Breakthrough study finds subtle new early symptoms of Parkinson's to watch out for
Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences found that behaviours such as rearing, walking, and hunching in mice, associated with the loss of a specific type of midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons, are linked to Parkinson's disease.
The earliest known signs of Parkinson's can include pain, anxiety, balance issues, stiffness, loss of smell, sleep problems and depression.
Other signs like tremors, handwriting changes, and diminished facial expressions, appear later as the disease progresses.
Gradually, patients may experience severe movement issues, highlighting the importance of early diagnosis and treatment for the condition.
Until now, research has mostly focused on the functions of the DA neurons in mood regulation and reward mechanisms.
These nerve cells are located in the midbrain regions substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) and the ventral tegmental area (VTA), are essential for regulating movement, emotion, and reward processing
But the roles of the DA neurons in more subtle and spontaneous behaviours remain poorly understood, scientists say.
In the latest study, researchers discovered that behaviours like rearing and hunching are associated with the loss of one type of SNc DA neurons, but not those in VTA.
These subtle behaviours could serve as key markers of SNc DA neuron loss, and enhance our understanding of Parkinson's, the study found.
Scientists used an advanced artificial intelligence behaviour analysis system to examine the movement of two mouse models with a dopamine neuron depletion.
Using this approach, researchers could capture detailed and nuanced behavioural features that traditional methods may overlook.
The study found reductions in rearing and hunching behaviour in the PD model, which correlates directly with the loss of DA neurons in the SNc but not the VTA.
Another behaviour in the mouse models called climbing, which is similar to rearing, was also found to be strongly linked to the loss of DA neurons in the midbrain's SNc area.
The findings underscore the need for monitoring rearing behaviour as potential behavioural markers in tracking the progression of Parkinson's disease, scientists say.
"Connecting behavioural changes with targeted neural damage advances the understanding of PD progression and offers valuable insights into improving treatment strategies," said Xuemei Liu, an author of the study from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
This fuzzy animal friend may be the key to treating schizophrenia
Llamas – likely without red pajamas – may hold the key to treating schizophrenia. The serious brain disorder causes people to interpret reality abnormally, and affects approximately 3.7 million U.S. adults between the ages of 18 to 65 years old, according to the nonprofit RTI International. But the domesticated South American woolly animal might be be able to help. French researchers said this week that they had used llama antibodies, or proteins that help to protect the immune system, to design a tiny fragment of an antibody known as a 'nanobody' that will trigger a neurotransmitter in the brain involved in regulating neural activity. Neurotransmitters are chemical molecules that carry messages or signals from one nerve cell to the next target cell, according to the Cleveland Clinic. No llamas were harmed in the study and researchers can identify nanobodies in a petri dish. In the past, llama antibodies have also proven effective in fighting Covid and other 'SARS-like' viruses. When scientists at the Institute of Functional Genomics injected the molecule into the veins or the muscles, it was able to break the blood-brain barrier and effectively reach brain receptors. The barrier is a a tightly locked layer of cells that defend your brain from harmful substances. Studying the impact of the nanobodies in two tests using mice, the researchers found that they corrected cognitive deficits that were observed. There was an improvement of cognitive function with just one shot, and a prolonged effect over one week. Clinical studies are now required to show that their findings could be a new avenue of treatment for schizophrenia. "In humans obviously we don't know [yet], but in mice yes, it is sufficient to treat most deficits of schizophrenia," molecular biologist Jean-Philippe Pin told Newsweek.. He was a co-author of the research which was published in the journal Nature. Pin said that medications currently given to schizophrenia patients "treat the symptoms well, but less the cognitive deficits." The cause of the chronic condition remains unknown, but the World Health Organization says it is thought that an interaction between genes and a range of environmental factors may be the reason. The exact prevalence of schizophrenia is difficult to measure. Some have tied cases in Canada to cannabis use. Although schizophrenia can occur at any age, people are typically diagnosed between the ages of 16 and 30. Symptoms vary from person to person. There is no cure, but it can be treated through antipsychotic medications, talk therapy, and self-management strategies, the National Alliance on Mental Illness says. The study's authors hope to add this strategy to the list. 'This research confirms the potential of nanobodies as a new therapeutic strategy for acting on the brain, with their use eventually being broadened to include the treatment of other neurological illnesses,' the institute said in a statement.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
The voice of our own inner critic can be strong. How can we break free from the mental prison?
The Buddha was bold in his approach to human psychology. He described psychological suffering as pervasive and inherent to the human experience. Suffering is present not only in moments of loss and pain, but in how the mind contracts, shaped by past actions and entrenched habits. In this sense, we live in a mental prison of our own making with walls continually constructed and reconstructed largely out of conscious view. Thoughts, perceptions and feelings appear solid and true, and a relentless internal voice tells us who we are, what we ought to be and do and what the world must deliver. At its worst, our psyche can feel like 'a bad neighbourhood' that we might avoid walking through alone, to quote writer Anne Lamott. During such times, support, friendship and self-nurturing are crucial. But even outside more troubling mental states, the walls of our minds can limit the view. Sound familiar? It's no coincidence that in contemporary life, the pursuit of mental freedom has become mainstream – even commercial. Modern seekers are microdosing psilocybin, participating in ayahuasca ceremonies, experimenting with cognitive-enhancing supplements like nootropics, and trying biohacking techniques – cold plunges, saunas, sensory deprivation tanks to name a few. And then, of course, there are silent meditation retreats: two days, 10 days, 30 days, even three months. On these retreats, participants report glimpsing a reality beyond the known self, a shift so impactful it can redirect the entire course of their lives. In fact, many committed to Buddhist meditation speak of such moments as pivotal. While sudden breakthroughs can be transformative (particularly when integrated well), once the intensity fades, familiar anxieties return. The architecture of our inner world, temporarily dismantled, rebuilds itself. The Buddha might have recognised the yearning behind this search, but cautioned that while insight can arise spontaneously, the path is ultimately gradual and gentle, requiring ethics, restraint, mindfulness and mental persistence. We chase instant fixes, hoping the next practice or product will deliver, only to feel let down. Caught in this need for immediate release, we often avoid examining the quieter mechanisms that keep us trapped. One such mechanism is what modern Buddhists refer to as the judgmental or comparing mind – not to be confused with wise discernment. As our awareness deepens, we begin to see the extent to which we internalise rules, expectations, and criticism. The comparing mind isn't kind or reasonable. When triggered, it can be oppressive, self-flagellating and cruel. It can appear in the body as constriction and discomfort – a tightening of the jaw and chest, a sinking feeling in the pit of the stomach. Sometimes it's so constant we only notice it when we pause and tune in. Western thinkers like Sigmund Freud and Michel Foucault explored how we internalise authority, self-police, and punish ourselves. Foucault described how we internalise the gaze of those in power, monitoring our behaviours, actions and even our thoughts. Freud referred to the 'superego,' which tames instinctual desires, but also devolves into shame and guilt; essential to social cohesion, he said, but when overactive, the cause of neuroses and mental distress. Buddhism recognises similar dynamics, albeit through a different lens. As a way to work with the inner critic, we are first invited to actively extend a spirit of non-harm toward all beings – this includes ourselves. This elicits an ever-deepening awareness of how we move through the world and treat others, as well as our own hearts, in the pursuit of mental liberation. Then, through meditative inquiry, we begin to see our punishing thoughts with greater clarity – their shape, origin and propensity. Shame and blame aren't repressed, but understood and, where possible, gently disarmed and pacified. What does this look like, practically? First, notice how it lives in the body and stays with it. Offer yourself some mercy. This is part of being human – a mind that grasps, compares, and cajoles. As calm returns, a small sense of freedom may emerge. Don't miss that. From here, trace what gave rise to the pattern: fatigue, an interaction, a memory or something else. Notice the belief or storyline the mind clings to. In other words, what is the sticky thought at play? In seeing this clearly, the mind may loosen its grip. Over time, and with continued observation, these habits may naturally dissipate. During a retreat, I once became struck by the cruelty of my thoughts. I hadn't noticed it in the rush of daily life, but in stillness, it hit me in a visceral way. Every time I meditated, my mind scorned me: I wasn't doing it well enough, this wasn't the practice for me, I was too sleepy, hungry, or ill-suited. I had a bad temperament, the voice said, and I might as well give up. Exhausted, I went to the teacher to report on my experience, and she said very directly, as if she already knew, 'it's remarkable how violent we can be to ourselves'. It's hard, this being human thing. But the Buddha's path, like many spiritual paths, is a hopeful one. It teaches us how to alleviate suffering through humility, curiosity and patience, rather than fighting fire with fire. To paraphrase the Buddha, 'hatred is never appeased by hatred … but by love alone'. With practice, the grip of the inner critic is released, and space for something else emerges. It may happen suddenly, but it's more likely to happen over time. As the punishing narrator recedes into the background, we access greater moments of mental release and ethical clarity. Then, one very fine day, we might walk straight out of the prison's doors, and as we do, we might realise the doors have been wide open this whole time. Dr Nadine Levy is a senior lecturer at the Nan Tien Institute. She coordinates its health and social wellbeing program and the graduate certificate in applied mindfulness
