I am confused. I may very well have to devote tens of hours of study to ever understand this, but if someone has already done that and can provide a simple explanation to the non-scientific layperson (me), I'd love to get the benefit of that.

My assumption is that there are two goals. One is to protect as-yet-undamaged nerve cells. The other is to regenerate damaged nerve cells.

As for regeneration, is the extension of axons the only way we re-innervate muscles and get back lost motor function? If so, it seems like we still have a way to go to reach that goal. Dr. Viera writes that the transplanted motor neurons in the CSC collaboration "did not extend axons or innervate any muscle" and that the transplanted motor neurons in Kerr's group showed only a 2mm extension of axons.

What about the ongoing stem cell transplant efforts by the other groups -- Neuralstem, Brainstorm, etc.; are these aimed at regeneration or at protecting what we haven't already lost? If the former, what exactly is hoped for in terms of regeneration if not axonal growth, and how does that lead to regained motor function?

Thanks in advance for whatever insight can be shared.

lolo,,I believe they are just trying to slow or maintain what we have..But you can bet your butt they are expecting more..They want a cure more than a band aid..
Let's hope we see both at Emory..I would like trials run all over..Especially the ones ALSYOYO posted in California..They are onto something better than Neuralstem, I hope..Ron

Cristina,

I had read that and it specifically says rescuing existing neurons through contact. That sounds great. However, that is NOT what I had posted. I specifically said grow axons and connect to muscles. That is the ultimate goal because it not only would save function but would add function that was previously lost.

Also a worthwhile goal but one that looks to be in the future, not the present. And what I'm annoyed about is that on some of the current stem cell "treatments" this very idea is being thrown around as realistic. PALS don't need false expectations on top of all our other troubles.

lolo,

In the article that ENV referenced about Neuralstem, there was a statement that stated the goal explicitly.

http://www.neuralstem.com/index.asp?pgid=43

"Our biggest hope for stem cells is to significantly slow the progression the disease," Bruijn said.

and:

"This is not a cure. We are not replacing those motor neurons [nerve cells which tell muscles to contract]. These stem cells don't generate motor neurons. Instead they protect the still-functioning motor neurons," Johe explained.


*************************************************************

As for Brainstorm, this article provides insight:


http://www.brainstorm-cell.com/

The Company is focused on developing NTF cells from the patient's own bone marrow in order to treat, Parkinson, ALS, and Spinal Cord Injury

The adult stem cells are used to create healthy NTF cells which produce and secrete neurotrophic factors, which are essential for the survival and outgrowth of neurons, and may become beneficial in neurodegenerative diseases. Patients treated with the Company’s NurOwn™ therapeutic cells are expected to enjoy a rapid recovery and much enhanced quality of life. BrainStorm's therapy has the potential to cure underlying pathology, rather than simply treat symptoms.

Thank you, Wayne. And also Ron. I'm beginning to get my arms around this behemoth.

Both Brainstorm and Neuralstem have used the word "cure" in their press releases and/or executive informational overviews. They are very careful in the context they use the word. Obviously, it carries a lot of weight in terms of promoting their products. This is somewhat misleading, admittedly, but it shouldn't detract from the real benefit their treatments may offer.

---

Without hope there is nothing.

I agree with Wayne..The other clinics, ie, Mexico, China, etc, are looking for suckers..We have a couple we can say are legit, but beware of them to a certain extent too. They aren't above a press release making a few questionable statements either..We have seen it before..
But I have hope this time..That's a first for me. lol..Ron

I don’t totally understand:

“Investigators ……. have demonstrated in mouse models that transplanted stems cells, when in direct contact with diseased neurons, send signals through specialized channels that rescue the neurons from death.” (From this release)

Do they mean resuscitate cells? Dead cells becoming alive again? Or rather they mean to rescue threatened nerve cells before they die? Are in ALS motor neurons definitely dead or are they simply unfit?

Unsolved enigmas for one no scientific who understands better Spanish than English.

Cristina

They resuscitate the neurons, so to speak, and regain or save SOME function.And I believe they re channel the signals somewhat..So that some function either remains, or the neuron regains some of it's abilities..
That's the way I read it.That's what HAD to happen for the mice to regain some function...Ron