Comments
sfzombie13 t1_itg7fa3 wrote
from the article - “As this was the first study using stem cell models of PTSD, it was important to study a large number of individuals,” said Daniel Paull, PhD, NYSCF Senior Vice President, Discovery & Platform Development, and co-leader of the study. “ it sure seems to me that 39 people is far from a large number of people, but i don't work in nueroscience, so it may be. anyone care to venture an informed opinion?
triffid_boy t1_ithf16s wrote
It wouldn't be enough for a medical study, trial or intervention or whatever, but it's a different kind of study. They're not studying people or interventions per se, they're studying the neurons/genetics. Having 39 samples for this seems pretty good. If you're suggesting they should have generated neurons from stem cells from hundreds of people ... Good god man have mercy on the lab people!
sfzombie13 t1_ithfzix wrote
no, i'm suggesting they rephrase the statement, as 39 is not a large number of people for ANY type of study. i would think thousands would suffice for large, not under 50. semantics mostly, but sure, now that you've mentioned it, it needs to be at least in the hundreds to be accurate i'd think, or else they'd be getting at most three people per group selected for. it's hard to get a very diverse group of anything with only 39 members, especially with the differences in people.
there could be more than 10 different geographical influences across the us, and then throw in ethnic groups, gender, and economic class and you've got like one representative from each. not much of a diverse study at all that way.
triffid_boy t1_ithkgw0 wrote
The studies are not on the people, they're trying to identify genetic targets and generate models to use in vitro. It's completely valid.
sfzombie13 t1_itiegsp wrote
no, but they're using people. that's where the genes come from, and with only 39 of them, and all of them vets with ptsd, how do they know they have enough of a diverse sample to make any meaningful connections that can't be explained by chance?
triffid_boy t1_itih0qo wrote
A reasonable case is given through the other studies in the paper to be honest, e.g demonstrating that they have similar transcriptomic signatures to post mortem brains with PTSD.
alexashleyfox t1_ithm1hh wrote
39 is a lot of people to do research of this complexity on. And I’ve noticed that neuroscience as a whole tends towards lower n values because of the time and expense of collecting the data. Like you can only pay for so many fMRIs.
AutoModerator t1_itfy8sc wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_itg0yhl wrote
[removed]
Well_being1 t1_ithfqq2 wrote
Will we ever be able to make an extremely non stress resiliant/PTSD prone person, the opposite? And chronically? We will have to probably change their genetics somehow. I hope it will happen one day
sfzombie13 t1_itier6c wrote
except what would it screw up to get that effect? like how we have crohn's disease now and a few others due to a genetic change that made us more resistant to the plague. it's all a trade off, i'll take my ptsd.
QuietEven198 t1_iththi5 wrote
I think the goal would be something more like a blocker for specific receptors in a neural cascade, if there was evidence that certain mutations increased probability of PTSD.
[deleted] t1_itgy4y0 wrote
crispr exists guys use it to cure people goddamit
triffid_boy t1_ithf427 wrote
How would knocking out genes help?
Impossible-Winter-94 t1_ithqas8 wrote
they don't know, just spouting off bs
[deleted] t1_ithuy7z wrote
crispr doesn't just knock out genes
triffid_boy t1_itih9pb wrote
No, it causes an indel, which typically knocks out genes. Various modifications to it exist to make use of the cuts to insert a gene, but Crispr is just a technique for cutting DNA in a precise location.
[deleted] t1_itikd2z wrote
yes, in this way we can cut substitue or repair genes that causing troubles
f it's useless then nobody should have gotten a nobel why do i aleays here mixed expplanation mechanisms on crispr? looks like is both usels and both the most useful tool ever created
one thing is sure
we can't even cure dematitis imagine what we can do with mental disorders , just locking ill people in hospital thinking they <are wrong and do nothing for them
hahaha that's peak humanity i hate you all
triffid_boy t1_itimb7u wrote
Never said it was useless. It's awesome, I use it in the lab. But It's not a cure-all. We can't just "Crispr it" when we identify even a single gene trait genotype caused a certain disease.
[deleted] t1_itinnzh wrote
>er said it was useless. It's awesome, I use it in the lab. But It's not a cure-all. We can't just "Crispr it" when we identify even a single gene trait gen
what's the problem? i'm not sadly a chemist or a genetic engineer
but sure i need it because my life is fucked up
triffid_boy t1_itk6tuf wrote
Because all these disease associated genes have functions, we can't just knock them out, they have important work to do. The disease associate variants are just that, a variant of a healthy version of the same gene, which could be all sorts of different things, too much/little expression (Crispr won't do anything here), or a mutation that changes the protein (Crispr might do something here with a lot of additional tinkering).
The other problem is delivery. It's relatively easy in a dish, but doing it to every cell in the body is essentially impossible. If the disease exists in, or can be fixed by modifying, an accessible cell type like say circulating immune cells, then that's the first target for medicine. See for example car-t cells.
[deleted] t1_itkgnb3 wrote
i feel that crispr is completely useless and the only thing that could save our future generations from genetic disease is sadly eugenics, sad to say but if we keep reproducing humanity will face a slow death before everyone suffered disparity
i just need an hair loss cure and and an autism cure i'm just 20 my life is ruined and i'm contemplating suicide i guess it' inevitable now and i am also predisposed to dementia and diabetes and i'm already getting blind
my life is ruined
i don't want to face an inevitable destiny, i can't run from what my parents set, what is the point in living a written destiny
Typical-Technician46 t1_ith8zox wrote
Whaaaa you mean harvesting cells from individuals with a specific dominant/ recessive trait could result in desired results... Wow if this was the hard hitting kind of research required to be relevant I would have not gone into wall street...
triffid_boy t1_ithf908 wrote
I think your comment explained well enough why you had to leave research.
[deleted] t1_itgczgt wrote
[removed]
Wagamaga OP t1_itfybe4 wrote
Stem cell-derived neurons from combat veterans with and without post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) provide insights into how genetics can make someone more susceptible to developing PTSD following trauma exposure, according to a study conducted by scientists from several research institutions, including Yale School of Medicine.
Post-traumatic stress disorder can develop following severe trauma and is an enormous public health problem for both veterans and civilians. However, the extent to which genetic and environmental factors contribute to individual clinical outcomes remains unknown.
To bridge this information gap, the research team studied a cohort of 39 combat veterans with and without PTSD who were recruited from the James J. Peters Bronx Veterans Affairs Hospital. Veterans underwent skin biopsies and their skin cells were reprogrammed into induced pluripotent stem cells.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41593-022-01161-y