Fuck yeah.

In mice tho.

Edit: ducking autocorrect

Mice to neet you.

in mouse models

Okay let's pack up folks, nothing to see here.

There is something to see, we just won't have a treatment as fast as we would if this was in human trials.

With all the controversies around Alzheimer's research, if this study is reproducible, it could kick start treatment in a productive direction. I'm looking at this bit in particular

Researchers noted that most existing therapies target beta-amyloid plaques, while their study focuses on astrocytes, offering a complementary strategy that could improve treatment outcomes.

As for why this is significant

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/what-we-do/researchers/news/explaining-amyloid-research-study-controversy

There's a saying in biotech: Everything works mice.

So it's an extremely tiny step forward. Loads of others have been there and we still have no treatment for Alzheimer's. But who knows, and it seems we don't know any better way than just randomly try stuff.

Sure, but exploring astrocytes isn't random. Astrocytes are the support/repair/maintenance cells of the CNS.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s12276-023-01148-0

If the study is reproducible, it could be a good step forward for our understanding of Alzheimer's, even if this specific technique doesn't translate to human astrocytes.

It's possible that the reason we don't have a treatment for Alzheimer's is because a different mouse study in 2006 caused researchers to focus on the wrong physiological process.

The first author of that influential study, published in Nature in 2006, was an ascending neuroscientist: Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN), Twin Cities. His work underpins a key element of the dominant yet controversial amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s, which holds that Aβ clumps, known as plaques, in brain tissue are a primary cause of the devastating illness, which afflicts tens of millions globally. In what looked like a smoking gun for the theory and a lead to possible therapies, Lesné and his colleagues discovered an Aβ subtype and seemed to prove it caused dementia in rats. If Schrag’s doubts are correct, Lesné’s findings were an elaborate mirage.

A 6-month investigation by Science provided strong support for Schrag’s suspicions and raised questions about Lesné’s research. A leading independent image analyst and several top Alzheimer’s researchers—including George Perry of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and John Forsayeth of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)—reviewed most of Schrag’s findings at Science’s request. They concurred with his overall conclusions, which cast doubt on hundreds of images, including more than 70 in Lesné’s papers. Some look like “shockingly blatant” examples of image tampering, says Donna Wilcock, an Alzheimer’s expert at the University of Kentucky.

The authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments,” says Elisabeth Bik, a molecular biologist and well-known forensic image consultant. “The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results, and that data might have been changed to … better fit a hypothesis.”

Lets hope (but I won't hold my breath!), or at least science will move forwards concerning cellular repair mechanisms, which IMO is great!