Neuroscience

New Jersey Health Foundation grants advance research – Rowan Today

Ghulam Rasool envisions an improved bionic arm and hand that is more functional and affordable than those already on the market.

Now, Rasools evolving research is getting a boost.

Rasool, an assistant professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, is one of seven Rowan faculty members who recently received funding from the New Jersey Health Foundation for health-related research. Nearly 23 percent of the foundations latest grants were awarded to Rowan faculty.

The Princeton-based nonprofit supports faculty and student researchers at New Jersey-based organizations with financial resources. The grants help researchers move their projects out of the lab and into the real world, said Beena Sukumaran, vice president for research at Rowan.

Theyre taking their research and applying it to real life, she said.

Rasools project would create a prosthetic limb that combines neuroscience with practicality.

The user would be able to control the wrist joint and finger of the hand by just thinking about what theyre trying to do, Rasool said. The idea is that when someone gets an amputation, the limb may be lost. However, the neurons that connect the brain to the limb may still be there.

What we can do is tap into those neurons and get access to the electrical signals coming from the brain to muscles. We can use these electrical signals and learn about the movement the person was trying to perform or was just thinking about.

This is the second consecutive year Rasool has received a $35,000 grant from the foundation for his research.

In the first year of Rasools project, known as EnaBLe (for enhanced bionic limb), he and his student researchers built prototypes of the bionic arm. This year, they hope to discover how the bionic arm can mimic human movements in the non-amputee population. In 2021, Rasool and the students will begin working with forearm amputees to test the device.

Grant funding is vital, Rasool said.

Working with students, their stipends, equipment and lab space, all of these things require continued financial support, Rasool said.

Without these grants, awards and financial support for research, Rasool added, we wouldnt be able to make progress.

In addition to Rasool, the following faculty received grants from the foundation:

See more here:
New Jersey Health Foundation grants advance research - Rowan Today

Neuroscience

Understanding How the Brain Predicts Could Give Autism Insight – Technology Networks

Our brains make our lives easier by predicting what will happen next based on previous experiences. But what happens when those predictive powers dont work like they should?Autism spectrum disorder and other neurological disorders involve problems with brain prediction. For example, the brain usually remembers situations that can become dangerous such as a hot stove or a car coming toward you while youre crossing the street. For someone with autism, the brain cant always predict those things.

A professor at Purdue University is discovering how complications with prediction lead to changes in sensory perception and learning impairments, both of which are common symptoms of autism.

The brain precomputes everything, said Alexander Chubykin, assistant professor of biological sciences. When you see something familiar, it immediately tries to remember what it is and thats how we know what will happen next. My lab is trying to understand how the brain distinguishes between something that is familiar and novel and how that plays into neurological disorders.

Through his research, Chubykins goal is to work on developing new biomarkers to make diagnosing disorders such as autism easier and make advancements toward discovering potential new drugs for treatment.

Understanding how the brain predicts future events is critical when it comes to defining and understanding neurological disorders, Chubykin said. Its also a key to survival and normal brain function.

If you see something dangerous, your brain usually recognizes that and predicts something bad could happen. Chubykin said. If you have this previous experience and can process this information, you can escape in time. When your brain cant tell you those things, its overwhelming and frightening.

Chubykin says understanding how the brain decides what it should pay attention to in the first place is key to understanding how prediction plays a role in disorders such as autism. In order for the brain to decide what is novel, it needs to first recognize a sensory stimulus. Recognition of the familiar stimulus leads to a generation of an expectation or prediction. However, when a prior expectation is violated, that leads to a surprise. These surprises are called prediction errors, which is when the senses do not correspond to the brains predictions.

When the brain receives surprises, it then wants to minimize that surprise in the future by memorizing it and the corresponding environment, a process otherwise known as learning.

We continually receive new sensory information, and we learn it, Chubykin said. But for someone with a disorder such as autism, its not that easy. In autism, the brain cant always accurately predict what will happen in the near future from senses such as vision, touch, and hearing.

Thats why people affected by autism often experience sensory overload, which is when sensory input overrides prediction. Sensory overload can cause stress and makes it difficult to focus.

For instance, if I have an umbrella sitting in the corner of my office and I see it every day, my brain knows its going to be there and its not a surprise, Chubykin said. I get used to it being there. But for patients with autism, it might take them a while to process it. It may also take them longer to get used to new environments with a lot of new sensory stimuli, and its these details that overwhelm them.

Chubykin also led recently published research that revealed mice can perceive so-called Kanizsa optical illusions and the neural mechanisms that are involved.

Patients with autism and schizophrenia typically have difficulty perceiving this illusion, Chubykin said. This could be significant for diagnostic testing of early detection of autism and schizophrenia in the future. The reason for that is that this illusion tests the ability to do spatial prediction.

He says in schizophrenia, prediction also is impaired, but it is the complete opposite of autism.

For patients with schizophrenia, their brains have a higher emphasis on prediction compared to senses, Chubykin said. When theyre hallucinating or hearing voices, their internal predictions override their senses.

Chubykin wants his research to provide answers for both patients and their families. The earlier these disorders can be diagnosed, the quicker patients can get the help they need.

The more we learn, the more we can help, Chubykin said.ReferencePak et al. (2020) Top-Down Feedback Controls the Cortical Representation of Illusory Contours in Mouse Primary Visual Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1998-19.2019

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.

Read more:
Understanding How the Brain Predicts Could Give Autism Insight - Technology Networks

Neuroscience

Susan Hockfield Elected to Pfizer’s Board of Directors – BioSpace

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Pfizer, Inc.. (NYSE: PFE) today announced the election of Dr. Susan Hockfield to its Board of Directors, effective immediately. Dr. Hockfield, age 68, was also appointed to the Regulatory and Compliance Committee and the Science and Technology Committee of Pfizers Board.

Dr. Hockfield is Professor of Neuroscience and President Emerita at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She served as MITs sixteenth president from 2004 to 2012 and was the first woman and the first life scientist to lead MIT. She is also a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT. Prior to joining MIT, she was the William Edward Gilbert Professor of Neurobiology, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences from 1998 to 2002 and Provost from 2003 to 2004 at Yale University.

She is also a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (where she served as President-elect, President and Chair), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Society for Neuroscience.

Dr. Hockfield served as Science Envoy with the U.S. Department of State and as a member of a Congressional Commission evaluating the Department of Energy laboratories.

She served as a Director of General Electric Company from 2006 until 2018 and Director of Qualcomm from 2012 until 2016.

Dr. Hockfield received a B.S. in Biology from the University of Rochester and a Ph.D. in Anatomy and Neuroscience from Georgetown University School of Medicine.

We are fortunate to welcome Dr. Susan Hockfield to Pfizers Board of Directors, said Albert Bourla, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer. We continue to infuse our Board with scientific expertise in support of our strategic focus on innovation and advancing our pipeline. As a distinguished neuroscientist and highly respected academic leader, Dr. Hockfield will bring tremendous value to the company and our shareholders.

About Pfizer: Breakthroughs That Change Patients Lives

At Pfizer, we apply science and our global resources to bring therapies to people that extend and significantly improve their lives. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacture of health care products, including innovative medicines and vaccines. Every day, Pfizer colleagues work across developed and emerging markets to advance wellness, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as one of the world's premier innovative biopharmaceutical companies, we collaborate with health care providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable health care around the world. For more than 150 years, we have worked to make a difference for all who rely on us. We routinely post information that may be important to investors on our website at http://www.Pfizer.com. In addition, to learn more, please visit us on http://www.Pfizer.com and follow us on Twitter at @Pfizer and @Pfizer News, LinkedIn, YouTube and like us on Facebook at Facebook.com/Pfizer.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200304005192/en/

Link:
Susan Hockfield Elected to Pfizer's Board of Directors - BioSpace

Neuroscience

Study Finds That Community Treatment Orders Do Not Reduce Hospital Readmission Rates or Stays – Global Health News Wire

This research finds that CTOs are associated with an increased risk of readmission as well as increased time spent in psychiatric hospitals

In the first large, observational study with a control group in England and Wales, research funded by the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre has found that Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) are associated with an increased risk of readmission as well as increased time spent in psychiatric hospitals, contrary to results from previous uncontrolled studies. Researchers suggest that these findings should be considered in future reforms to the UK Mental Health Act.

CTOs were introduced in England and Wales under the 2007 amendment to the Mental Health Act (1983). They are a legal order for compulsory monitoring and treatment of people discharged from psychiatric hospitals with serious mental disorders within a community care setting. They also allow quicker readmission to hospital, if necessary, following suspected relapse. Their use has exceeded initial expectation and 5,000 are now used in England each year on average.

Researchers compared 830 patients who were discharged on a CTO with 3,659 patients discharged to voluntary community mental healthcare. Results showed that in the two years following discharge from psychiatric hospital, patients on CTOs spent, on average, 17.3 additional days in hospital and had a 60% greater rate of readmission compared to patients receiving voluntary care. The study also found that the average CTO lasted three years, more than four times longer than initial government projections of nine months.

These findings are contrary to previous uncontrolled observational studies carried out in the UK and Wales, some of which reported a reduction in readmission rates in patients on CTOs. However, the addition of a control group of patients discharged without a CTO in this study allowed researchers to compare outcomes more robustly than in previous studies.

These results could be due to the tendency for patients with CTOs to have historic relapses and severe symptoms, or due to the ease of readmission through the CTO pathway.

Lead author Dr. Rashmi Patel, MRC UKRI Health Data Research UK Fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at Kings College London, said: Community Treatment Orders were designed to prevent relapse and readmission to hospital for people with serious mental illnesses. In fact, our study suggests that they have the opposite effect, with people on CTOs being more likely to be readmitted and spending longer in hospital. In light of these findings, we need to think carefully about what role (if any) CTOs should play in providing care to people with serious mental illnesses.

Co-author Dr. Alexis Cullen, Research Fellow at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at Kings College London added While we cannot establish a causal effect of CTOs on readmission rates, our findings concur with smaller randomised controlled trials from the UK in showing that readmission rates are not reduced. Importantly, our inclusion of patients treated in forensic psychiatric settings (who have been excluded from previous studies) means that our sample is more reflective of the patients who typically receive these treatments.

Researchers used the Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) system which has access to over 400,000 anonymised electronic health records from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. Records available from patients who were discharged between 2008 and 2014 under the Mental Health Act were analysed.

View original post here:
Study Finds That Community Treatment Orders Do Not Reduce Hospital Readmission Rates or Stays - Global Health News Wire

Neuroscience

Hormone Linked to Pain Difference Between Men and Women – Technology Networks

Imagine taking a pill to control your pain and, instead, the medication actually increases the pain you feel. That may be the situation for patients who take opioids, but even more so for women, according to groundbreaking research by investigators at the University of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson in the Department of Pharmacology.The researchers identified a mechanism that explains why women may be more vulnerable than men to develop pain in general, as well as to develop pain from opioids specifically.

The cause is a neurohormone, prolactin, known largely for promoting lactation in expectant mothers in their final months of pregnancy and after childbirth.

Frank Porreca, PhD, associate department head, a professor of Pharmacology, anesthesiology, cancer biology and neuroscience at the college, and senior author on the study, notes it always has been understood that women experience some types of pain that occur without injury (known as functional pain syndromes) more than men. The reasons for this never were clearly understood. A possible explanation the researchers explored was the differences in the cells and nerves that send pain signals to the brain in women and men.

Now, their paper pinpoints these sex differences to the prolactin receptor, which regulates sensitization of nociceptors neurofibers that conduct pain impulses and pain from opioids (opioid-induced hyperalgesia) selectively in female laboratory mice. The second point is important, Dr. Porreca explains, because they found opioids also produce a release of prolactin in women that in turn increases pain instead of lessening it.

The findings suggest new pain-management therapies targeting the prolactin system would greatly benefit women suffering from functional pain syndromes.

Of all these female-prevalent pain disorders, migraines are among the most common, with about 35 million migraine patients in the United States, and three out of four of those are women. In addition, in fibromyalgia patients, as many as nine out of 10 are women; for irritable bowel syndrome, three out of four are women. When you add up all those women with pain if you can normalize that this would provide a huge and important impact on medical care, Dr. Porreca says.

In that context, he adds, being female can be considered a risk factor for increased pain. Now, they know one important reason why. Nobody's ever understood this until now, Dr. Porreca says.

He points out many of these pain spells are intermittent and associated with triggering events. For instance, he and his colleagues found stress releases prolactin and unexpectedly promotes pain selectively in females.

These triggering events can be wide-ranging. They can include things like alcohol, fatigue and sleep disruption. But stress is the most common trigger self-identified by patients. That's where we started our studies how does stress contribute to female-specific pain or female-selective pain?

Primary authors on the paper include: Yanxia Chen, a graduate student in Dr. Porrecas lab; Aubin Moutal, PhD, a research assistant professor in the Department of Pharmacology, working in the lab of Rajesh Khanna, PhD, a UArizona professor of anesthesiology, pharmacology and neuroscience, who also is a co-author on the paper; and Edita Navratilova, PhD, an assistant professor of pharmacology.

Dr. Navratilova says dopamine D-2 receptor agonist drugs that limit prolactin release, such as cabergoline, commonly are used for other diseases, and are not addictive. These drugs, possibly in conjunction with other classes of medications, may help treat those pain conditions in women more effectively without the addictive properties of opioids.

If we could just reduce the proportion of women who have migraines to the same amount as in men, that would be quite revolutionary, Dr. Navratilova says.

In addition, since publication of their findings, Dr. Porreca has been contacted by companies interested in investigating whether an antibody previously associated with breast cancer treatment might be able to be engineered as a therapy to guard against pain in women.ReferenceChen et al. (2020) The prolactin receptor long isoform regulates nociceptor sensitization and opioid-induced hyperalgesia selectively in females. Science Translational Medicine. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aay7550

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.

The rest is here:
Hormone Linked to Pain Difference Between Men and Women - Technology Networks

Neuroscience

The Mind Is the Opposite of a Computer – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Matthew Cobb (right) is a British neuroscientist who blogs on occasion on Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coynes Why Evolution is True blog. Despite this inauspicious hobby, he has written a good essay in The Guardian, Why your brain is not a computer on the shortcomings of the computational model of the brain:

And yet there is a growing conviction among some neuroscientists that our future path [to understanding how the brain works] is not clear. It is hard to see where we should be going, apart from simply collecting more data or counting on the latest exciting experimental approach. As the German neuroscientist Olaf Sporns has put it: Neuroscience still largely lacks organising principles or a theoretical framework for converting brain data into fundamental knowledge and understanding. Despite the vast number of facts being accumulated, our understanding of the brain appears to be approaching an impasse.

So true. Philosopher Roger Scruton (19442020) said it best (I paraphrase): neuroscience is a vast trove of answers with no memory of the questions. Cobb continues:

For more than half a century, [neuroscience has been] framed by thinking that brain processes involve something like those carried out in a computer. But that does not mean this metaphor will continue to be useful in the future. At the very beginning of the digital age, in 1951, the pioneer neuroscientist Karl Lashley argued against the use of any machine-based metaphor.

Descartes was impressed by the hydraulic figures in the royal gardens, and developed a hydraulic theory of the action of the brain, Lashley wrote. We have since had telephone theories, electrical field theories and now theories based on computing machines and automatic rudders. I suggest we are more likely to find out about how the brain works by studying the brain itself, and the phenomena of behaviour, than by indulging in far-fetched physical analogies.

Cobb is rightmodels of the brain tend to track with the latest technology. To some ancient philosophers, the brain worked by making heat, like a fire. To Descartes the brain was hydraulic. To 19th century materialists, writing amid the Industrial Revolution, the brain was a machine. To 21st century materialists, the brain is a computer. Our tools at hand become our metaphors.

But metaphors are not metaphysics. Often, metaphors lead us astray. In some sense, the atom is like a little solar system, with electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets orbiting the sun. But quantum mechanics revealed dynamics utterly unlike the solar system model of the atom pictured by early twentieth century pioneers in the field like Ernest Rutherford and Niels Bohr.

Similarly, the eye is in some ways, like a camera. But if you understood only cameras and did not understand ocular physiology and neurophysiology, you will understand pitifully little about the eye.

So, what is the brain? How does it work? As Scruton noted, we need to make the questions more clear. Several questions are embedded in the issues Cobb raises.

One at a time:

1.Is the brain a kind of computer? First and foremost, the brain is an organ and it does organ thingsit metabolizes, secretes, generates action potentials and neurotransmitters, etc. But is it also a computer?

The answer depends on how you define computation. If computation is the mapping of an input to an output according to a set of rules (which is the usual broad definition of computation), then some aspects of brain function are computation. There are inputs (sensory inputs, electrical and chemical stimuli, etc.) and these inputs are in some situations mapped to outputs (transmission of action potentials, secretion of neurotransmitters, reflexes, etc.) according to rules (neurophysiological principles). Perhaps this application of computation to brain function is trivial, perhaps not, but in this sense some aspects of brain function are computational.

As well see below, however, not all aspects of brain function are computational, so the brain cannot be described entirely as a computer. And I would point out to Cobb (who is a materialist and atheist) that computation intrinsically entails teleology which (by Aquinas Fifth Way) demonstrates the existence of God. Atheists should be careful about computational models in biology, because computation is the product of intelligent design. Computers and software dont just happen by themselves.

2.What is the relation between the brain and the mind? Cobb is a materialist so I presume he discounts dualism. However, abstract thought (as classical philosophers pointed out) is inherently an immaterial ability and thus it cannot arise from the brain or from any material organ. Concrete thought can be material in origin but that view presupposes a metaphysical understanding of matter that is considerably more sophisticated than Cobbs materialism. Hylemorphism is the best metaphysical perspective from which to understand the material and immaterial powers of the mind.

3. Is the mind a kind of computation? No. In fact, the mind is the antithesis of computation. The reason is obvious when you think about it. Mental activity always has meaningevery thought is about something. Computation always lacks meaning in itself. A word processing program doesnt care about the opinion that youre expressing when you use it. A digital camera doesnt care what youre taking a picture of. In fact, the great utility of computation is that it doesnt have its own meaning so you can use it as a substrate to express any meaning you choose. Because the mind always has meaning and computation never has meaning, the mind is not computation. In fact, the mind is the opposite of computation.

Succinctly, the brain is an organ and some of its functions can be described as computation. The mind is obviously related to the brain but the relationship is complex and is best understood from the perspective of hylemorphic metaphysics. Concrete thought arises from brain function but abstract thought is inherently immaterial. Although abstract thought is influenced by brain function, it does not arise from it. The mind itself (as distinct from the brain) is no form of computation, and in fact the mind is the antithesis of computation.

Cobb is in the right track in critiquing the computational model of the brain and the mind. His materialism prevents him from following his genuine insights to their logical conclusion: Human beings have souls with material and immaterial powers, and some of the material powers are caused by the brain.

Cobb is shortly publishing a book, The Idea of the Brain, of which his essay in The Guardian is an edited excerpt. It looks like a worthwhile read. He understands the limitations that plague the philosophical basis of modern neuroscience but he needs to think more clearly about the source of the metaphysical errors that plague neuroscience, which is materialism.

See also: Did consciousness evolve? A Darwinist responds. Jerry Coyne argues that consciousness is a mere byproduct of useful traits that are naturally selected. But wait (Michael Egnor)

Further reading on the brain as a computer (or probably not)

We will never solve the brain. A science historian offers a look at some of the difficulties we face in understanding the brain. In a forthcoming book, science historian Matthew Cobb suggests that we may need to be content with different explanations for different brain parts. And that the image of the brain as a computer is definitely on the way out.

Why the brain is not at all like a computer. Seeing the brain as a computer is an easy misconception rather than an informative image, says neuroscientist Yuri Danilov.

Brains are not billions of little computers. Despite the hype. Also, life forms are not machines and neurons are not neural networks.

The brain is not a meat computer. Dramatic recoveries from brain injury highlight the difference. (Michael Egnor)

The brain exceeds the most powerful computers in efficiency.

and

Some people think and speak with only half a brain. A new study sheds light on how they do it.

Originally posted here:
The Mind Is the Opposite of a Computer - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Neuroscience

Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market 2020 | Applications, Challenges, Growth, Shares, Trends and Forecast To 2026 – Packaging News 24

The report on the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market is a compilation of intelligent, broad research studies that will help players and stakeholders to make informed business decisions in future. It offers specific and reliable recommendations for players to better tackle challenges in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. Furthermore, it comes out as a powerful resource providing up to date and verified information and data on various aspects of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. Readers will be able to gain deeper understanding of the competitive landscape and its future scenarios, crucial dynamics, and leading segments of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. Buyers of the report will have access to accurate PESTLE, SWOT, and other types of analysis on the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market.

Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market was valued at USD 2.42 Billion in 2018 and is projected to reach USD 5.14 Billion by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 9.7% from 2019 to 2026.

Get | Download Sample Copy @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/download-sample/?rid=28342&utm_source=PN24&utm_medium=003

Popular Players

Competition is a major subject in any market research analysis. With the help of the competitive analysis provided in the report, players can easily study key strategies adopted by leading players of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. They will also be able to plan counterstrategies to gain a competitive advantage in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. Major as well as emerging players of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market are closely studied taking into consideration their market share, production, revenue, sales growth, gross margin, product portfolio, and other significant factors. This will help players to become familiar with the moves of their toughest competitors in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market.

The report is just the right tool that players need to strengthen their position in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. It is also the perfect resource that will help players to sustain their lead or achieve a competitive position in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market.

Key Players Mentioned in the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Research Report:

Top Segments

The segmental analysis section of the report includes a thorough research study on key type and application segments of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. All of the segments considered for the study are analyzed in quite some detail on the basis of market share, growth rate, recent developments, technology, and other critical factors. The segmental analysis provided in the report will help players to identify high-growth segments of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market and clearly understand their growth journey.

Ask for Discount @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/ask-for-discount/?rid=28342&utm_source=PN24&utm_medium=003

Leading Regions

The authors of the report have analyzed both developing and developed regions considered for the research and analysis of the Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays market. The regional analysis section of the report provides an extensive research study on different regional and country-wise Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays markets to help players plan effective expansion strategies. Moreover, it offers highly accurate estimations on the CAGR, market share, and market size of key regions and countries. Players can use this study to explore untapped Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays markets to extend their reach and create sales opportunities.

Get Customized Report in your Inbox within 24 hours @ https://www.verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/Neuroscience-Antibodies-&-Assays-Market/?utm_source=PN24&utm_medium=003

Highlights of the Report

About Us:

Verified market research partners with clients to provide insight into strategic and growth analytics; data that help achieve business goals and targets. Our core values include trust, integrity, and authenticity for our clients.

Analysts with high expertise in data gathering and governance utilize industry techniques to collate and examine data at all stages. Our analysts are trained to combine modern data collection techniques, superior research methodology, subject expertise and years of collective experience to produce informative and accurate research reports.

Contact Us:

Mr. Edwyne FernandesCall: +1 (650) 781 4080Email: [emailprotected]

TAGS: Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Size, Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Growth, Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Forecast, Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Analysis, Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market Trends, Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market

See the rest here:
Neuroscience Antibodies & Assays Market 2020 | Applications, Challenges, Growth, Shares, Trends and Forecast To 2026 - Packaging News 24

Neuroscience

Eleusis Announces Published Preclinical Research Revealing Long Lasting Antidepressant-Like Effects of Psychedelics When Compared to Ketamine in…

LONDON & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Eleusis, a clinical stage life science company established to develop the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, today announced the publication of its sponsored preclinical research in the American Chemical Societys journal Chemical Neuroscience, which suggests that psychedelics may have more persistent antidepressant therapeutic efficacy than ketamine. The study also indicates that the antidepressant effect of psychedelics are both biological and context-dependent, and the subjective existential experience or mystical experience often associated with psychedelics may be correlated with, but not cause, the persisting antidepressant effect.

The publication, titled Psychedelics, but not ketamine, produce persistent antidepressant-like effects in a rodent experimental system for the study of depression is the first direct preclinical comparison of the antidepressant efficacy of psychedelics and ketamine. The research reveals that both psilocybin and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) significantly reduce depressive-like behaviors five weeks after a single administration, while only the lowest dose of ketamine evaluated (5.0 mg/kg) was efficacious in decreasing depressive-like behaviors, and that the associated antidepressant-like effects of a single treatment with ketamine were transient compared to those observed in the psilocybin and LSD-treated rats and lasted less than two weeks.

The environment research animals were exposed to in the days immediately following treatment with psilocybin shaped the nature of the antidepressant-like and anti-anxiety outcomes, suggesting that contextual experiences following drug treatment were important factors in determining overall responses. The research suggests this may be due to enhanced learning of new coping behaviors as a result of psilocybin or LSD administration, an effect not observed in animals treated only with ketamine, or saline.

Our research is the first direct comparison of the degree and duration of antidepressant-like effects of psychedelics and ketamine in animals, and the first to demonstrate that what the animal experiences the first week after drug administration influences its long-term behavioral outcome. We believe these results further support the promising research and development of psychedelics as therapeutic medicines. said Meghan Hibicke Ph.D., the studys lead author and Postdoctoral Researcher at LSU Health Sciences Center, Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

Prior to our study, the scientific premise of whether or not a profound subjective existential experience is necessary for psilocybin to have antidepressant effects had not been evaluated either clinically, or preclinically, said Charles Nichols Ph.D., the director of the study and Professor of Pharmacology at Louisiana State University. Based on our findings, we believe that the robust antidepressant effects of psychedelics are intrinsically linked to a biological response, which may be correlated with, but not dependent on, the profound subjective experiences associated with psychedelics.

These intriguing findings suggest that continued research will yield new understandings of the basic mechanisms giving rise to the robust and enduring effects of psychedelics, said Shlomi Raz, Chairman and founder of Eleusis. "These study results, and other ongoing research directed by Eleusis, further confirm the vast therapeutic potential of psychedelics, and are serving to accelerate our companys ongoing efforts to transform psychedelics into medicines.

About Eleusis Ltd.

Eleusis is a privately-held, clinical stage life science company, established to unlock the transformative potential of psychoactive drugs, through the mitigation and management of psychoactivity. The company is developing an innovative platform of drug discovery and care delivery solutions to enable the transformation of groundbreaking university research into urgently needed therapeutic alternatives across a broad spectrum of inflammatory disease and mental health needs.

Follow Eleusis on LinkedIn and Twitter

Read more:
Eleusis Announces Published Preclinical Research Revealing Long Lasting Antidepressant-Like Effects of Psychedelics When Compared to Ketamine in...

Embryology

It’s time for Colorado voters to heed science and rein in late-term abortion – coloradopolitics.com

Initiative 120 would prohibit abortion after 22 weeks gestation except to save the life of the mother. After an ambitious, six-month grass roots effort to obtain the necessary signatures, it now appears headed for the ballot in November.

Abortion politics is always contentious. As Coloradans weigh the pros/cons of passing Initiative 120 in the coming months, the best way to debate such a controversial topic is to rely on science. We should vociferously avoid the manipulation of language to distort the facts and established science.

Abortion-rights activists would have you believe that science cant answer the question, When does human life begin? Human embryology long ago established the fact that human life begins at fertilization and that human development is a seamless process that continues for years after birth. This is standard teaching in every embryology textbook in medical schools across the country. It should be no surprise that in a recent survey of over 5,300 biology scientists (85% self-identifying as pro-choice), 96% affirmed the view that human life begins at fertilization.

Abortion-rights supporters and abortion clinics go to great lengths to obfuscate the fact that abortion is a violent procedure that kills a human life. They dont even like to use the term abortion and prefer termination of pregnancy as if the termination did not entail the destruction of a human being. The New York Times has referred to the fetus as a cluster of cells. When Planned Parenthood of the Rockies describes a second trimester dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure on their website, it reports that they gently take the pregnancy tissue out of your uterus." A more medically accurate description would reflect the fact that the cervix is dilated so that instruments to grasp the fetal limbs can be introduced. After the systematic disarticulation and dismemberment of the human fetus, they crush the head so that it can be easily extracted. They then reassemble the products of conception (fetal parts) to be sure they have not left an appendage in the uterus.

Abortion proponents cling to the fantasy that the abortion procedure is really a humane form of killing. They cite an outdated 2005 review by abortion-rights proponents that a fetus cant feel pain until the third trimester, when the human cortex is sufficiently developed to perceive pain. However, there is a growing international consensus using anatomical studies, observations of arousability, hormonal stress/pain responses, studies of fetal behavior, near-infrared spectroscopy, electroencephalography, and functional MRI, that a human fetus can not only react to, but also appreciate, pain by the 22nd to 24th week. It probably can feel pain more intensely than an infant or adult. This is because the pain neuroinhibitory pathways develop later in fetal life so there is nothing to damp down the pain experience. Even when the fetus is killed prior to the abortion procedure (which is more common the later the gestational age), the injection of the poison (potassium chloride or digoxin) can be anticipated to produce profound suffering before the fetus dies over a period of minutes to hours.

For Initiative 120, 22 weeks was selected because national polling would suggest that there is broad consensus that late abortion should be restricted. There is no meaningful biologic difference between a baby born at 22 weeks gestation and a 22-week fetus other than location. Our Constitution never predicated the fundamental right to life on location.

A 22-week fetus is a vital human being. Many people are unaware that a fetus as young as 21 weeks can survive with good neurodevelopmental outcomes. In some centers, 70% of fetuses born at 22 weeks survive. A mother can feel her 22-week fetus kick. The fetus can hear her mothers voice and respond to her touch. A 22-week fetus can undergo curative surgeries as an independent patient for anatomic congenital abnormalities.

Another fact that you wont hear from abortion providers is that late abortions are not safe. Although first trimester abortions pose minimal risks to women, late abortions are associated with substantial risk. For each additional week of gestational age past 20 weeks, the risk of death increases 38% 8.9/100,000. To put this in perspective, there is a much higher risk of death from late abortion than virtually every other out-patient surgical procedure.

As Coloradans assess Initiative 120, it is time we avoid spin and embrace science in the abortion debate. We believe that Coloradans of every age, sex, religion (or no religion), and party affiliation, can agree that late abortion should be restricted. We also think that we can find common ground in Colorado pursuing both private and governmental programs that decrease the demand for abortion making abortion unnecessary, if not unthinkable.

Thomas J. Perille, M.D., is president of the Colorado Chapter of Democrats for Life of America.

Read the original post:
It's time for Colorado voters to heed science and rein in late-term abortion - coloradopolitics.com

Embryology

Fertility clinic is named the best performing across south east – Clacton and Frinton Gazette

A FERTILITY clinic has been recognised as the best performing practice in the south east of England.

Simply Fertility, which has clinics in Colchester, Chelmsford and Romford, achieved a 40 per cent live birth success rate - putting it top in the region and within the top three in the UK.

The figures come through fertility watchdog The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) which gave the Simply Fertility a five-star rating six months ago.

Sarah Walt, embryologist and centre manager, said: "The wait to independently confirm our success rates was tense - but the results have been worth it.

Were thrilled to hear that our results rank us so highly.

"There is no greater joy or privilege for us than helping people to fulfil their dreams.

Visit hfea.gov.uk/choose-a-clinic/clinic-search/results/9121.

Read this article:
Fertility clinic is named the best performing across south east - Clacton and Frinton Gazette