Inner Ear Hair Cell Regeneration — Maybe We Can Know More

[Soren]

To come to the conclusion that because of a trial program for a still untested drug that focuses on specific area of hearing loss. That it will problely not be used in other things comes off as hyperbole.

 

[JohnAdams]

Please allow me to take some of the mystery out of this for you guys.

Here's how they regrow hair cells.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573859/

with this chemical that only labs can buy.

http://www.adooq.com/ly-411575.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI34PuweDH3AIVhYWzCh2TaQPxEAAYAyAAEgIDb_D_BwE

notice this is called a "small molecule drug".

probably some other stuff going on. but that's the basic premise.

such a shame that they are going so slow, that paper was published 5 years ago. hey at least the ball is rolling. Have faith and hold on my peoples. it's coming.

 

[jeff W]

I already talked about this. But probably it is worth saying again.

The whole horror of the situation is that those who have a slight hearing loss for a long time, causing tinnitus, or a loss above 8 kHz, which does not reflect on the usual audiogram, are probably in vain cherishing the hopes associated with the regeneration of the cochlear hair cells.

Hope, of course, should be, and it is not groundless! But I will remind one fact - the auditory system is very complicated, perhaps this is the most complex system of the human body. When some cochlear cells (responsible for the perception of certain sound frequencies) die or are damaged, then over time zones of the auditory cortex of the brain, which are not receiving these sounds for a long time, also begin to atrophy.

I know cases where people years after the loss of hearing and the beginning of tinnitus began to use hearing aids, the noise became quieter, yes. But the sounds of damaged frequencies, even if amplified by a hearing aid, were perceived unnaturally, or, more accurately, not at all perceived by the auditory cortex (brain).

How long do you think the technology to eliminate tinnitus in the CNS through specific pathways without serious side effects (ie erectile dysfunction, blindness, stroke etc) is away from the grasp of Neuroscience?

 

[Contrast]

How long do you think the technology to eliminate tinnitus in the CNS through specific pathways without serious side effects (ie erectile dysfunction, blindness, stroke etc) is away from the grasp of Neuroscience?

much further away then treating hearing loss. It will probably take a better part of a century to map the brain

i'd rather kill two birds with one stone anyhow

 

[JohnAdams]

I already talked about this. But probably it is worth saying again.

The whole horror of the situation is that those who have a slight hearing loss for a long time, causing tinnitus, or a loss above 8 kHz, which does not reflect on the usual audiogram, are probably in vain cherishing the hopes associated with the regeneration of the cochlear hair cells.

Hope, of course, should be, and it is not groundless! But I will remind one fact - the auditory system is very complicated, perhaps this is the most complex system of the human body. When some cochlear cells (responsible for the perception of certain sound frequencies) die or are damaged, then over time zones of the auditory cortex of the brain, which are not receiving these sounds for a long time, also begin to atrophy.

I know cases where people years after the loss of hearing and the beginning of tinnitus began to use hearing aids, the noise became quieter, yes. But the sounds of damaged frequencies, even if amplified by a hearing aid, were perceived unnaturally, or, more accurately, not at all perceived by the auditory cortex (brain).

I think youre wrong and that regenerating hair cells will cure tinnitus at any frequency.

 

[Silvio Sabo]

I know cases where people years after the loss of hearing and the beginning of tinnitus began to use hearing aids, the noise became quieter, yes. But the sounds of damaged frequencies, even if amplified by a hearing aid, were perceived unnaturally, or, more accurately, not at all perceived by the auditory cortex (brain).

The frequency not being perceived by the auditory cortex is logical if the hair cells responsible for picking up the sound aren't there or are damaged. No hair cells = no signal to the brain. A hearing aid won't fix that. It's like having your arm chopped off and putting a prosthetic arm on. It won't make you be able to feel sensations from it like a natural arm. That's why they want to regenerate the hair cells. That would be as having your arm grown back again in my analogy. At least in theory. We don't know what's going to happen until they have tested the drug.

 

[IvanRus]

From the article about implants in Russian Wikipedia:

"Cochlear implants are not effective enough in patients who, with sensorineural hearing loss for a long time, for years, lived" in complete silence "due to the fact that they did not wear a hearing aid at all or did it seldom or received inadequate compensation from using a hearing aid: in these cases, from insufficient stimulation gradually fade and atrophy of the branches of the auditory nerve.

At the same time, it can not be said that cochlear implants are not recommended for such patients - they can also help patients with a long history of deafness. The most effective cochlear implants in patients with a relatively recent severe severe neurosensory hearing loss or with the recent progression of hearing loss, who previously successfully used the hearing aid and received adequate compensation from it "

 

[jeff W]

I already talked about this. But probably it is worth saying again.

The whole horror of the situation is that those who have a slight hearing loss for a long time, causing tinnitus, or a loss above 8 kHz, which does not reflect on the usual audiogram, are probably in vain cherishing the hopes associated with the regeneration of the cochlear hair cells.

Hope, of course, should be, and it is not groundless! But I will remind one fact - the auditory system is very complicated, perhaps this is the most complex system of the human body. When some cochlear cells (responsible for the perception of certain sound frequencies) die or are damaged, then over time zones of the auditory cortex of the brain, which are not receiving these sounds for a long time, also begin to atrophy.

I know cases where people years after the loss of hearing and the beginning of tinnitus began to use hearing aids, the noise became quieter, yes. But the sounds of damaged frequencies, even if amplified by a hearing aid, were perceived unnaturally, or, more accurately, not at all perceived by the auditory cortex (brain).

How long do you think the technology to eliminate tinnitus in the CNS through specific pathways without serious side effects (ie erectile dysfunction, blindness, stroke etc) is away from the grasp of Neuroscience?

 

[IvanRus]

How long

I think, unfortunately, neuroscience is still far from real help to potential patients.

Why? Well, in the first, real companies that deal with these issues, with good financing in the world of the unit. Perhaps less.

Secondly, the Brain is the most complex and mysterious system in man today. Even James Watson, who discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, said he was amazed at how complicated the human brain was. The ear is even more complicated. It is almost impossible to get close to it - it is located in the thickness of the densest bone.

Third, it's not certain that progenitor cells will be effective, and the hope for stem cells, especially with respect to the brain, is almost illusory, scientists recently learned about this aspect and came to the conclusion that stem cells almost do not work with the brain.

 

[JohnAdams]

I think, unfortunately, neuroscience is still far from real help to potential patients.

Why? Well, in the first, real companies that deal with these issues, with good financing in the world of the unit. Perhaps less.

Secondly, the Brain is the most complex and mysterious system in man today. Even James Watson, who discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, said he was amazed at how complicated the human brain was. The ear is even more complicated. It is almost impossible to get close to it - it is located in the thickness of the densest bone.

Third, it's not certain that progenitor cells will be effective, and the hope for stem cells, especially with respect to the brain, is almost illusory, scientists recently learned about this aspect and came to the conclusion that stem cells almost do not work with the brain.

The ear is more complicated than the brain? They already proved they could restore hearing in living rodents and they responded very well at higher frequencies.

 

[JohnAdams]

From the article about implants in Russian Wikipedia:

"Cochlear implants are not effective enough in patients who, with sensorineural hearing loss for a long time, for years, lived" in complete silence "due to the fact that they did not wear a hearing aid at all or did it seldom or received inadequate compensation from using a hearing aid: in these cases, from insufficient stimulation gradually fade and atrophy of the branches of the auditory nerve.

At the same time, it can not be said that cochlear implants are not recommended for such patients - they can also help patients with a long history of deafness. The most effective cochlear implants in patients with a relatively recent severe severe neurosensory hearing loss or with the recent progression of hearing loss, who previously successfully used the hearing aid and received adequate compensation from it "

Im not trying to be an argumentative prick, i actually appreciate your healthy scepticism.

 

[Contrast]

I think, unfortunately, neuroscience is still far from real help to potential patients.

Why? Well, in the first, real companies that deal with these issues, with good financing in the world of the unit. Perhaps less.

Secondly, the Brain is the most complex and mysterious system in man today. Even James Watson, who discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, said he was amazed at how complicated the human brain was. The ear is even more complicated. It is almost impossible to get close to it - it is located in the thickness of the densest bone.

Third, it's not certain that progenitor cells will be effective, and the hope for stem cells, especially with respect to the brain, is almost illusory, scientists recently learned about this aspect and came to the conclusion that stem cells almost do not work with the brain.

from what Frequency is saying progeintor cells only have two jobs

duplicate
and grow new hair cells

and from what I understand even gene therapies also use progenitor cells but in a different way.

 

[IvanRus]

Im not trying to be an argumentative prick, i actually appreciate your healthy scepticism.

You see, they grow. They grow whole hearts and transplant people, and they continue to live happily ever after, grow urethra and implant.

Nerve cells of the ear do not restore, and do not really attempt to. Pro, then that "the mouse or the rats, after they were deafened, the hearing was restored" we read a long time ago - the first news of such a plan appeared on the network back in 2011. But here it is not advanced further than these articles about mice in 7 years.

Here is the difficulty: - Nervous tissue is more complex than muscle or bone.

For example, from one study: "A group of scientists from MIPT, Stony Brook University and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories observed how neural stem cells in the hippocampus are divided and consumed in mice, a region of the brain that is critical to learning and memory." Optimistic predictions of the presence of symmetrical fission - when from one stem cell is obtained, two are not confirmed, and if this division takes place, then in no more than ten percent of cases, which means that replenishment of stem cells that could give rise to new neurons is rare or not at all the process that is taking place."

In addition, there are other objective difficulties - it isn't safe to access such a delicate part as an auditory analyzer, which is located in the thickness of the bone. Second - all talk about regeneration is reduced only to the regeneration of the cochlear hair cells of the cochlea. It should be understood that if the nerve is not stimulated for a long time by electrical signals from damaged hair cells, then the corresponding twigs of the auditory nerve begin to similarly atrophy. AND

Even if you theoretically restore cochlear cells, the nerve will not adequately carry them into the auditory cortex of the brain. It is important to note that this does not happen immediately, but in the course of time. 2-3-4 years - but this process is gradual.

Therefore, it is important to wear a hearing aid with even minor hearing loss.

I, as you, hope and dream, that this day would come sooner, and we regained silence, it would be the happiest day in our life.

 

[grate_biff]

but in the course of time. 2-3-4 years - but this process is gradual.

According to Lieberman, this could take decades!
Besides, new haircells will form new connections/synapses to the hearing nerve.
Similarly to the process happening, while in the wound.
I´m I wrong?
Nothing is written in stone here, right?

 

[JohnAdams]

According to Lieberman, this could take decades!
Besides, new haircells will form new connections/synapses to the hearing nerve.
Similarly to the process happening, while in the wound.
I´m I wrong?
Nothing is written in stone here, right?

But with T arent the nerves firing off like crazy which would keep them nice and strong?

 

[jeff W]

from what Frequency is saying progeintor cells only have two jobs

duplicate
and grow new hair cells

and from what I understand even gene therapies also use progenitor cells but in a different way.

You said it, everything has a job in function and in existence, the brain is just another part of the body, up and down, no special effects, most unreliable and temperamental, slow and imprecise, now compare that to auditory mechanotransduction, reliable, fast and precise WHEN THE ORGAN WORKS.

 

[jeff W]

I wonder why children don't get tinnitus,

 

[DeafPunk]

But with T arent the nerves firing off like crazy which would keep them nice and strong?

I don't think so - rather, it is more like a 'phantom limb' effect that amputees get - the brain is making up signals to fill in the gaps where it thinks they should be. That may, of course, depend on exactly why you have tinnitus in the first place...

 

[Contrast]

According to Lieberman, this could take decades!
Besides, new haircells will form new connections/synapses to the hearing nerve.
Similarly to the process happening, while in the wound.
I´m I wrong?
Nothing is written in stone here, right?

Professor's Kujawa and Liberman

 

[GGG-DG]

I already talked about this. But probably it is worth saying again.

The whole horror of the situation is that those who have a slight hearing loss for a long time, causing tinnitus, or a loss above 8 kHz, which does not reflect on the usual audiogram, are probably in vain cherishing the hopes associated with the regeneration of the cochlear hair cells.

...

Those people should be more excited of regeneration of synaptic connections, which several companies are working for. Eg: decibel.

You assumption that regeneration of hair cells in ears is the only thing that is being studied on is incorrect.

 

[jeff W]

Those people should be more excited of regeneration of synaptic connections, which several companies are working for. Eg: decibel.

You assumption that regeneration of hair cells in ears is the only thing that is being studied on is incorrect.

Many successful traders point to the importance of investing in non correlated assets, I think the same rings true for us a patient body, we must spread the bet wide on multiple tech forms that use entirely different approaches, it makes more sense.

 

[Contrast]

Those people should be more excited of regeneration of synaptic connections, which several companies are working for. Eg: decibel.

You assumption that regeneration of hair cells in ears is the only thing that is being studied on is incorrect.

true, if synapse repair becomes a reality i would choose it over hair cell regeneration.

I don't need to hear above 14,000hz
I just want to have quality of hearing instead of muffled high pitch noises from 6k-14k

 

[Contrast]

I am making an assumption that hair cell regeneration will also help hidden hearing loss.
it would be useless if it gave me super higher frequencies but no quality of hearing with the still damaged frequencies.

 

[jeff W]

I would like to put some papers up here that I came upon, steer the topic back to the science,

 

[jeff W]

Here is a review article worth a look at also. https://www.researchgate.net/public...-fZfbq-IF4q5evbci2VCITNInwRI8GXJqX7pfND91YU4M

 

[JohnAdams]

I am making an assumption that hair cell regeneration will also help hidden hearing loss.
it would be useless if it gave me super higher frequencies but no quality of hearing with the still damaged frequencies.

I don't want to sound over confident, but I think if FX 322 meets all of its endpoints, that it's going to perfectly fix our hearing.

 

[Phendran]

I don't want to sound over confident, but I think if FX 322 meets all of its endpoints, that it's going to perfectly fix our hearing.

Well, that would be´fairly reasonable to expect. PCA could probably in theory fix up any damaged part of the body when used correctly. Fixing up middle ears is just extra cool, since the cochlea and stuff doesn't heal naturally.

 

[Manny]

I don't want to sound over confident, but I think if FX 322 meets all of its endpoints, that it's going to perfectly fix our hearing.

What makes you think that it would restore any other part of the auditory system besides hair cells?
Edit: just saw Phendran's comment, but still not sure about anything "behind" the cochlea, which FX's gel presumably wouldn't reach (i.e. it would only reach the cochlea, not anything more internal e.g. auditory nerve fibers leading to the brain).

 

[JohnAdams]

maybe we need to

What makes you think that it would restore any other part of the auditory system besides hair cells?

okay, sorry. I was referring to people that have noise induced hearing loss and T. my apologies. I realize that there are many other types of inner ear, vascular, nervous system, and brain conditions that could affect hearing. that was an ignorant statement for me to make.

 

[Manny]

maybe we need to


okay, sorry. I was referring to people that have noise induced hearing loss and T. my apologies. I realize that there are many other types of inner ear, vascular, nervous system, and brain conditions that could affect hearing. that was an ignorant statement for me to make.

Actually I too was speaking of NIHL (my HL, T and H are noise-induced). But even within NIHL, apparently there can be synaptic and auditory nerve fiber damage.