this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
44 points (97.8% liked)
Science
7302 readers
1 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
Lets hope (but I won't hold my breath!), or at least science will move forwards concerning cellular repair mechanisms, which IMO is great!