(Image caption: Newborn neurons under the microscope. Source: DZNE / CRTD / Kempermann Lab)
New insights into the mechanisms of neuroplasticity
Reactive oxygen molecules, also known as “free radicals”, are generally considered harmful. However as it now turns out, they control cellular processes, which are important for the brain’s ability to adapt – at least in mice. Researchers from the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) and the Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden (CRTD) at TU Dresden published the findings in the journal “Cell Stem Cell”.
The researchers focused on the "hippocampus", a brain area that is regarded as the control center for learning and memory. New nerve cells are created lifelong, even in adulthood. "This so-called adult neurogenesis helps the brain to adapt and change throughout life. It happens not only in mice, but also in humans," explains Prof. Gerd Kempermann, speaker of the DZNE’s Dresden site and research group leader at the CRTD.
A trigger for neurogenesis
New nerve cells emerge from stem cells. "These precursor cells are an important basis for neuroplasticity, which is how we call the brain's ability to adapt," says the Dresden scientist. Together with colleagues he has now gained new insights into the processes underlying the formation of new nerve cells. The team was able to show in mice that neural stem cells, in comparison to adult nerve cells, contain a high degree of free radicals. "This is especially true when the stem cells are in a dormant state, which means that they do not divide and do not develop into nerve cells," says Prof. Kempermann. Current study shows that an increase in the concentration of the radicals makes the stem cells ready to divide. "The oxygen molecules act like a switch that sets neurogenesis in motion."
Free radicals are waste products of normal metabolism. Cellular mechanisms are usually in place to make sure they do not pile up. This is because the reactive oxygen molecules cause oxidative stress. "Too much of oxidative stress is known to be unfavorable. It can cause nerve damage and trigger aging processes," explains Prof. Kempermann. "But obviously this is only one aspect and there is also a good side to free radicals. There are indications of this in other contexts. However, what is new and surprising is the fact that the stem cells in our brains not only tolerate such extremely high levels of radicals, but also use them for their function.”
Healthy aging
Radical scavengers, also known as "antioxidants", counteract oxidative stress. Such substances are therefore considered important components of a healthy diet. They can be found in fruits and vegetables. "The positive effect of antioxidants has been proven and is not questioned by our study. We should also be careful with drawing conclusions for humans based on purely laboratory studies," emphasizes Kempermann. "And yet our results at least suggest that free radicals are not fundamentally bad for the brain. In fact, they are most likely important for the brain to remain adaptable throughout life and to age in a healthy way.”
my internal monologue when Ancient Egypt is mentioned: [don't talk about imhotep and the first codified diagnostic manual. the fact you know so much about it is deeply weird and nobody cares about medicine that much]
The year is 1862, and antiquities dealer (and forger) and self-made Egyptologist Edwin Smith steals a papyrus from an antiquities seller in Luxor. I could go on a whole separate rant about European colonialists treating culturally significant artifacts like grab 'n go bags and have done so here.
Anyway, Edwin's pilfered scroll gets translated in 1930, and it turns out have been a transcript from about the 17th century BCE of a papyrus written by a man named Imhotep, a vizier in the court of King Djozer who practiced neurosurgery, and made forays into astronomy and architecture too.
Now, Imhotep was wicked smart. As in "when the Greeks met him they incorporated him into the pantheon as a magician of Ascelpius because they couldn't figure out how he had such a comprehensive understanding of the human body and treating it's ills" smart. His scroll was a record of treatment of 48 cases, ranging from fractures of the hand to open abscessed wounds to trauma injuries to the skull. Side note: a lot of medicine during this period was considered to be the work of occult phenomena, and so a lot of treatments involved charms to ward off malignant spirits and incantations to aid in curing them.
What's remarkable about the Edwin scroll is that it is the first recorded account of medicine without the attachment of spiritual or occult phenomena as the root cause or a means of treatment; it's a purely scientific endeavour, complete with an anatomical glossary, diagnosis, summary, method of treatment and prognosis for each injury and illness.
It's the first evidence-based, scientific diagnostic manual.
The most significant case is Case 45, concerning a patient with “bulging masses — they may be compared to the unripe hemat fruit which is cool, and hard to the touch” in the breast. These masses are malignant tumours, the manifestation of breast cancer, and provide us with the first ever recorded case of cancer.
Imhotep knew that a tumour that has hot to the touch was a sign of infection (the inflammatory immune response produces tumor (swelling), rubor (redness), dolor (pain), and significantly to this calor, or heat). Infected abscesses could be treated with draining and a topical poultice. In the section for therapy for Case 45, though, there's one single, haunting line:
“There is none.”
In 2500BCE, well before germ theory, aseptic technique, chemotherapy and antibiotics, a surgeon picked up a scroll of fresh papyrus and provided us with the first ever codified, scientific diagnostic manual for injury and illness, and the first written record of the emperor of all maladies that we call cancer.
That's pretty fucking dope.
(If the cancer aspect is something you're interested in, I highly recommend The Emperor Of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee. It's a record of the diagnosis and treatment of cancer from the days of Imhotep to the present day, and it's a fascinating read)
[Click link in title to original article from LinkedIn!]
Having a PhD is a significant advantage. Don’t let others confuse you. PhDs get paid higher than non-PhDs and are in high demand. Trained professionals who know how to create information, not just repackage it, are desperately needed. Innovation is driving growth in the biopharmaceutical market right now. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, biopharma employment, from scientists to engineers, will continue to grow from 2014-2024.
If you have a PhD or are on your way to having one and you’re reading this, the future is yours. The only thing that can hold you back is yourself — by choosing to be one-dimensional and choosing to ignore the less objective soft skills that will complement your PhD and make you a magnet for industry success.
Here are five ways PhDs have advantages over other job candidates and over the population in general.
1. PhDs find answers, not excuses.
One of the most in-demand soft skills for any industry position is critical thinking. In other words, you have to be able to identify problems, find the right problem, and then find the right answer to that problem. Guess what? PhDs excel in all three of these areas.
Never forget the fact that you are a researcher. You are highly trained in identifying problems and finding solutions to those problems.
2. PhDs are inspired by failure.
As a researcher, you learn pretty quickly that you some experiments have to be performed 30 times just to find an answer to the tiniest question and then you have to do 30 more experiments to get the right p-value.
You failed over and over and over again, daily, without recognition or a decent paycheck. Yet, you woke up the next morning to do it all over again. Why? Because you knew that each failure would take you closer to getting the one piece data that would bring it all together. You woke up to fail again because failure is the best teacher — failure showed you what to do next.
3. PhDs can create something from nothing.
Less than 2% of the population has a PhD. Why? Because adding to a field is hard. Anyone can learn something and then repackage it. Anyone can regurgitate information. That’s easy. It’s so much harder to create information — to bring knowledge into existence for the very first time.
If you have a PhD, you are a creator of information. This is one of your most valuable and most transferable skills. Don’t assume that everyone can create information.
4. PhDs are both independent and team oriented.
If you have a PhD, you’ve worked very closely with other students. You’ve had to compete for resources and for publications and you’ve had to share resources and collaborate to get published. No one is more qualified than you to work with a team. Don’t let this hold you back. Position yourself properly, ask the right questions, and get the job you want.
5. PhDs are qualified for any industry position.
Every job is a PhD job. You can never be too qualified for a job. An employer telling you that you’re overqualified for a position is like someone breaking up with you and saying it’s not you it’s me. It is you. They’re turning you down politely and sparing your feelings. The real reason they didn’t want to hire you is your lack of social skills or your inability to present yourself for the position at hand.
Imagine you’re trying to hire the best person to work for you and your company, would you turn down an amazing candidate because he or she is too qualified? No, you wouldn’t. You would snatch them up and let them thrive in that position or you would promote them to another position. Overqualified means wrongly qualified. If you ever get turned down for a job for being overqualified, simply change your approach. Don’t complain about the system being against you. Go back and figure out exactly what the employer is working for. Leverage your PhD and experience towards their interests, not your own. Rewrite your resume, change your interview approach, and position yourself correctly this time.
One hundred years after her birth, it’s time to reassess the legacy of a pioneering chemist and X-ray crystallographer.
Basically Franklin was a badass who also contributed to the fields of coal research and viruses that cause plant and human disease. This (fairly short) article is well worth the read.
anyway, biorender is the best thing to ever happen to biologists since we found out we could manipulate peas
it’s a web program with like over 20k pre-made science icons you can use to make professional diagrams in minutes (or hours if you dick around a lot like yours truly. don’t mind that second thumbnail. it’s apparently supposed to be a mouse tumor but now it’s my friend).
GONE are the days when we have to individually make a phospholipid by hand on powerpoint and then copy+paste until we threw up
or use lame speech bubbles for cells
just LOOK at all these amazing illustrations the company and/or users have created:
(lol way better than mine but that’s besides the point) go check them out!
kianamaiart
prguitarman
gummygunk
janainaart
blakekathryn
jbbartram-illu
theartofmadeline
jacobvanloon
areudirty
