of Psychology, member of the Neuroscience and Mental Health Institute, and co-author on the paper.

Specifically, the results show that recalling memories from an observer-like perspective, instead of through your own eyes, leads to greater interaction between the anterior hippocampus and the posterior medial network.

These findings contribute to a growing body of research that show that retrieving memories is an active process that can bias and even distort our memories, added St Jacques.

Adopting an observer-like perspective involves viewing the past in a novel way, which requires greater interaction among brain regions that support our ability to recall the details of a memory and to recreate mental images in our minds eye.

Adopting an observer-like perspective may also serve a therapeutic purpose, explained St Jacques. This may be an effective way of dealing with troubling memories by viewing the past from a distance and reducing the intensity of the emotions we feel.

This work builds on St Jacques previous research on visual perspective in memory, which found that the perspective from which we recall a memory can influence how we remember them over time.

Reference:

Heather Iriye et al. How visual perspective influences the spatiotemporal dynamics of autobiographical memory retrieval, Cortex (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.05.007

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

More:
Recalling Memories From a Third-Person Perspective Changes How Our Brain Processes Them - Technology Networks

Neuroscience

Guosong Hong wins a Science & PINS Prize for Neuromodulation | The Dish – Stanford University News

by Taylor Kubota on August 12, 2020 4:12 pm

Guosong Hong

GUOSONG HONG, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, is the 2020 Science & PINS Prize for Neuromodulation finalist for his essay Seeing the Sound.

The prize, which has one grand prize and one finalist, is administered by Science and Science Translational Medicine. Winners are chosen based on essays describing outstanding neuromodulation research research on modulating neural activity through physical stimulation of targeted sites in the nervous system with implications for translational medicine. This years grand prize essay was written by Viviana Gradinaru, professor of neuroscience and biological engineering at California Institute of Technology. Both essays were published Aug. 7 in Science.

I wanted to use this essay to convey to the general public how engineering can help biologists and medical researchers come up with new tools for understanding and treating life-threatening and severely debilitating diseases, said Hong. In addition, by this essay I aimed to encourage the awareness of multidisciplinary sciences in public, thereby improving the societal outcomes and making broader impacts of fundamental research at the intersection of engineering and neuroscience in my lab.

Hongs essay focuses on his research in sono-optogenetics, a technique where sound waves are applied to the body and converted to light to precisely modulate the activity of neurons. (The light emission controls neuron activity via ion channels that are sensitive to light.) Sono-optogenetics is less invasive than optogenetics an existing technique for controlling neurons with light because in sono-optogenetics the ultrasound has much deeper tissue penetration than light and is converted to light emission through interaction with special nanoparticles injected into the bloodstream. In contrast, optogenetics relies on the insertion of optical fibers to deliver light to the brain.

As a result of this reduced invasiveness, Hong has high hopes for the possibility of someday using sono-optogenetics in humans to address a wide variety of health issues.

I envision sono-optogenetics will enable clinical translation of optogenetic neural modulation for treatment of a number of neurodegenerative and psychiatric diseases, such as epilepsy and Parkinsons disease, said Hong. And this method can be extended broadly to any application that needs a light source deep in the body, including photodynamic therapies to treat cancer and viral infection (such as delivering UV and blue light for inactivating COVID-19 viruses), as well as light-induced in vivo genome editing with spatiotemporal precision.

Currently, Hongs lab is focused on developing what they refer to as a light sculpting method. This would make it possible to produce user-defined light emission patterns in any biological tissue in the body by combining materials development with acoustic engineering.

This will offer unprecedented capabilities to control any light-induced physiological processes inside the body in a non-invasive manner, said Hong.

Go here to read the rest:
Guosong Hong wins a Science & PINS Prize for Neuromodulation | The Dish - Stanford University News

Neuroscience

Rethinking ‘noise’ in autism research – Spectrum

Lucina Q. Uddin

Director, Brain Connectivity and Cognition Laboratory, University of Miami

Head movements, eye blinks, heartbeats, random fluctuations in brain waves these are all common sources of unwanted signals, or noise, in recordings of brain activity. Neuroscience researchers spend a lot of time using computational tools to extract meaningful signals from noise in their data. But what if some of these unwanted signals actually hold important information about brain processing? And what if the strategies scientists employ to de-noise their data inadvertently remove that information?

Lucina Uddin is director of the Brain Connectivity and Cognition Laboratory at the University of Miami in Florida, where she uses imaging techniques to explore brain connectivity, particularly in autistic people.

In a paper published in June in Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Uddin warned researchers to be cautious about how they de-noise their data1. Many signals once considered noise ultimately shed light on important brain processes, she says. For example, some unprompted and seemingly random neuronal firing is now regarded as critical to processes such as attention and consciousness.

Uddin spoke to Spectrum about the importance of rethinking our understanding of noise.

Spectrum: Why is it important for neuroscientists to decrease noise in their data?

Lucina Uddin: It is important to reduce noise in scientific data so that observations are not confounded by factors that have no bearing on the phenomenon of interest. For example, astronomers wishing to study distant stars may have difficulty doing so because of light pollution from artificial lights in the night environment. In this scenario, city lights would be considered noise that interferes with the astronomers ability to accurately observe stars.

In human neuroscience, we aim to noninvasively study the brain without harming the participant. The tools we use to measure brain activity are unable to provide a direct readout of neuronal firing but instead can provide approximations of what is going on beneath the skull. The difficulty with neuroimaging is deducing which parts of the measured signal are caused by neuronal activity and which are caused by non-neural factors, such as breathing rate and head motion. It is important to reduce noise resulting from these and other non-neuronal factors in order to accurately measure brain activity.

S: How has this idea of noise shifted over time in the neuroscience community?

LU: Sometimes we dont completely understand an observation from an experiment. In those cases, it is tempting to say that those results were noisy, or the phenomenon we were observing should be thought of as simply noise. For example, in neuroscience we know that sometimes neurons fire spontaneously in the absence of any sensory input. Far from being uninteresting noise, this spontaneous activity actually contributes to oscillations that affect global functional states, such as attention and consciousness. Before we had an understanding of how spontaneous activity contributes to brain function, we considered this activity noise.

In functional neuroimaging research, spontaneous large-scale network activity was largely considered noise up until the mid-1990s. There is now extensive literature documenting the fact that the vast majority of the brains resources are devoted to supporting spontaneous rather than evoked responses, and that these spontaneous responses form functionally coherent brain systems. One study using neuroimaging shows a shift to randomness of brain oscillations in adults with autism compared with typically developing people2. This insight into the neurobiology of the condition would not be possible if researchers had continued to ignore spontaneous fluctuations in the signal, which is measured using functional magnetic resonance imaging.

S: What issues arise when neuroscientists denoise their data?

LU: I think that some of the strategies that neuroscientists use to remove noise from the data can also inadvertently remove the signal of interest. For example, spontaneous fluctuations in the brain are measured in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in which participants rest inside brain scanners. A common de-noising step is to remove the global signal (an average of all signals across the brain) before subsequent analyses. At first glance, this is a logical step, because the global signal is dominated by non-neuronal noise, including that produced by breathing and head motion. However, when you remove the global signal you also remove an unknown quantity of meaningful neural signal. So you might be, in effect, throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Interestingly, the global signal shows a different distribution pattern across the brain in different conditions, and even across different individuals and times of day. For example, one study shows that fluctuations in the global signal steadily decline throughout the day3. This suggests that there is some meaningful neural information associated with the global signal, and that treating it as noise could lead to a loss of this information.

S: What alternative ways are there to think of the brain, given this understanding?

LU: There already exist multiple alternatives: Some involve thinking about brain activity in terms of its trajectory before and after it processes some stimulus, or analyzing shared, synchronized responses across multiple participants, as opposed to within individuals4. With these types of approaches, aggressive de-noising is not always necessary because they make different assumptions about what is important for understanding brain function. None of these are new proposals, just ones that can potentially circumvent some of the issues inherent to data-analytic approaches that require strict separation of signal and noise.

S: What do you think are the most important changes neuroscientists should make to how they investigate the brain?

LU: I dont think a complete overhaul is necessary. Rather, I think its important to be humble in our approaches, given that we have been wrong in the past when trying to tackle the important question of what counts as signal and what should be treated as noise in any measurement of brain activity.

S: What implications would this change in perspective have on neuroscientists, particularly those conducting autism research?

LU: We have known for quite some time now that spontaneous neural activity is an aspect of brain function that should be moved from the realm of noise to that of signal. Whats important is to keep an open mind, as yesterdays noise can become todays signal.

All autism neuroscience research builds on a foundation of basic neuroscience research, which is why keeping an eye on advances in neuroscience more broadly is critical for autism researchers. For the global signal example I discussed earlier, there is already evidence that the distribution of this signal across the brain is altered in individuals with schizophrenia5. I would like to conduct systematic investigations of the global signal in autism in the future to attempt to understand the ways in which this might relate to traits of the condition. This might be particularly enlightening given recent work showing that the global signal is related to individual differences in psychological function in the neurotypical population6.

S: How do you think neuroscientists will separate signal from noise in the future?

LU: I wish I could see into the future! Instead, I can just reiterate that since we dont have an a priori understanding of how information is coded in the brain, we need to always be careful when we discard certain aspects of the recorded signal under the assumption that those aspects represent noise. This is especially important in studies of autism, as we are still in the early stages of trying to understand the neurobiology of the condition.

Read the original:
Rethinking 'noise' in autism research - Spectrum

Neuroscience

Marmite, mayhem and free will – Varsity Online

Alisa Santikarn for Varsity

Edward de Bono, the originator of the term lateral thinking, has a unique remedy for the Arab-Israeli conflict, which falls well outside the bounds of the typical one-state/two-state solutions.

His idea is quite simple: Marmite.

De Bonos reasoning is as follows. In the Middle East, deficiencies in zinc are very common, partially due to the consumption of unleavened flatbreads. Zinc deficiency can cause aggression. Marmite, being yeast extract, is incredibly high in zinc. Thus, it follows that importing plenty of Marmite to the Middle East could serve to stem the fighting - at least, according to de Bono.

The key point is this: the decisions we make may not be as free as wed like. De Bonos hyperbolic take aside, nutrition, living conditions and other environmental factors undoubtedly play a key role in determining our seemingly free behavioural choices.

Free will is a contentious topic, so Ill define it right from the start as the state of being able to have done otherwise, were the clocks turned back but everything else kept the same. This is the interpretation Ill be sticking to throughout, though others are possible.

Causal determinism, on the other hand, is the idea that every event is purely the product of the initial conditions. TheFrench Enlightenment polymath Laplace imagined a demon that, if it had total knowledge of the entire Universe in the present, could flawlessly retrace the past and predict the future.

Free will, under my interpretation, and the determinism of Laplace are thus incompatible, and the competing theories have been locked in a power-struggle for millennia. Modern science is only now, at its most cutting edge, approaching a resolution in two different ways: through quantum mechanics, and behavioural neuroscience.

Probably the most common attempt to refute determinism with modern science is an appeal to quantum theory.Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, for instance, states that there is a limit to how precisely you can know any pair of quantities. One cannot know both position and momentum exactly, it posits; nor can you precisely know both the energy and the time at which you measure the energy of a particular particle.

"Why, then, would we assume that consciousness (presumably macroscopic) and free will are affected in any way by the quirks of subatomic quantum theory?"

In short, Heisenberg tells us that things are fuzzy. This isnt because of faults with our equipment, either; the Universe just works like this. Combine this with ideas like wavefunctions and wave-particle duality, and things get really fuzzy.

According to quantum mechanics then, the Universe at the most fundamental level does not behave nicely, simply, or predictably, and therefore cannot be deterministic. As a result, free will is allowed. Or so you might think. Anyhow, here are three objections to that theory.

1. Quantum mechanics predicts the probabilities of various outcomes. Though non-fatal to the idea of free will, this fact restricts how free that will is. If the clocks were wound back and all other factors kept the same, and some event repeated, an agent could indeed act differently than they did the first time, though some actions would be more likely than others. According to my definition of free will, then, this objection is merely limiting, not falsifying.

2. Lack of determinism does not imply free will, as has been supposed until this point. Firstly, compatibilism (the view that free will and determinism are compatible ideas) is perfectly valid according to different definitions of free will. Secondly, if I were to be subject to perfectly random tics (more random than Tourettism, in which tics are picked up at least somewhat deterministically), this would negate determinism (because they are random), yet would in no way imply free will (because they are uncontrollable). A similar consideration applies to quantum mechanics: it may be random, thus negating determinism, but doesnt imply free will. Its possible to have neither, just not both.

3. Bohrs correspondence principle states that quantum mechanics, when applied on a large scale, predicts exactly the same world as classical mechanics. In other words, the two theories begin to converge when you leave the micro and enter the macro. Why, then, would we assume that consciousness (presumably macroscopic) and free will are affected in any way by the quirks of subatomic quantum theory?

As we can see, the quantum mechanical argument against determinism does not imply free will (though it certainly doesnt reject the possibility). We might have better luck taking the problem in the opposite direction with neuroscience.

While the philosophy of free will goes back at least 2500 years, the neuroscience of free will goes back only a few decades to Benjamin Libet in the 1970s.

"Perhaps some of our choices arent freely made, but they are freely alterable between decision-making and execution"

Libet showed that a certain readiness potential that precedes voluntary motor movement - the Bereitschaftspotential - begins around 400 milliseconds before a participant registers having made a conscious decision and around 550ms before the action itself. More recent tests have resulted in lag-times between readiness potential and conscious decision of up to 10 seconds, and its now even possible to predict which hand will move.

If our brains are readying themselves for our decisions seconds before we know weve made them, how can we ever defend free will? Here are three arguments once again, which this time counter the position that free will is indefensible in the light of neuroscience.

1. With time differences on the order of milliseconds, its possible to criticise the results on an experimental basis. How accurately can you pinpoint the time at which a conscious decision is made? How much lag-time is introduced by the participant delaying between consciously choosing and indicating that theyve done so? However, this objection is weakened somewhat for larger lag-times of up to 10 seconds, so a stronger case is needed.

2. Tests thus far include simple, binary decisions such as choosing between raising the right or left hands. Such experiments might not show evidence of free will, but how about free will in the context of complex social situations where possible behaviours are not binary but multifaceted and minutely detailed? Even if free will were conclusively rejected in a button-pressing experiment, it would mean nothing for free will in the real human experience.

3. Libet himself never interpreted his findings as rejecting free will. Evidence shows that consciousness has the ability to veto the Bereitschaftspotential up to the last moment - termed the free wont. Perhaps some of our choices arent freely made, but they are freely alterable between decision-making and execution, which still satisfies my definition of free will.

Quantum physics and neuroscience have yet to yield any dependable results regarding the existence of free will. My personal hunch is that we do live in a far more determined Universe than we often care to imagine, as de Bonos hypothesis of Marmite and mayhem so perfectly exemplifies.

However, the jury is still out; so, in the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Varsity is the independent newspaper for the University of Cambridge, established in its current form in 1947. In order to maintain our editorial independence, our newspaper and news website receives no funding from the University of Cambridge or its constituent Colleges.

We are therefore almost entirely reliant on advertising for funding, and during this unprecedented global crisis, we have a tough few weeks and months ahead.

In spite of this situation, we are going to look at inventive ways to look at serving our readership with digital content for the time being.

Therefore we are asking our readers, if they wish, to make a donation from as little as 1, to help with our running cost at least until we hopefully return to print on 2nd October 2020.

Many thanks, all of us here at Varsity would like to wish you, your friends, families and all of your loved ones a safe and healthy few months ahead.

View original post here:
Marmite, mayhem and free will - Varsity Online

Neuroscience

Dr. Riyi Shi Appointed as Named Professor in Department of Basic Medical Sciences – Purdue Veterinary News

Friday, August 14, 2020

The Purdue University Board of Trustees recently ratified the appointment of long-time Purdue Veterinary Medicine faculty member Riyi Shi as the Mari Hulman George Endowed Professor of Applied Neuroscience. A faculty member in the colleges Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Dr. Shi also holds a courtesy appointment in the Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering and serves as director of the Center for Paralysis Research at Purdue.

Originally trained as an orthopedic surgeon specializing in spinal cord treatment, Dr. Shi has served for more than 20 years on the Purdue University faculty. He specializes in uncovering the mechanisms of central nervous system trauma and diseases and instituting new treatments through innovative experimentation and pioneering new strategies in the field. Dr. Shi is the author or co-author of 167 published papers and is the recipient of 12 issued patents. Two of his therapies have gone into clinical trials for spinal cord and head trauma, and one has gained FDA approval for patients with multiple sclerosis.

Dr. Shis appointment was one of seven named faculty appointments ratified by the Board of Trustees at its meeting August 7. Click here to view a complete news release about the Board of Trustees action.

Writer(s): Kevin Doerr | pvmnews@purdue.edu

Follow this link:
Dr. Riyi Shi Appointed as Named Professor in Department of Basic Medical Sciences - Purdue Veterinary News

Neuroscience

Flow depression treatment helps 81% of patients to feel better after three weeks – PharmiWeb.com

Largest user analysis of its type in a real-world setting

Drug-free, at-home treatment helped 81% of patients feel better after three weeks

Minimal side effects, no prescription required and Flow can be delivered to your home within 48 hours

London, Wednesday 12 August, 2020 - In the largest user analysis of its type, 81% of patients using a brain stimulation headset and therapy app to treat depression reported feeling better after three weeks, with minimal side effects. Flow is the first drug-free, at-home treatment of its type to be medically approved in the EU and UK. In the user analysis, 81% of patients reported feeling better after three weeks of treatment. 34% of patients reported an improvement in their mood, while 32% of patients reported a reduction in anxiety and 29% reported a reduction in suicidal thoughts.

COVID is changing how depression is managed, and driving a meaningful increase in demand for effective, at-home treatments that are safe, have minimal side effects and do not require a prescription, says Daniel Mansson, clinical psychologist and co-founder of Flow. The results in this user analysis are comparable to antidepressants, and demonstrate the significant benefits of using Flow to self-manage depression. They add to the growing body of medical evidence that supports the use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for the treatment of depression - and gives further impetus for the NHS to add Flow as one of their first lines of treatment.

The type of brain stimulation used in the Flow headset (tDCS) has been shown in numerous clinical randomised controlled trials, including New England Journal of Medicine and the British Journal of Psychiatry, to have a similar impact to antidepressants, but with fewer and less-severe side effects.1,2,3

UK clinics, including The Chelsea Psychology Clinic in London, are now offering patients the Flow treatment in combination with traditional therapy options.

Depression is the leading cause of global disability, affecting over 300 million people, with a huge cost for healthcare systems worldwide.4 Nearly one in four adults in the UK are affected by a mental illness.5 The economic cost of mental illness in the UK is an estimated 105.2 billion,6 and one in three work sickness notes handed out by GPs are for mental health reasons, including depression.7

While using the Flow tDCS headset, patients engaged with a therapy app program, which offers personalised behavioural therapy in areas proven to reduce symptoms of depression, including nutrition, exercise and sleep. NHS trusts and healthcare professionals can now recommend the Flow app to patients as it was recently added to the ORCHA App Library.

The Flow headset is available to buy here and can be delivered in 48 hours. The Flow app is free to download on AppStore and GooglePlay.

About the user analysis

In the user analysis, 850 patients with clinically diagnosed depression used the at-home Flow treatment, which comprises a wearable headset that gently stimulates the brain using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). During the treatment, patients engaged with the Flow therapy app. Patients were assessed at the beginning of the treatment and at monthly follow-ups using MADRS, one of the worlds most popular, clinically validated, diagnostic questionnaires to measure the severity of depressive episodes. Psychological measures (wellbeing, mood, anxiety, suicidal thoughts) were the primary outcomes. 81% of patients reported feeling better after three weeks of treatment. 34% of patients reported an improvement in their mood, 32% of patients reported a reduction in anxiety and 29% reported a reduction in suicidal thoughts.

About Flow Neuroscience

Medical device company Flow has developed the first, and only, medically approved home brain stimulation treatment for depression. The headset and accompanying therapy app empowers and motivates individuals to take control, self-manage and reduce the risk of depression with effective, non-pharmacological, digital alternatives. Flow was founded by clinical psychologist Daniel Mansson and neuroscientist Erik Rehn, and consists of prominent researchers in the field of psychiatry, clinical psychology, brain stimulation, neuroscience and machine learning. The company was founded in 2016 and is based in Sweden. For more information, please visit https://flowneuroscience.com/home/partnership/

References

1Brunoni, A. R., Moffa, A. H., Sampaio-Junior, B., Borrione, L., Moreno, M. L., Fernandes, R. A., Benseor, I. M. (2017). Trial of Electrical Direct-Current Therapy versus Escitalopram for Depression. New England Journal of Medicine (26), 25232533. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1612999

2Brunoni, A. R., Moffa, A. H., Fregni, F., Palm, U., Padberg, F., Blumberger, D. M., Loo, C. K. (2016). Transcranial direct current stimulation for acute major depressive episodes: meta-analysis of individual patient data. The British Journal of Psychiatry : The Journal of Mental Science, 208(6), 522531.https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.164715

3Bikson et al., Safety of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation: Evidence Based Update 2016. Brain Stimulation, 9(2016), 641661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2016.06.004

4WHO Depression key facts https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression

5NHS England: Mental Health https://www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/

6Department of Health: No health without mental health

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/215808/dh_123993.pdf

7One in three 'sick notes' for mental health, says NHS https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41124238

See the article here:
Flow depression treatment helps 81% of patients to feel better after three weeks - PharmiWeb.com

Neuroscience

Rocket Science Health and Inez Jabalpurwala Team Up to Launch VINEx, a Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of the Virus-Brain Connection – Canada NewsWire

VINEx to Provide Catalytic Leadership for Research into A Vital Area in the Fight Against SARS-CoV-2 and other Viruses which may have Lasting Effects on the Brain

VICTORIA, BCand MONTREAL, Aug. 12, 2020 /CNW/ - Rocket Science Health and Inez Jabalpurwala have teamed up to launch VINEx a multi-disciplinary exploration of how viruses directly and indirectly affect the central nervous system (CNS), and the potential impact on brain health in the immediate and longer term. VINEx aims to provide catalytic leadership to connect the people, knowledge and funding needed to advance research at the intersection of neuroscience/neurology, virology, immunology and data science from basic science to clinical studies. The initial focus will be SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses which may have an olfactory entry point into the CNS. This work will address what could be a major health crisis in the months and years after the COVID-19 pandemic, and also contribute to the knowledge base around the impact of viruses on neurological health more generally.

Inez Jabalpurwala, Rocket Science Health's Senior Advisor on Brain Initiatives and Global Director of VINEx, said, "There is evidence that some viruses can cause devasting neurological harm and even invade the CNS. Research has suggested a link between viral infection and dementias, for example, as well as to essentially untreatable viral encephalides. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been a number of small studies around the world on the ability of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses to affect other body systems, including the CNS. We believe that understanding this potential pathway and the impact viruses like SARS-CoV-2 have on the CNS can lead to the development of new diagnostic tools and therapeutics if not for this pandemic, then for a future one. By connecting the dots to create a larger evidence base, and capitalizing on Canada's leadership in brain research and culture of collaboration, we can accelerate positive outcomes in this vital area."

"With her deep experience building multi-disciplinary collaborations and changing paradigms to accelerate the pace of research, we can't think of a better person to provide catalytic leadership in this important space than Inez," said Kenneth C. Irving ("Irv"), co-founder of Rocket Science Health. "While the current COVID-19 crisis creates urgency, this is a long-term effort that grows out of a commitment Rocket Science Health made over three years ago to pursue Pandemic Preparedness as one of four non-commercial, social impact projects. By contributing to this effort, we can expand scientific knowledge in an area that is critical to public health and of interest to our business. Beyond that, there's the potential that our device could be helpful in delivering self-administered therapeutics on a very large scale which is something we would do at the lowest possible cost on a non-commercial, social-impact basis."

The initiative has quickly attracted support from world-class researchers and clinicians, including those who are serving as members of the VINEx Science Advisory Council (SAC). The SAC is providing input and advice to ensure that the virus-brain initiative is developed, executed and monitored with scientific integrity, and in the context of the latest advances in this area; this includes knowledge we can draw from the study of other viruses, and potential links to neurodegenerative diseases. Its members include (in alphabetical order):

In addition, Alan C. Evans PhD, Avindra Nath, M.D.and Pierre J. Talbot, PhDhave agreed to serve as Special Advisors to the SAC.Dr. Evans is the James McGill Professor of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Psychiatry and Biomedical Engineering; Researcher in the McConnell Brain Imaging Centre (BIC); Co-director of the Ludmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health; Principal Investigator of CBRAIN; and Victor Dahdaleh Chair in Neurosciences at Montreal Neurological Institute McGill University. Dr. Nath is Senior Investigator Section of Infections of the Nervous System;Clinical Director NINDS of the National Institutes of Health (US). Dr. TalbotisDirector - Laboratory of Neuroimmunovirology, INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Universit du Qubec.

Drawing from a comprehensive literature review and input from the Science Advisory Council, VINEx has identified five key lines of inquiry aimed at creating a robust approach to understanding viral neuroinvasion from lab-bench to population health. These include: (1) the risk factors for neuro-COVID; (2) the origination and development (neuropathogenesis) of neuro-COVID; (3) clinical manifestations and potential diagnostic biomarkers of neuro-COVID; (4) long-term sequelae and potential linkages to neurological disease; and (5) potential therapeutics for mitigating risk-factors, preventing viral neuroinvasion and treating associated and ongoing neurodegenerative disease. Across these areas will be sex and gender considerations, as well as ethical, social and legal implications of the research, where relevant.

Prior to partnering with Rocket Science Health, Inez served as Founding CEO of the Brain Canada Foundation, a role she held for nearly two decades. During her tenure at Brain Canada, Inez led the development of a research program that primarily focused on enabling teams of scientists to work across disciplines, disorders and institutions to explore common, underlying mechanisms, while also securing nearly $300 million in funding for brain-related research. She was a pioneer in building the case for the brain as one interconnected system, and rallied more than 100 partners to that vision. In joining Rocket Science Health, Inez is continuing her passion for building communities to address complex science challenges, and expanding the one brain vision to explore connections within the whole human system.

Rocket Science Health is a start-up company engaged in the development of medical devices for use in the treatment of CNS conditions by enabling nose-to-brain delivery of pharmaceuticals via the olfactory region of the nasal cavity.

The VINEx Initiative is dedicated to the memory of The Honourable Michael H. Wilson. In addition to so many other things, Michael was a dear friend to Irv and Inez. He inspired, mentored and introduced them, and it is his sense of public service, his commitment to brain science and mental health, and his undying belief in Canada's extraordinary potential that infuses this endeavor.

For more information, please visit us at VINEx and Rocket Science Health.

SOURCE Rocket Science Health

For further information: Media Contact: Sandy Blackwood, Longview Communications & Public Affairs, [emailprotected], 647-985-5511

Here is the original post:
Rocket Science Health and Inez Jabalpurwala Team Up to Launch VINEx, a Multi-Disciplinary Exploration of the Virus-Brain Connection - Canada NewsWire