This is a poor model of AD.
Mouse brains experience a lot of neurogenesis and plasticity not seen in human brains.
The effect is barely significant in the one assay.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is a poor model of AD.

Yes! Mice do not get Alzheimer's, so we rely on a transgenic mouse model to exhibit the symptoms. The problem is that Alzheimer's isn't well understood, so it isn't clear how good mouse models are, and prior treatments effective in mouse models haven't proven effective in humans. This article is effectively hype.

[–] bedwyr@piefed.ca 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I would add it's long been known now that brain cells can regenerate. Even longer has it been known the brain can reprogram around damaged cells, to a point, it's complicated obviously.

Around 2013 or so, there was a british columbian study where they gave brain damaged rats a type of super cannibinoid, like hundreds of times THC potency, and they regrew their brain cells, never heard any follow up studies on it.

But in the 90s the mantra was that brain damage was always permanent, a message in service of keeping the kids of the marihuanas.

[–] zamithal@programming.dev 4 points 6 days ago

While true, I'm not sure why you'd point these things out like the article is a nothing-burger. Science starts somewhere. Mice have traditionally served this and in (relatively) recent years organoids. This simply means the hypothesis didn't fail in the first stages and can advance. This is decidedly good news. Is there a good chance this fails in further development? Yes, like all science.