Brain/alcohol

[bioscilife44]

Okay, say someone would be an alcoholic, and destroys alot of brain cells. How long would it take for the brain to regenerate cells?

 

Also can medicine such as methylphenidate, in controlled doses, speed nuerogenesis up?

 

And i heard OMEGA-3 fatty acids may help this.

[iNow]

The damage from alcohol extends far beyond the mere damage of neurons, so I fear that your proposed solution of simply regenerating new cells will fall far short.

[bioscilife44]

yeah i know, i just wanted to know how one could regenerate brain cells, i used alcohol as an example cause that was the first thing i thought of that damages nuerons. And do you think drugs that speed up the brain, and OMEGA-3 could be a catylyst for nueron developement? thats what i was wondering

[iNow]

Oh, thanks for the clarification. That helps a great deal, and it really is an interesting question. I'm not sure of the answer myself, but hopefully another member will see this within the next few days and offer up some knowledge for both of us.

 

Welcome to the site, bioscilife44.

[bioscilife44]

thank you, yeah i've wondered about that alot. hopefully cause this site from al the others probably has more online members lol

[GDG]

yeah i know, i just wanted to know how one could regenerate brain cells, i used alcohol as an example cause that was the first thing i thought of that damages nuerons. And do you think drugs that speed up the brain, and OMEGA-3 could be a catylyst for nueron developement? thats what i was wondering

 

New brain cells (neurons, at least) are believed to be generated at a fairly slow rate. You can probably kill off neurons much more rapidly than you could ever regenerate them. It has been suggested that astrocytes (another cell type in the brain) regulate neural stem cell differentiation by suppressing eprin-A2 and ephrin-A3. IIRC, your neuron generation increases when you spend substantial time in an enriched environment or intensively learning things. Also, some anti-depressants seem to increase neuron formation (and some speculate that this is in fact the primary mechanism of action for those drugs).

 

As for drugs that speed up the brain (caffeine? amphetamines?), I don't know that anyone has looked. My guess would be that they would be either neutral or detrimental to neuron growth. Certainly, to the extent that learning process are responsible, you would not want something that interferes with your ability to concentrate.

 

Two more ways to increase your brain development: exercise, and music (especially learning to play an instrument)

Edited April 14, 2009 by GDG
more to add

[stereologist]

say someone would be an alcoholic, and destroys alot of brain cells.

 

Alcoholism does not kill brain cells. The brains of normal people and the brains of people that die of alcoholism have the same number of neurons.

[CharonY]

Nonsense. Excessive alcohol consumption leads to significant reduced brain volumes ofgray and white matter. Especially the frontal lobes are affected.

 

E.g.

Kubota M, Nakazaki S, Hirai S, et al. 2001, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry

[John Cuthber]

I always thought that the answer to "Okay, say someone would be an alcoholic, and destroys alot of brain cells. How long would it take for the brain to regenerate cells? " was "Do you believe in reincarnation?" because you won't regenerate any to speak of in this lifetime.

[CharonY]

Actually there is regeneration going on as GDG pointed out. However, the rate is slow and I am pretty sure that it also depends on the area.

[bioscilife44]

theres no doubt that alchohol kills brain cells, and nuerogenesis has been proven in certain areas of the brain, but it is a very slow process though, an listening to music can improve brain function??

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Two more ways to increase your brain development: exercise, and music (especially learning to play an instrument)

 

 

Please explain? i know exercise would, but i never knew about music

[stereologist]

Actually Charon what you say is nonsense.

 

Excessive alcohol consumption leads to significant reduced brain volumes

 

Volumes are not the same as cell loss. This has been an oft repeated connection that is not justified.

 

theres no doubt that alchohol[sic] kills brain cells

 

This is simply untrue. One of the main reasons that researchers have made this mistaken claim is that they inferred volume reflects on counts. That is a mistaken. The second reason is that the researchers used improper counting techniques such as the Abercrombie, Floderus, raw counts, or profiles by area methods. These are but a few of the mistaken methods used to get the wrong answer.

[iNow]

Actually Charon what you say is nonsense.

 

Yet, in support of their claim, Charon shared a reference. I cannot help but notice that you have shared none.

[CharonY]

To be fair the mechanism of alcohol on brain cell lesions is to my knowledge not really resolved. They could be direct or indirect effects. However, the blanket statement that alcoholics have the same number of neurons is pretty much not tenable (and hence the nonsense part). There is a significant difference in cell count between individuals to begin (and also within a person as time progresses) with. However, localized and selective neuronal damages have been well documented at least since the 90s or so. These have been supplemented with animal models.

In contrast I have not stumbled across any newer findings that invalidate the research of the last decades or so. While this is not my field, I would be interested in seeing those claims.

[stereologist]

Yet, in support of their claim, Charon shared a reference. I cannot help but notice that you have shared none.

 

Here is the reference for iNow.

JENSEN, G.B., and PAKKENBERG, B. Do alcoholics drink their neurons away? The Lancet 342:1201– 1204, 1993.

 

This is an actual count of cells unlike the reference from Charon that does not present a count of cells, but examples a feature unrelated to the number of neurons.

 

the blanket statement that alcoholics have the same number of neurons is pretty much not tenable

 

Despite the significant difference between individuals which is known for everything out (a 9x difference in the number of nephrons for example), it is still possible to make statements about the population.

 

The problem with counts is that no counts should be trusted unless actually counted. Volumes of brain regions is not cell counting and not necessarily related. Counting cell profiles is not the same as counting cells. Neuronal damage leading to cell impairment is not the same as loss of cells.

[iNow]

Here is the reference for iNow.

JENSEN, G.B., and PAKKENBERG, B. Do alcoholics drink their neurons away? The Lancet 342:1201– 1204, 1993.

Interesting. Thanks for that. However, it's interesting to me that your reference reinforces exactly what Charon said back in post #8.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7901529?dopt=Abstract

Although it is commonly believed that chronic alcohol abuse results in loss of neocortical neurons, this assumption has not been properly tested. We used new stereological techniques to make a precise and unbiased estimate of the total number of neurons in the neocortex of brains obtained at necropsy from 11 chronic alcoholic men and 11 control men. The groups were matched with respect to age and height. Total mean neocortical neuron numbers in the two groups did not differ (alcoholics 23.4 x 10(9), controls 23.2 x 10(9)). Estimation of macroscopic brain volumes showed significant reductions in alcoholics compared with controls of the volume/weight ratios of white matter (11%, p = 0.013) and of archicortex (30%, p = 0.028). The volume of the ventricles in the alcoholic group was enlarged by 26%, but this was not statistically significant. There was no difference in the volumes of the neocortices. Our study confirms that chronic alcoholics lose white matter, and this could provide the basis for their functional impairment. However, the results also suggest that the observed brain damage in the alcoholic group is potentially reversible since preserved nerve-cell bodies might allow lost or malfunctioning axons to re-established and restored to function after prolonged abstinence and/or treatment. By contrast, lost neocortical neurons cannot be replaced.

 

 

Even more interesting is that it completely negates the claim that YOU made in post #7... The one Charon called "nonsense."

 

I just thought that was worth noting. Thanks for the reference, though.

[stereologist]

Even more interesting is that it completely negates the claim that YOU made in post #7... The one Charon called "nonsense."

 

Unusual comment since the abstract clearly states:

 

Total mean neocortical neuron numbers in the two groups did not differ

[CharonY]

If you read the whole abstract (or even the paper) you will notice that they refer exclusively to the neocortex. The reason being that lesions there are generally not reversible. In contrast, the documented cell loss of glial cells are reversible (though it may take a long time). And btw. a statement that the neuron count of alcoholics in the neocortex does not differ from controls is not the same as the part as I took offense in:

 

The brains of normal people and the brains of people that die of alcoholism have the same number of neurons.

 

Because, again, there is not way to ascertain that claim. It is true however that cell count techniques have their limitations and statistical powers may not be sufficient. However the limitations are lower in animal models which clearly showed necrotic events in rat brains, for example.

 

And I was actually wrong that no mechanisms are known. Apparently there are indications that oxidative stress may be a major factor of alcohol induced cell damage.

Crews and Nixon 2009, Alcohol and Alcoholism 2009 44(2):115-127

Edited April 15, 2009 by CharonY

[Mag]

I remember learning that the brain of an alcoholic can actually look like some other neurodegenerative disease because it has lost mass - I don't remember what it resembles, as we just touched on it.

[stereologist]

The problem is not cell counting techniques it is that non-cell counting techniques are often passed off as cell counting. The abstract does not state how cell counts were done although I know one of the coauthors and they are aware of how to properly count cells. But knowing that still does not provide me with the information that cells were actually counted.

 

And I have read the abstract and the article. I also read the abstract of the reference you gave and it does not do cell cell counting.

[iNow]

The problem is not cell counting techniques it is that non-cell counting techniques are often passed off as cell counting. The abstract does not state how cell counts were done although I know one of the coauthors and they are aware of how to properly count cells. But knowing that still does not provide me with the information that cells were actually counted.

 

And I have read the abstract and the article. I also read the abstract of the reference you gave and it does not do cell cell counting.

 

Since you've read more than just the abstract, and you state that you've read the entire article, would it be possible for you to please reproduce the METHODS section of the article here? I'm sure the counting method is articulated there, and sharing it with the rest of us by quoting would go a long way toward clearing up this interesting tangent about "counting method." If nothing else, it would help get all readers on to the same page with common understandings and terminology.

[CharonY]

I think I may now know where the misunderstanding come from. When I talk about cell death I really mean apoptoptic or necrotic events. In my opinion these are stronger indicators of neural cell loss than merely counting cells in the latter case you will have to make a case-control study. That is counting cells from an area of a pool of alcoholics, vs a pool of controls. However, due to the high variability of the brain and due to inherent variability of cell counting events you generally need a very high sample size to reach the required statistical power to allow differentiation of those two (remember, the lancet report only had 22 individuals in total).

The paper that I put forward base their assumption on animal models with which they found ncecrosis upon binge ethanol treatment, but not in controls. The damage is rather diffuse and hence, given he limitations that the authors in the Lancet paper put forward, may explain their results. Especially given the multitude of publications indicating neuronal damage and even at least hints on the mechanism of neuronal degeneration and necrosis in animal models.

[GDG]

Please explain? i know exercise would, but i never knew about music

 

Listening to music, and to a greater degree performing music, requires or causes activation of more areas of the brain than just about any other activity. An increasing number of scientific studies are showing that involvement in music improves a number of brain/mental functions. See, e.g., K.L. Hyde et al., J Neurosci (2009) 29(10):3019-25.

 

I suggest you all go and sign up for marching band right now