
Aldehyde-Stabilized Cryopreservation Procedure Wins Brain Preservation Prize - nikolay
http://www.brainpreservation.org/small-mammal-announcement/
======
nickledave
jacquesm is right, there's no actual scientific breakthrough here. We already
know glutaraldehyde does a good job of preserving synaptic structure, that's
why we have used it to fix brains for electron microscopy analysis for roughly
a century. I guess it's cool that you can freeze a glut-fixed brain and then
unfreeze it and that won't have a dramatic effect on the structure. I'd be
interested to know how quantitative their analysis was. Absence of evidence
(of deformed synapses) is not evidence of absence. But anyways the synaptic
ultrastructure probably isn't everything. It's necessary but not sufficient.

------
reasonattlm
The comments suggesting that this is unimportant are pretty silly. People have
been objecting to cryonics on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond a
doubt to preserve fine structure, versus only having had a reasonable set of
evidence to preserve fine structure. They have objected on the basis that
proven methods of preservation in small scale tissue samples hadn't been
rigorously demonstrated to work in large organs. Now that the fine structure
and scaling doubts are dispelled, they move on to objecting for other reasons,
and even suggest that it was obvious in hindsight that the fine structure was
preserved, or that methods would scale.

Denying that cryonics is relevant or useful or a valid area of research and
development because no-one has yet completely implemented the full loop of
technologies for reversible full body cryopreservation is missing the point.
(But note that it has been done for a single organ, which was transplanted,
and functioned).

The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because of
irrational objections that are not really based on technological or scientific
positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the real nebulous
feelings on the matter.

The reversal of cryonics in the future has been written on extensively. There
are very detailed treatments of what would be required. There is no sound
reason to think it impossible; it's just a matter of sufficient control over
chemistry and biochemistry. If you believe that there is some sound reason
that it is impossible, then publish a paper - it would be influential if
correct, because it would demolish the work of much of the cryobiology
community in their initiatives to create reversible cryopreservation of organs
and tissues.

Here is the paper for this research by 21st Century Medicine: "Aldehyde-
stabilized cryopreservation":

[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.09.003](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryobiol.2015.09.003)

~~~
jacquesm
What a load of bull.

Cryopreservationist walks into a bar. Goes 'Hey, everybody, pay me $50 and
I'll show you a fantastic trick, I take your watch, put it in a bag, smash it
up with a hammer, then open the bag and out comes your watch'. Fascinated a
number of patrons sign up and pay their $50, hand over their watches.

Audible gulps as the watches go into a nice silver velvety bag and a very
large hammer smashes down on the bag with the bar serving as temporary anvil.

The bag with the remains of the watches gets carefully pocketed and some of
the money goes towards ordering a round of drinks for everybody.

So, how about my watch, asks one of the people that handed over his watch and
his money. "Oh, that's the hard part, I haven't really studied that yet, come
back in a few 100 years and I might have your watch again. But I'm getting
better at smashing watches, that's for sure."

> The point is that we could be saving lives, and we are not, largely because
> of irrational objections that are not really based on technological or
> scientific positions, but grasp at a those positions as a shield for the
> real nebulous feelings on the matter.

What makes you believe that we could be saving lives?

~~~
Houshalter
This analogy makes little sense. Nature is the man with the hammer. After you
die he smashes your brain to bits. There is nothing left. You cease to exist
forever.

Cryopreservation is an attempt to stop the man with the hammer. By preserving
your brain, you give yourself a chance that you can be revived, if technology
advances that far. Which certainly seems very likely.

It is a tragedy that the majority of people who die are not cryopreserved.
It's absolutely silly. Even if there is only a small chance it will work, it
is still absolutely worth doing.

~~~
xlm1717
Dying is already expensive enough without cryopreservation.

------
zimpenfish
PZ Myers had a good take on this a few days ago -
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-
pr...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/29/how-can-you-protect-a-
brain-by-destroying-it/)

> What I didn’t do with my experiments in aldehyde-preserved brains was claim
> that I was preserving all the information necessary for nervous system
> function. I was quite aware that I was chemically nuking all the proteins in
> the tissue; I was washing out most of the chemistry; I was destroying most
> of the physiological information to preserve a structural skeleton of what
> was there, so I could see the physical arrangement of the pieces. Nothing
> more.

~~~
lsparrish
His criticism bad (as ever), since he assumes all information needed for
nervous system function is the same as all information needed to replicate a
given nervous system. Most of the information needed for function in any
system is generic across similar systems. We are only interested in the
information that is specific to the individual.

~~~
kanzure
> We are only interested in the information that is specific to the
> individual.

Not necessarily; there's a lot of value to be had in the non-specific
information, too.

~~~
lsparrish
This technique is useful for general neuroscience purposes, yes. My point was
just that it isn't what is critical to preserve for the sake of cryonics.

------
dnautics
Aldehydes covalently bond and crosslink the proteins and irreversibly kill all
of the fixed cells. There is zero hope that this provides a solution to
cryopreservation except in the slice it up and look at it under the microscope
sense.

~~~
lsparrish
> Aldehydes covalently bond and crosslink the proteins and irreversibly kill
> all of the fixed cells.

That is the textbook answer, however these bonds are only "irreversible" as a
matter of biochemistry. You can actually break any chemical bond by increasing
the temperature enough. The problem for our purposes is that this means
destroying the structure.

> There is zero hope that this provides a solution to cryopreservation except
> in the slice it up and look at it under the microscope sense.

The trick to reversing the bond without damaging the structure would be in
delivering high enough amounts of energy with high enough precision to have
only the intended effects. This may or may not be physically possible.
However, to rule out the possibility completely, we would need to consider a
wide variety of physical interactions that are well outside the range of
biology and wet-solvent chemistry, in addition to the full spectra of
potential biomimetic and biological approaches.

~~~
dnautics
Good luck. When you make an imine with an aldehyde the principal mechanism of
irreversability is that a stray reductant (available in spades in biochemical
settings) takes the imine down to a primary amine. (This is not found in most
textbooks, you just have to know that). Now, a primary amine is a relatively
stable covalent bond, and getting selective deamination is going to be
especially difficult since there's plenty of amines around. Not the least of
which is the other side of the lysine that the aldehyde attached to in the
first place.

------
camillomiller
What I find confusing is that (from a quick skim) there's no mention on how
easy it would be to actually bring back the brain in, say, 50 years. Does this
method make reviving brain tissue easier?

~~~
mackman
The breakthrough here was injecting a poison that makes revival impossible but
allows freezing with synaptic structure intact. Then hypothetically you can
slice and scan the brain and simulate it later when computers are powerful
enough.

Personally that seems more likely tha figuring out a new reversible freezing
process.

------
nikolay
This is the third aspect I post on the subject and I'm surprised that there's
zero engagement regarding such a great scientific achievement!

~~~
jacquesm
I'll give you some engagement. I really think it is sad that you see this as a
'great scientific achievement' when in actual fact nothing of note has been
achieved.

The whole article reads like a puff-piece pretending this is a major
breakthrough when in fact as far as I can see it not much of note has been
achieved, yes, it's a mammal but certain types of frogs have been known to be
able to freeze and thaw and their neurological systems are working just fine
afterwards. In this case all we have is some visual inspection which makes the
claim that the brain has been recovered a bit doubtful, it's not as if a
rabbit using that previously frozen brain is hopping around. (That probably
_would_ be a breakthrough.)

Cryopreservation, uploading, life extension technology and related fields are
for the most quack science taking money from the gullible (or their estates)
and spending it on un-productive areas of research. I sincerely wished that HN
would stick to discussing things with a bit more solidity, if we afford these
subjects the amount of space their proponents would like then HN would go the
same way as renewable energy fora that allowed 'zero point energy' enthusiasts
to run unchecked. I'm happy for you that you wish to live for ever (who
doesn't?) and that you believe that in your lifetime we'll see a major change
in this respect but I'm a bit tougher to convince and I've seen enough bs
during my lifetime to solidly vote against giving this stuff more airtime than
it already has. Historically, anybody that tried to peddle life eternal turned
out to have been lying.

FWIW you're going to die, get used to it and make the most of the time that
you have. If and when the future dictates otherwise you'll be able to adjust
with grace and on the off chance that it does not you'll be happy you followed
my advice.

~~~
wodencafe
That's a bit insulting of you, to presume that anyone who forms an opinion of
Cryonics beyond "It's Quack Science" is only interested in "living forever",
and not to be taken seriously.

The essence of your argument is circular: it doesn't work because it's quack
science, and it's quack science because it doesn't work - but it doesn't
matter, because you're going to die anyway.

What a cop out. One would think you got your information on Cryonics from
watching an old VHS of "The Re-Animator"

~~~
jacquesm
> One would think you got your information on Cryonics from watching an old
> VHS of "The Re-Animator"

That's a bit insulting of you.

And to answer, no, I get my information from reading articles such as those
linked, hence my comment on it.

I've seen enough of the groups pushing these kind of pieces to see them as no
better than religious groups selling 'the afterlife' and associated goodies
with zero chance of actually delivering on their promises. And just like those
religious groups they always need a little bit more money.

It's quack science because _none of it works_. It will be science once someone
can freeze a very small mammal (say a tiny rodent), keep it frozen for a while
and then thaw that creature again and it will live a long and healthy life.

It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high
resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to
such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the original.

Until then it's all just purposefully soft-balled problems that pretend to
solve some crucial aspect of the whole chain without actually addressing the
main problems head on, just enough 'progress' to keep the funding coming.

I make my living debunking bs and this stuff is - to me - a very high grade of
it, all I see here is a cynical attempt at getting funding by for instance
linking Alzheimer research to this group (which they have absolutely nothing
to do with).

Feel free to have a different opinion.

~~~
MikeNomad
"It will be science when someone scans a very small brain to a very high
resolution, will build a functioning simulation of that brain in a computer to
such an extent that the simulation exhibits all of the traits of the
original."

And that science will not happen until we have (among several things) the
ability to stabilize a brain sufficiently (when no longer being used for its
original purpose) to have a very high resolution scan performed and stored.

I would think getting this first part correct would be of the utmost
importance. Scan resolutions will continue to improve for any number of
reasons beyond this application.

It would appear that the primary subject of the OP is both quite relevant, and
an important building block, allowing research to move further along this
particular approach.

~~~
logfromblammo
Given the state of computing power, this might happen first:

    
    
      Become skilled at transplanting rat brains.
      Raise identical twin rats.
      Train one rat to run a maze.
      Sacrifice the maze-running rat.
      Stabilize its brain and scan it at high resolution.
      Use an organ printer to create a duplicate of the rat brain from the scan.
      Transplant the new brain into the living twin.
      Put the chimera rat in the maze.
      Observe the result.
      Laugh maniacally.

~~~
ethbro
"One is a genius; the other's insane..."

