As a child, Max Hodak learned to develop film in a darkroom with his late grandfather who was almost blind. Hodak’s grandfather had retinitis pigmentosa, a congenital disease that affects one out of every 5,000 people — more than 2 million worldwide. Most people with the condition are born with their sight intact. Over time they lose peripheral vision first, then central vision, and finally, their sight, sometimes as early as middle age.
“He clearly had this career and was a photographer, and I saw that,” Hodak said of his grandfather, who became an aerospace engineer and briefly worked on heat shields for spacecraft. “But most of my memories as a kid was that he was pretty profoundly blind.”
Possible solutions are within reach. Science Eye is a startup company based in Alameda, Calif., developing a visual prosthesis called the Science Eye which could restore vision in people with retinitis pigmentosa. The Science Eye works by using optogenetics to stimulate ganglion cells in the retina through wireless communication and deliver digital information to the brain.
All companies working on optogenetics-based treatments rely on gene therapy called optogenetics where opsins are injected into the eye to boost light sensitivity in cells of the retina.
How Optogenetics Works
In normal vision, light enters the eye through the lens and forms an image on the retina composed of photoreceptor cells containing opsins. These photoreceptors convert light into electrical signals transmitted via ganglion cells to the brain for processing.
Retinitis pigmentosa deteriorates rod and cone photoreceptors over time leading to peripheral vision loss followed by tunnel vision until complete blindness occurs while leaving ganglion cells largely intact.
State-of-the-Art Solutions
Science Eye has developed an implant with a wireless power coil and micro-LED array placed over the retina, providing high-resolution vision. Frameless glasses fitted with miniature infrared cameras and inductive power coils deliver information wirelessly to the implanted chip.
Similarly, GenSight Biologics uses optogenetics combined with glasses to amplify light for ganglion cells to decode. Clinical trial results of GenSight Biologics showcase their ability to help patients locate objects on a table. Bionic Sight uses gene therapy to boost the light sensitivity of intact ganglion cells and pairs it with goggles containing a camera and neurocoding device.
Potential for Vision Restoration
These advancements have shown promising results in restoring vision or improving visual acuity in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. Patients who previously struggled even at close proximity can now distinguish colors, shapes, and navigate mazes successfully.
While there are challenges ahead such as optimizing opsin delivery and increasing light sensitivity, companies like Science Eye predict that within the next five years, products will be available for individuals suffering from visual impairments caused by retinitis pigmentosa or other related conditions like dry age-related macular degeneration.
“Real progress is coming,” says Max Hodak from Science Eye regarding potential future breakthroughs in optogenetic treatments for blindness.
Advancements in Optogenetics Bring Hope for Restoring Sight in People with Retinitis Pigmentosa
Increased immunity and decreased tumor metastases in patients on long-term drug therapy: Italian research findings
Italian research group “Patients taking long-term drugs have fewer tumor metastases and better immunity.”
Research has shown that aspirin, which many people take for its anti-inflammatory and blood-clotting effects, prevents the development and progression of colon cancer by detecting tumor cells in the immune system and strengthening the immune response.
On the 23rd, Dr. Marco Scarpa’s team from the University of Padua, Italy, discovered this fact by studying the effect of long-term aspirin use on colon cancer using tissue samples from 230 patients undergoing surgery for American Cancer Society (ACS) colon cancer. revealed the academic journal Cancer.
Dr Scarpa said: ‘Taken aspirin is absorbed to a significant extent in the large intestine through passive diffusion’ and added: ‘The results of this study show that aspirin has a complementary mechanism for prevention or treatment of cancer in addition to the classic drug mechanism of suppression of inflammation”.
Many research findings have shown that aspirin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, prevents various cancers. Furthermore, taking aspirin daily for a long period of time is known to reduce the incidence and mortality rate of colon cancer, but the exact mechanism of action has not been revealed.
The research team explained that in this study they analyzed the effects of aspirin on the tumor microenvironment, systemic immunity, and healthy mucosa surrounding the cancer using tissue samples from patients undergoing colon cancer surgery.
They collected tissue samples from 238 patients who underwent colon cancer surgery between 2015 and 2019, compared tissue differences between long-term aspirin users (12%) and the remaining non-users, and identified genes that they appear when colon cancer cells are exposed to aspirin. The expression, etc. were analyzed.
As a result, tissue samples from long-term aspirin users showed fewer tumor metastases to the lymph glands and a higher level of tumor infiltration by immune cells than those from non-aspirin users.
Additionally, experiments in which colon cancer cells were exposed to aspirin showed increased expression of the CD80 protein gene, which detects the presence of tumor-related proteins in some immune cells and alerts other immune cells.
The research team also explained that aspirin users showed a higher CD80 expression rate in healthy rectal mucosal tissue compared to non-users, which also suggests that aspirin aids the system’s tumor surveillance function. immune.
Dr. Scarpa said: “The concentration of aspirin absorbed can be very different depending on the location in the colon” and “To exploit the effect of aspirin against colon cancer, we need to think about how to ensure that the aspirin reaches the colon in an instant.” appropriate dose and is effective.” “It has to be done,” he said.
◆ 출처 : Cancer, Marco Scarpa et al., “IMMUNOREACT 7: Regular aspirin use is associated with activation of immune surveillance in colorectal cancer”,
저작권자(c) 연합뉴스>
#Aspirin #prevents #onset #progression #colon #cancer #strengthens #immune #response #Donga #Science
Related
“Approved” and not just “authorized” speed cameras: what happens now to fines and what to do after the Supreme Court’s decision
It is not the first time that the Court of Cassation speaks of “obligation of approval” for speed cameras. He had already done so in previous years: this time, however, he writes, in black and white and clearly, that the mere “approval” of the instrument by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport is not enough but it is […]
TO CONTINUE READING
SUPPORT US
€1 FOR THE FIRST MONTH
Already a subscriber?
KEEP READING
It’s not the first time that Court of Cassation Talks about “approval requirement” for the Speed Cameras. He had already done so in previous years: this time, however, he writes, in black and white and clearly, that “approval” alone is not enough of the instrument by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport but “approval” from the Ministry of Economic Development is also necessary (today Ministry of Business and Made in Italy). Two distinct procedures, according to the judges of the second civil section of the Palazzaccio, who for this reason agreed with one motorist Venetian who obtained thecancellation of the fine for speeding. However, there is another fact to take into consideration. In Italy no speed cameras are approved and simply because the ministerial regulation is missing which was to establish it and the “European and national standards”. Speed cameras are like that only approved from Mit. So what happens now? Are all fines voidable? Is it necessary and useful to appeal?
The regulatory confusion and the sentences – The problem of the distinction or equivalence between type-approval or approval of speed control devices dates back over time and over the years has repeatedly hit the pages of newspapers. The substantive sentences there were many and sometimes they proved the drivers right, other times they didn’t. Over the years the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport has intervened several times to clarify the “substantial equivalence” between “the homologation and approval procedures” and the consequent “validity” of the devices even if only approved: to do so the ministry cited all the regulations where homologation “or” approval was mentioned, believing it was clear that this was aalternative. The Supreme Court, however, dismantles the reconstruction of the ministry by focusing everything onarticle 142 of the Traffic Laws: “For determining compliance with speed limits, the results of duly approved equipment are considered sources of proof – we read in paragraph 6”.
Who can appeal? – And if no speed camera is approved, are the sanctions void for everyone? The Supreme Court’s decision has created so much confusion. First of all nothing changes for fines already paid or those for whom they are deadlines have expired (30 days for appeal to the justice of the peace, 60 days before the Prefect). However, those who still have time to appeal or those who will receive a fine in the next few days could probably have some more possibilities to have the fine cancelled, after having requested access to the documents from the Municipality (or the competent body) to ask whether the speed camera was approved or not. It must be kept in mind that if the appeal to the Prefect were to be rejected, the recipient of the sanction would be forced to pay double the fine.
Is cancellation of the fine a given? – There will certainly be no mass cancellations. The media coverage obtained by the Supreme Court’s decision risks causing a river of appeals: but for the appellant nothing is taken for granted. The Supreme Court’s order does not automatically apply to other cases and, among other things, the trial judge is not obliged to follow that direction. Ironically, if a new case reached the Court of Cassation, the Palazzaccio magistrates might even change their opinion. Precisely in the latest order the judges themselves define the question “objectively controversial (also as emerging from no univocal jurisprudence trained in this regard)”. Meanwhile, the ministry assures them that they are working to try to resolve the problem. Only way to close, once and for all, a question that has been open for decades.
Related