h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Regenerate missing limbs by creating an absorbable
(biodegradable) sponge-like "scaffold" of the approximate
size and shape of the missing limb. Cover the scaffold in
skin grafts or sterile waterproof sheeting. Don't add stem
cells, because it might cause cancer. Instead, allow blood
to circulate
through the scaffold, pumped by the patient's
heart, by plumbing the patient's existing (severed) major
vessels into the scaffold. If necessary to ensure
circulation, blood could be drained from anywhere the
blood stagnates (pools), filtered and re-injected.
The body's natural self-repair processes would replace
the missing tissue. This approach has not been used in
humans due to infection risk, which modern techniques
could mitigate, as well as the question of whether the limb
would be regenerated (instead of some weid mish-mash of
skin, etc.).
I have observed that if a scab is left in place (acting as a
scaffold and seal), the underlying skin regenerates nicely,
but if the scab is removed, scarring may occur.
Will change everything
http://www.independ...-cells-9117102.html
[leinypoo13, Feb 10 2014]
[link]
|
| |
There'd be nothing to tell tissues how to organize
themselves. You'd probably get something like skin
on the outside, but inside would just be a mess. |
|
| |
Might be a good way of making autologous haggis,
though. |
|
| |
I agree with the other posts. Maybe if you grafted
on a limb from a chameleon as a seed, but I think
that would be more like a plot of a horror movie.
Maybe graft a human arm onto a chameleon? Nah,
either way you'd probably end up with a dead hum-
eleon. |
|
| |
[Marked-For-Deletion] Magic. |
|
| |
The concept is fairly obvious, the execution is well
beyond current tech. And wouldn't work as
described. Adult humans can't regrow excised
muscle tissue on an otherwise intact limb, so the
lack of structure is not the problem. |
|
| |
And increased scarring from scab removal has to do
with additional damage done to the healing tissue
by the removal of the scab, nothing to do with the
scab acting as a scafold. |
|
| |
Maybe the reason salamanders can regenerate limbs and we cannot lies somewhere in the 10x amount of DNA they have over us [link]. A wild guess would be that the extra 9x somehow encodes position information for cells, so that they "know" where they are in the limb and grow/function appropriately. |
|
| |
Or then again, maybe they just have a better
medical insurance plan … |
|
| |
// Might be a good way of making autologous
haggis, though // |
|
| |
//A wild guess would be that the extra 9x somehow encodes
position information for cells// |
|
| |
Probably not. Genome size in general bears little relation to
complexity, regenerability, adaptability or anything else once you
get as far as vertebrates. |
|
| |
It's much more likely that salamanders' regenerative ability comes
down to a handful of genes which regulate embryonic
development, and which are turned off in one species and on in
another, or whose expression is controlled differently, or
something like that. |
|
| |
The human genome already specifies what cells go where - it's
just that the relevant sets of genes aren't reactivated in response
to damage. It's puzzling why this should be the case, but then
again a great many things are puzzling. |
|
| |
Incidentally, hydatidiform moles (not the furry underground kind)
are examples of tissues where the developmental genes get
turned back on in humans. The results can include hair, teeth,
bones and even some more complex structures. In such moles,
tissues are often correctly organized (for instance, layers of fat
and skin forming in the right arrangement; hair follicles forming at
intervals on the skin), but are just in the wrong place. |
|
| |
This is far from a stupid idea [+] and has already been proposed by people. |
|
| |
// There'd be nothing to tell tissues how to organize themselves. You'd probably get something like skin on the outside, but inside would just be a mess. |
|
| |
There is a huge influence of the skin on tissue organization (called the apical ectoderm ridge) and also there is a huge regulation of cellular plasticity by O2 tension. Further, "Stem cells" may not even exist after this past months, once every 50 years discovery, that adult mouse and human cells can de-differentiate into stem cells just by dipping them in citric acid for 30 minutes. Local hypoxic acidosis may actually do this in vivo as a result from an injury, which flat out just makes sense. Also, bone morphogenetic protein laced scaffolds already exist thus you might even get some strength. |
|
| |
Muscles are the piece I see making trouble. It is
hard for humans to grow new skeletal muscle. I am
not sure it is possible. Autologous haggis is a nice
idea. |
|
| |
// The results can include hair, teeth, bones
and even some more complex structures. In
such moles tissues are often correctly
organized (for instance, layers of fat and skin
forming in the right arrangement; hair
follicles forming at intervals on the skin), but
are just in the wrong place. // |
|
| |
Is this what is called "Justin Bieber
Syndrome" ? |
|
| |
//There is a huge influence of the skin on tissue
organization (called the apical ectoderm ridge) and
also there is a huge regulation of cellular plasticity
by O2 tension.// |
|
| |
Yes yes, but those factors alone don't tell cells
whether to make a thumb or an earlobe. |
|
| |
//don't tell cells whether to make a thumb or an earlobe.// |
|
| |
... or an arse or an elbow ... |
|
| |
Ah yes, it IS Justin Bieber ... |
|
| |