Cats develop dementia in same way as people, study finds
A toxic protein critical to the progression of the disease in humans has been observed for the first time causing the feline equivalent.
Scientists hope the discovery could allow researchers to use cats to learn more about how the disease affects people.
Many older cats develop dementia, and it has long been known by vets that senior cats can struggle with memory problems towards the end of their lives.
Scans of the brains of 25 dead cats revealed amyloid plaques in the organs of those cats that had shown symptoms of feline dementia before their death.
The aggregation of the toxic proteins in the gaps between neurons is thought to impair how signals are transmitted in the brain. In humans, this process has been linked to memory and thinking problems.
Could human treatments help pets?
Dr Robert McGeachan, the study lead from the University of Edinburgh's Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, said: 'Dementia is a devastating disease – whether it affects humans, cats, or dogs.
'Our findings highlight the striking similarities between feline dementia and Alzheimer's disease in people.
'This opens the door to exploring whether promising new treatments for human Alzheimer's disease could also help our ageing pets.
'Because cats naturally develop these brain changes, they may also offer a more accurate model of the disease than traditional laboratory animals, ultimately benefiting both species and their caregivers.'
Professor Danièlle Gunn-Moore added that this breakthrough will enable advances for both humans and cats.
' Feline dementia is so distressing for the cat and for its person,' she said.
'It is by undertaking studies like this that we will understand how best to treat them. This will be wonderful for the cats, their owners, people with Alzheimer's and their loved ones.
'Feline dementia is the perfect natural model for Alzheimer's, everyone benefits.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
17 minutes ago
- Times
Steven Rose obituary: Vituperative neuroscientist
Steven Rose had a personality of two halves. He 'walks with the stoop of an academic but sits with his head cocked, alert like a boxer', one journalist observed. In the first role, Rose was a dedicated researcher who patiently yet doggedly studied the mysteries of the brain — in the process, challenging received wisdom about learning and memory, paving the way for new treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer's. On the flip side of this was a scrappy man who was quick to eviscerate fellow neuroscientists, ideas or institutions that he deemed to be leading the profession in the wrong direction. 'Combat is forced upon me,' he insisted. 'I don't go looking for combats. But they find me. When what I regard as bad or mistaken ideas are non-trivial, they need combating.' Rose was quick to label his intellectual opponents 'fantasists', and even his penultimate book Genes, Cells and Brains in 2012 was an 'angry' tome that boasted 'abundant targets' and a 'lethally impressive hit ratio', as one reviewer observed. An academic 'with a strongly philosophical and political cast of mind', Rose took a stance against the idea that human behaviour was determined by genes. He was adamant that 'we are free to make our own futures, though in circumstances not of our own choosing'. This view placed him in opposition to those thinkers who argued that human nature was largely honed by evolutionary forces, and Rose took no qualms with ferociously critiquing their views. Chief among his targets were the 'reductionist' entomologist Edward O Wilson, the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins and the 'romanticised Stone Age nonsense' of the cognitive neuroscientist Steven Pinker. He also directed his wrath at the enthusiasm for IQ testing in education and employment in the 1970s. Rose believed the question of what constituted 'intelligence' was problematic — arguing the word had much broader and diverse meanings than what could be encompassed in such tests — and he was adamant that intelligence was heavily reliant on a person's environment. He was also a vocal critic of the 'pseudo-science' behind claims by thinkers such as the DNA pioneer James Watson that IQ tests showed inherent differences in intelligence between men and women, or people of different races. 'Intelligence is always intelligence-in-context,' Rose said, adding for good measure: 'Many would argue that someone who can make remarks like Watson's is singularly devoid of social intelligence, for instance.' Although he was quick to dismiss viewpoints he deemed inaccurate, Rose was refreshingly honest about the limits of his own work. He refused to dumb down the most complex aspects of neuroscience into sweeping simplifications, and one of the most common phrases in his book The 21st-Century Brain: Explaining, Mending and Manipulating the Mind (2005) was: 'We just don't know.' Steven Peter Russell Rose was born into an Orthodox Jewish community in north London in 1938. His father Lionel Rose (formerly Rosenberg) was a chemistry teacher who became an intelligence officer during the Second World War. He later worked as an organiser for the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women before founding an advertising agency. His mother Ruth (née Waxman) gave up her career to look after her children but later became co-director of her husband's agency and ran it single-handedly after he died in 1959. Rose's dual interest in socialism and science could be traced back to the events of his childhood. He described how one of his earliest memories was a violent demonstration by the Blackshirts while his father was speaking against the fascists, and said that after being given a chemistry set for his eighth birthday he set up a chemistry lab in his garden. After attending Haberdashers' Aske's boys' school in Hertfordshire on a scholarship, he won another one to study at King's College, Cambridge, where he graduated with a double first in biochemistry in 1959. Evidently talented, but young and ambitious, Rose decided he did not want to continue in a field where there was less scope to make science-altering discoveries. 'I thought, 'The genetic code has been solved; protein synthesis has been done. What's the big next thing to understand? The brain. So where can I go to understand the brain?'' he recalled. The sentiment went down as well as you might expect with his department, and he was 'exiled' to complete a PhD at the Institute of Psychiatry in London in 1961. It turned out to be felicitous, because he met the LSE sociology student Hilary Chantler while in London at a New Left Review meeting. The couple married shortly afterwards and were together for more than 60 years until Rose's death. Even from this relatively young age, the young neuroscientist was interested in engaging the broader public in the knotty science of the mind. He wrote his first book explaining the basics of biochemistry to the general reader while still in his twenties. It was picked up by Penguin and published as the hugely successful paperback The Chemistry of Life in 1966. The following year Rose became one of the founding members of a London-based discussion group that held informal monthly meetings in the upstairs room of the Black Horse pub in Rathbone Place, London. It was the precursor of the Brain Research Association, which was later renamed the British Neuroscience Association and continues to this day. After periods of postdoctoral research at Oxford, Rome and with the Medical Research Council in London, Rose became a professor of biology at the newly formed Open University in 1968. Aged only 30, he became one of the UK's youngest professors. While at the university he established its brain and behaviour research group and remained as a professor there until 1999, though he continued to conduct research at the university for more than a decade afterwards. Rose also took up visiting appointments in the United States, China and Australia and continued to write prolifically alongside his teaching. He penned an enormous number of papers on learning and memory and wrote several highly successful books, including The Making of Memory: From Molecules to Mind (1992), which received the Royal Society science book prize. He wrote several of these publications with his wife Hilary, who was appointed professor of social policy at the University of Bradford in 1975. She survives him with their two sons, the farmer Simon, from Hilary's first marriage, and the criminal defence lawyer Ben. Together, the couple wrote Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology (2000), Genes, Cells and Brains: Bioscience's Promethean Promises (2012) and Can Neuroscience Change Our Minds? (2016). They shared a keen interest in the social and legal aspects of science, and advocated for greater public engagement with ethics. They decried the shift towards an entrepreneurial focus — 'wealth creation is now unabashedly formalised as the chief objective of science and technology policy' — and were among the founders of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science in 1969. Rose also appeared as a panel member on BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze for several years, and was awarded the Biochemical Society medal for excellence in public communication of science in 2002. While researching cures for Alzheimer's disease Rose's work brought him into opposition with animal rights campaigners. He established an ethics committee with lay members before government legislation demanded it, reasoning: 'Such discussions are important, as each side learns to respect and attempt to accommodate the views of the other.' His efforts did not stop the hate mail, however. 'When I informed an officer of one of the major 'anti-vivisection' organisations that our local animal rights movement included active members of a neo-Nazi group, her response was to ask me if I didn't feel like Josef Mengele, the notorious concentration camp butcher. An odd question to address to a Jew,' he added. Rose's laboratory was a lively international hub of scientists. He had visiting researchers from countries including Argentina, France, Spain, Italy and Poland and he took a keen interest in global affairs. In 2002 Rose and his wife initiated a boycott of Israeli institutions in protest at strikes on Palestinians, backed by figures including Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The couple argued: 'The choice today for civil society — and academics and researchers are a part of civil society — is to remain silent and do nothing or to try to bring pressure to bear.' Rose was recognised internationally for his work with the Sechenov and Anokhin medals (Russia) and the Ariens Kappers medal (the Netherlands). But one of the most promising elements of his research was his progress towards finding a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease, for which he won the Lilly award for best innovation in mental health in 2003. In the latter half of his career, Rose started to look towards the future of neuroscience. In 2009 he was invited to deliver a centenary lecture at Bristol University and he assembled a talk entitled: The Future of the Brain: The Promise and Perils of Tomorrow's Neuroscience. In it, he warned of the ways in which his colleagues were overreaching with their offers to 'explain, mend and manipulate the mind'. He was wary of the role of the state and big pharmaceutical companies in research and showed particular concern about the disputed borderlines between being undesirable and being ill. Rose called on his audience to question intolerant attitudes towards age-associated memory impairment, ADHD, compliance disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, disruptive behaviour and conduct disorder. 'All of which I suspect I could have been prosecuted for or psychiatrically diagnosed with over the course of my career,' he said. 'If I hadn't been, I'd have been rather sorry that I'd failed.' Steven Rose, neuroscientist and author, was born on July 4, 1938. He died of undisclosed causes on July 9, 2025, aged 87
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Difference in survival rates between different types of cancer is bigger than ever while overall improvements have slowed, study reveals
The difference in survival rates between different types of cancer is bigger than ever while overall improvements have slowed, a study reveals. The proportion of UK patients surviving ten years or more ranges from 97 per cent for testicular cancer to just 4.3 per cent for pancreatic cancer. Survival for all cancers combined has increased dramatically since the 1970s but the gains were almost three-times faster in the early 2000s than the early 2010s. For a patient diagnosed in 2018, the likelihood of surviving cancer for at least a decade stands at 49.8 per cent compared to 23.7 per cent in the 1970s, researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found. Remarkably, the one year rate in 1971 was not even as high as the ten year rate in 2018. Breast, bowel and cervical cancer are among the cancer types which have seen large improvements in survival - partly due to effective screening programmes which can diagnose the disease at an earlier stage, when it is easier to treat. Innovations in treatment and improved awareness of symptoms have also contributed to better outcomes for many cancers, Cancer Research UK said. However, 'remarkable progress' for some cancer types has left others 'trailing behind', as survival for the most lethal cancers has hardly improved at all. Oesophagus, stomach, lung and brain cancer survival has only increased by a small amount in the past 50 years and remains below 20 per cent. Meanwhile, for pancreatic cancer, survival after ten years is still less than 5 per cent, according to findings published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe. These forms of cancer are harder to detect and treat, which is why targeted research in this area is vital, experts say. Pressures on cancer services in the UK, resulting in longer waits for diagnosis and treatment, could be contributing to the overall slow-down in progress, they add. Researchers analysed long-term trends in cancer survival for adults across England and Wales from 1971 to 2018. Using records from the National Disease Registration Service for England and the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit, experts estimated net survival for up to 10 years after diagnosis for around 10.8 million people. In the five years from 2000/01 to 2005/06, the 10-year cancer survival index - an indicator of overall survival across all types of the disease- rose by 4 per cent, from 41.2 per cent to 45.2 per cent. But between 2010/11 and 2015/16, the rise was 1.4 per cent, from 47.9 per cent to 49.3 per cent. Researchers say a national cancer plan is 'essential' to 'bring cancer survival trends back towards the best in the world'. The Government launched a call for evidence to help shape a national cancer plan in February. The blueprint aims to outline actions to transform how the disease is treated in a bid to reduce deaths. Michel Coleman, a professor of epidemiology and statistics at LSHTM, said: 'Since I began my career in cancer research, I've seen substantial increases in survival for most types of cancer. 'Our understanding of cancer biology has expanded, effective screening programmes have been introduced, and new treatments have been developed. 'Allowing this trend to stall will have devastating consequences. 'The National Cancer Plan is a chance to improve NHS cancer pathways and reap the benefits of new research – the Government must take it.' Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, said: 'Thanks to research, most patients today are far more likely to survive their cancer than at any point in the past. 'But the reality is that this progress is slowing – and for some cancers, it never got going in the first place. 'The upcoming National Cancer Plan for England must include commitments to spot more cancers earlier, as well as backing research into new treatments so that each patient, regardless of their diagnosis, can hope for more moments with the people they love.' Cancer Research UK is calling for the national cancer plan to slash waiting times for diagnosis and treatment, saying some patients face unacceptable delays. The plan should also improve early diagnosis of cancer, with plans to boost participation in existing screening programmes and a commitment to rolling out lung cancer screening fully in England by 2029. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'We are prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS. 'We're already seeing progress, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year. 'The National Cancer Plan will set out how we will improve survival rates further and address the variation between different cancer types.'
Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists want to make toothpaste from human HAIR - and say it could repair damaged teeth better than fluoride-based products
Whether it's splashing out on a fancy electric toothbrush or hopping on a plane to get a set of Turkey teeth, some people will do whatever it takes to get the perfect smile. But scientists now say the solution to our dental woes has been right there with us the entire time. Researchers from King's College London found that toothpaste made from human hair can repair damaged teeth better than fluoride-based products. Treatments made using keratin extracted from hair or wool can completely halt the early stages of tooth decay. The researchers say this could be applied either in the form of a toothpaste or as a nail varnish-like gel for more targeted repair. If you suffer from sensitive teeth, the good news is that it could be available to consumers in as little as two to three years. Senior author Dr Sherif Elsharkawy says: 'We are entering an exciting era where biotechnology allows us to not just treat symptoms but restore biological function using the body's own materials. 'With further development and the right industry partnerships, we may soon be growing stronger, healthier smiles from something as simple as a haircut.' Teeth are covered in a hard outer layer called enamel, mainly made up of calcium and phosphorus, which protects the sensitive inner layers from damage. Although enamel is the hardest substance in the human body, even stronger than your bones, acidic foods and drinks, and poor dental hygiene can wear it away over time. This can lead to tooth sensitivity, pain, and even tooth loss in extreme cases. 'Unlike bones and hair, enamel does not regenerate, once it is lost, it's gone forever,' says Dr Elsharkawy. Toothpastes with high levels of fluoride can help slow down this process, but they cannot stop it entirely. However, in their new paper, published in Advanced Healthcare Materials, Dr Elsharkawy says that keratin from hair and wool can permanently restore tooth strength. Keratin is a fibrous protein naturally produced by our bodies that makes up our hair, nails, and the outer layer of our skin. The researchers found that, when keratin is applied to teeth, it forms a dense mineral layer which mimics the structure and function of enamel. Keratin reacts with minerals naturally present in saliva to form 'a highly organised, crystal-like scaffold'. This scaffold continues to absorb calcium and phosphorus from the saliva, which leads to the growth of an 'enamel-like' layer around the tooth. That layer protects the tooth and seals off the exposed nerve channels, which lead to sensitivity, both relieving the symptoms of tooth decay and fixing the underlying issue. The researchers believe that this natural treatment has some major advantages over techniques currently being used in dentistry. In the future, waste hair from hairdressers or excess wool from farms could be recycled into toothpaste. That means dentists could offer a more eco-friendly option that is even more effective than existing treatments. First author Sara Gamea, a PhD candidate at King's College London, told Daily Mail: 'By sealing tiny openings in teeth and restoring lost minerals, keratin-based treatments could offer long-lasting protection against sensitivity and wear.' 'Because hair is abundant, renewable, and often discarded as waste, it provides a sustainable and cost-effective source for producing keratin-based materials to help repair teeth.' ARE TRENDY WAYS OF CLEANING YOUR TEETH EFFECTIVE, OR DANGEROUS? Top dentists reveal how trendy fads can wreak havoc with people's teeth. Despite the likes of Gisele Bündchen and the Hemsley sisters swearing by starting every morning with a refreshing glass of hot water and lemon, Dr Ben Atkins, a dentist based in Manchester and Trustee of the Oral Health Foundation, warns the drink effectively dissolves teeth and could even make them darker. While critics link fluoride to everything from dementia to diabetes, experts argue numerous studies show the mineral does not harm people's health, with free-from varieties missing out on 'the main protective ingredient'. Dr Atkins also describes the ancient Ayurvedic practice of oil pulling, which involves swishing coconut oil around the mouth, as a 'waste of time', with Dr Rhona Eskander, Best Young Dentist Winner 2016, adding it will not give you a Hollywood smile. In terms of brushing your teeth with charcoal or apple cider vinegar, both Dr Atkins and Dr Eskander add the 'natural remedies' could do more harm than good as while their acidic, abrasive consistencies may remove surface stains, they could also permanently damage enamel.
