Methamphetamine protects brain cells

[mick mouse]

The latest news on meth is that small doses seem to protect the neurons in the brain following a stroke according to University of Montana researchers.

Dave Poulson, a researchers say "we see an 80-90 persect protection of neurons after small doses of meth are administered."

lower doses also help up to 16 hours following a stroke, while the leading clot-busting drugs have to be given within 3 hours.

The researchers say they stumbled on the unknown benefits while studying the drugs toxicity on the users lungs.

Source: Associated Press

Reputation Comments on this post:

	interesting
	Who knew meth would be found good for something? Amazing find.

[stoneinfocus]

cool do you have a source?

[mick mouse]

I pulled it off of the associated press wire on Yahoo! news. I think that the date was Thursday, Oct. 12th. It was a very informative, if somewhat brief article. Also detailed how meth protects against damage from strokes up to 5 times longer than the leading clot buster drugs. Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by co-incidence

cool do you have a source?

[Alfa]

This would at the least be very remarkable. Without a good source reference it bears no weight.

[Tokyo-expat]

Animal tests show meth may offer relief to stroke victims
By KIM BRIGGEMAN of the Missoulian


Stroke victims might one day receive relief from a startling source: methamphetamine.

The addictive drug that ruins lives in horrible ways actually protected neurons when injected after strokes into the brains of rats and gerbils in a Missoula laboratory.
“I didn't believe it at first,” Dave Poulsen said Friday. “We thought that, based on the literature, it was going to make the effect of stroke worse. We were kind of surprised.”

Poulsen, a University of Montana research assistant professor, will be in Atlanta on Wednesday to present the findings of a team of researchers from UM, St. Patrick Hospital and Montana State University at the Society for Neuroscience's annual conference.

Poulsen cautioned that testing is far from complete. Meth won't be a panacea for stroke sufferers any time soon.

“It's very important that everybody understands that,” he said.

He also knows the findings will raise eyebrows when they hit the press.

“I'm scared,” Poulsen said frankly. “On the one hand, there's probably a group that wants everybody to understand that meth is really bad stuff, and it is. Any drug when it's abused is bad stuff. But the reality is everything is toxic depending on its levels of use.”

A year ago, Poulsen was helping other researchers study the effect of meth on the lungs when the unexpected trend arose.

It's been shown that the drug makes brain damage worse when administered before a stroke. But it seems the opposite is true when infused afterward.

Poulsen's team first tested rat hippocampus, the part of the brain used for memory and learning. Thin slices were kept in cultures for nine days, then deprived of oxygen and glucose for 90 minutes to mimic stroke conditions.

A special red dye was used to reveal the damage to neurons, cells that serve as the primary functional units of the brain and nervous system. There are an estimated 100 billion neu

Time and again, neuronal damage proved to be less in the stroke slices than the non-stroke slices.

“Don't ask me how. We are trying to figure that out,” Poulsen said. “But methamphetamine is clearly protective.”

The dosage is critical. A small amount of meth works. Higher doses increase the damage.

The scientists also found that low doses were effective for up to 16 hours after a stroke.

“This is significant, since the current leading clot-busting drug used for strokes - tissue plasminogen activator - must be administered within three hours,” he said.

In cooperation with Michael Babcock of Montana State University, the Missoula researchers then tested live gerbils in what Poulsen described as “a quick pilot study.”

Untreated gerbils that had strokes became twice as active and agitated as normal in the ensuing 24 to 48 hours. But those that received a low dose of meth were calmer.

When, after three weeks, the brains of the gerbils were dissected, the neurons of those treated with meth were as intact as the non-stroke animals. The ones that weren't treated showed profound neuronal loss.

The difference, said Poulsen, was “stark.”

Poulsen's team presented an abstract of their findings to the Society of Neuroscience in May, one of some 14,000 submitted. It was among 700 that the society chose to “put into a news release package.”

Hence the news release this week from UM, just before the Atlanta convention starts Saturday.

“We hate to put this stuff out before we have it published,” Poulsen said. “We're trying to finish up some experiments and get things nailed down to publish. But I figured it was going to get released (next week) anyway.”

The next step, Poulsen said, is to “go back and look at very rigorous rat models” to see if the meth treatment affects the flow of oxygen and glucose typically lost in a stroke.

The scientists will seek grants from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to continue the studies.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2...cal/news03.txt

I found this from google news. Im sure there are other sources for this story, but this was what I found.

[stoneinfocus]

So the good old 3mg Pervitin maybe did more good, in its times, than bad?
My aunt took it for 30years. She´s gotten 80years old and was a pack of eneregy and good mood and died suddenly of a heartstroke.(ouh, how horrible^^ )

I couldn´t see how anyone would be using more than 3-15mg on regular daily base, which shouild work out with no sides, what so ever, at least in me.

When packed into those neat pills, administration would be easier and more controlable, instead of snorting 20 times the amount of crystals from a dealer and being accidently wired for 1-2 days, considering the average person thinking this to be normal for this drug.

[stoneinfocus]

what I really wanted to reply to this topic was in fact, that I wonder where the researcher gets his information from, out off his and others asses maybe, otherwise he wouldn´t be that surprised, since there´s evidence that amphetamines drastically improve post stroke brain- physical coordination/activation disorders. the neurons are able to reorder themselves much faster and neurons in the cerebellum will be connected again much easier and faster to come over the stroke induced paralysis.

[monkeygone2heaven]

after a stroke when cells are dying you want to stimulate them, hyperperfuse the area... whatever you can do to mimimise brain damage... but it's hugely misleading to think "meth helps the brain"... analagously you can think cardiac rescuscitative electic shock helps the heart... would you do that on a daily basis to your heart? swim is not saying they're the same thing but it's similar reasoning...

[thundercles]

I always knew what I was doing to myself was good for me somehow....... yeah!

Reputation Comments on this post:

i hear ya

[BIG-TRON]

[quote=co-incidence;196723]So the good old 3mg Pervitin maybe did more good, in its times, than bad?

Ahh good old perv! haha very hard stuff

[stoneinfocus]

Allrighty then:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15114342
some cardio vaculsar issues on APMH with training, the typical overcautious bull of medics to exclude any death related to them from their list.

So here we go with 60 healthy male volunteers to see how destructive AMPH is in regards to learning and learning curve and keeping the results.
Shocking! Horror Drug! Worse than Hitler and WW2!!!! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
sides. like slightly elveatd BP and heart-rate (which is a resting pulst of 50-60 in swim and 132-84) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=12574563

Oh, and yes -the 3 - 6mg pervitin / day (3pills or so it be 9-12 / 16mg) would be so destructive to anyone, I couldn´t imagine -swim couldn´t imagine how citys will be burned to the ground .... much much worse, than learningcurve and overweight, sitting 8 hours in a bureau getting a healthy back and knees and metabolism... yeah, sure.

And I, for myself, would like to have the freedom to decide if I die of being not belted in my car during accident, than rather being humilated for some statistically selling figuers, or living an intense life, which I choose, without getting imprisoned, cut, and brainwashed, for some political cowardish-conservative political minded "consense".

I couldn´t count the positive effects of having the freedome and millions of little live-making things happening with it and vice versa.

But since it´s 1984 already, it´s really no fun anymore., it´s just keeping one alive, i.e. being brain-dead already without it or in 24/7 sucidal thougts.

And we all are sooo stupid, we all couldn´t learn to get along with it, even with proper teaching and education, really, the drug is sooo powerful, much more than alcohol and we´re already having enough problems with that one, don´t we?

[eltimmy]

>
I couldn´t see how anyone would be using more than 3-15mg on regular daily base, which shouild work out with no sides, what so ever, at least in me.

Get a grip, tweaky. Amphetamine and methamphetamine both cause destruction of neurons, even at dosages considered therapeutic in humans.

Amphetamine treatment similar to that used in the treatment of adult ADHD damages dopaminergic nerve endings in the striatum of adult non-human primates. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005 Jul 13; Xie T, Mayne A, McCann UD, Ricaurte GA.

Johns Hopkins University.

Pharmacotherapy with amphetamine is effective in the management of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), now recognized in adults, as well as in children and adolescents. Here we demonstrate that amphetamine treatment, similar to that used clinically for adult ADHD, damages dopaminergic nerve endings in the striatum of adult non-human primates. Furthermore, plasma concentrations of amphetamine associated with dopaminergic neurotoxicity in non-human primates are on the order of those reported in young patients receiving amphetamine for the management of ADHD. These findings may have implications for the pathophysiology and treatment of ADHD. Further preclinical and clinical studies are needed to evaluate the dopaminergic neurotoxic potential of therapeutic doses of amphetamine, in children as well as adults.

That is a side effect. There are literally hundreds of abstracts regarding amphetamine neurotoxicity. The effect is well-documented. Damage to certain parts of the brain from methamphetamine usage has not been shown to recover, unlike the neurotoxicity wrought by alcohol which apparently does fade, slowly.

The apparent protective effect of meth in stroke situations has little to do with this.

[whipcreamdemon]

I also think that the methampetimine used in labroratory experiements is nothing close to was is being manufacutered in the streets. SWIM has had pure amphetamine pills only and throughly enjoyed it.
swim have also had friends take there pills at 20mg and have sum cut from street they all said the percription ones where a and SWIM quotes "cleaner, smoother ride". I think that this had to be taken into consideration.

[monkeygone2heaven]

good point about amphetamines in lab not being the same as street drugs.

sorry but these studies are not about regular use which -- come on!! we all KNOW is not good for your brain!

quote from the pubmed abstract above, "This suggests that the beneficial effects in stroke patients could also be obtained by less cardiovascular active drugs."

basically, none of us are stroke patients being administered controlled doses of clean amphetamines under medical care... so swim thinks this information is very interesting, but likely not relevant to daily drug use of most people. or brain protection...

[monkeygone2heaven]

actually, we know well that meth is a neurotoxin and has high potential to destroy brain cells.

and does anyone recall the hype about MDMA(ecstasy) being a neurotoxin, even a single dose can harm your brain etc thanks to Prof Ricaurte's research. all claims were later embarrassingly retracted as they found out the animals were given d-methamphetamine, not MDMA:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/yo...-science/2402/

[stoneinfocus]

First, it has never shown in humans, but primates and data of lifelong human amphetmaine users are showing no negative sides, regarding cognition et cetera, even less cancer cases in those.

2. Humans abiltiy to regenerate and protect cells is much higher, than in other mammals, which must be, because of the x-time fold longer lifespan.

2.1 In example a dose of cortisone, of which rats die from, is potentionally life-saving in critically injured humans.

3. You really trust a study endorsed by NARC?????

4. From my own experience with many, many years off of any drug, more sober than a monk, I can only tell, that I do work better and more organized with acute use of an amphetamine, are less depressed and feel overall healthier.

6. All those bastards from Wrold War II are lean tough motherfuckers, and all have gotten very old and stayed healthy, unless they didn´t used the 50s to eat and drink like pigs.(remember the pervitin used during the war and my aunt was healthy and in good mood, getting 80 years old with the use of pervitin = methamphetamine)

7. clean street amphetime can be easily had, adulterants being mostly harmless lactose or maybe a bit of caffein, clean it up yourself, if you feel like getting rushes or aching joints, at least swim has no sides, sometimes would have to guess wether he´s on or not, if he didn´t knew!

8. There are some, that aren´t tweakers, but really need this medication to get a life, to manage their life, to concentrate and not commiting suicide after 20 years of having not been able manging anything without it.

9. Stop thinking with yours arse. What´s poison to one, is gold to another.

10. If enough damage is done, cells won´t regenrate from alcohol -it´s called Korsakoff syndrome.

11. It´s never that easy as it looks like and I could well state, that there might be more sever car-accidents with MDMA, than with meth, or alcohol, if ..... if... it´s used and then a car conducted.

It´s all relative and telling from stupid figuers the meaning of something to the whole life as such and society, is plain right stupid and always has to be used only in propaganda and intimadation or set into relation of more subtle things ie is a right to have weapons fpr your selfprotection better, if all is fought out with guns, the figuers showing more crimes and death being done with weapons, or is it better if a crowd of pigs are able to molest you and laugh at you afterwards, because you are and were unable to protect yourself -and they´re aware of it, that you might not hunt them down with a gun, afterwards? -Yes, that is life!

Reputation Comments on this post:

great rant, some excellent points!

[stoneinfocus]

Allright, so here we go with a far more less dramatuc quote in which it tells, that some degeneration of dop. and ser. might happen and might be mediated not by the drug itself, if, in high dose and then, due to oxidativ stress keywords: "amfetamine longterm" :
Amphetamine neurotoxicity: cause and consequence of oxidative stress.

• Yamamoto BK,
• Bankson MG.

Department of Pharmacology, Laboratory of Neurochemistry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118.
Oxidative stress has been demonstrated to occur in response to high doses of substituted amphetamines such as methamphetamine (METH) and 3,4-methlyene-dioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). This term represents a set of complex and multi-faceted precursor events that occur in both a parallel and serial manner, eventually converging to produce oxidative damage. This critical review goes beyond the compilation of previously well-documented evidence demonstrating that oxidative stress mediates METH and MDMA toxicity to dopamine and/or serotonin nerve terminals. The diverse causes, effects, and impact of pro-oxidative processes produced by these drugs are highlighted, integrated, and assembled into a proposed temporal sequence in an effort to explain the long-term neurochemical changes produced by amphetamines. Multiple factors are considered, including dopamine, glutamate, impaired mitochondrial bioenergetics, and inflammatory processes, all of which converge and are necessary but alone may be insufficient to cause damage to dopamine and/or 5-HT terminals. In addition, the processes linking inflammation and oxidative stress are considered and described as a feedforward process. The self-perpetuating cycle of inflammation and oxidative stress that is initiated by dopamine, glutamate, and mitochondrial dysfunction may extend well beyond the acute pharmacodynamic effects of the drugs and could represent an underlying and potentially progressive degenerative process.
PMID: 16808729 [PubMed - in process]

ther´re well working anti-oxidants, like alpha lipoic acid and vitamins, that really do work, ie in diabetic neuropathy, protecting cells like in the retina, and swim always feels that he´s returning to a sober and good feeling with the use of it. ... acetyl l carnitine (synergism with ALA , synergism with vit c&e ... )

[monkeygone2heaven]

co-incidence,

i am "not thinking with my arse" i have a phd in neuroscience!

i am never coming to this forum again. because i can't even "vote" or whatever on your completely disrespectful response, flag it or whatever. and plus i am tired of attitude like this...

editing: after some time and nice messages from other members, i have indeed come back because i have realised the problems i have been having here (on other thread as well) have all been with one person and i was being too touchy when the forum has not been a negative experience overall. thanks for helping me see that.

of course the effects are not shown in humans because scientists are not allowed to test neurophysiology on humans!! additionally, there ARE studies on humans showing long term changes in addict brain activity and behaviour (cognition, attention, perception problems after long term use).

scientists get funding from whoever is funding. we are lucky to be funded at all because governments prefer to fund military and their friends' companies rather than science. how do i judge science and decide what to believe? not my arse as co-incidence suggested but i trust findings with my BRAIN, which has been trained to judge the quality of science after over a decade of doctoral and postdoctoral training i have completed in neuroscience and biology.

what is poison to one is NOT gold to one another. neurotoxin has a definition in science and it's not up to you to redefine it. you can LIKE poison fair enough but you have no right telling people it is good for them when it is NOT!!

don't spread bullshit ideas like "human brain cells regenerate and protect well". evidence for ANY neurogenesis in adult humans (indeed animals) only came out a few years ago and only happens in a very restricted set of circumstances, in a very small set of brain areas. it's not a widespread thing like "lets kill brain cells, they'll grow back". we will never compensate for the cells we are losing with drug & alcohol use (at least with current technology and knowledge).

alcoholic korsakoff syndrome is when cells die due to vitamin B insufficiency. happens when an alcoholic has neglected nutrition -- typically after passing out for a say or two. neurons in the mamillary bodies are the first to die from the thiamine deficiency and the characteristic is profound memory loss like in the movie "memento". but why is this even relevant?? Korsakoff's syndrome is not because cells don't regenerate in this special case! they don't regenerate in most cases of brain disease as i said above. for example same kind of memory loss can happen after temporal lobe surgery for epilepsy (search google for "patient HM amnesia" and you'll see).

why am i even wasting my breath here? i'll go back to my science and meaningless "stupid figures" which the comforts of your civilized life and your recently doubled life expectancy is based on - whether you realise it or not... but i guess you don't like civilization either! damn society... all those evil people, evil system, evil scientists trying to tell you meth is not good for your brain!

how ridiculous. of COURSE you FEEL you think better on meth. that's what amphetamines DO...

someone who IS me thought this forum was for people who were interested in finding things out. but all you are interested in is justifying yourselves and censoring real information.

i'm sure you'll delete this and i have wasted my time...

goodbye.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	good info
	Excellent retort my dear - plus the picture of Laura P is very welcome! Pixies forever! Hope you don't disappear over a ...

[monkeygone2heaven]

ps: as someone who has worked at the VA Hospitals Neurology Clinics and met lots of veterans, even though i am not even American, i took personal offense at "all those bastards from Wrold War II are lean tough motherfuckers, and all have gotten very old and stayed healthy, unless they didn´t used the 50s to eat and drink like pigs" -- you clearly have no understanding of the situation at all!!

which makes me even more sure that i wasted time posting. but i just can't get over the whole thing...

[java]

Just get over it and keep posting, not all readers are biased and have analytical thinking caps still working....sometimes it takes time and a few experiences to realize that there is two sides to the coin.............solo

[howlongisthenight]

Not to jump into an arguement I know nothing about, but one of these posts seemed to outline a rationale for addiction. Be safe guys.

[boylizard]

Originally Posted by monkeygone2heaven

co-incidence,
what is poison to one is NOT gold to one another. neurotoxin has a definition in science and it's not up to you to redefine it. you can LIKE poison fair enough but you have no right telling people it is good for them when it is NOT!!

i disagree extremely. lithium is toxic to the human body, most people wouldnt take it at all. thus, poison.
however, to some people that need it, lithium is a fucking lifesaver. you may have a phd, and more power to you for it, but you can still make mistakes.

[monkeygone2heaven]

Originally Posted by boylizard

i disagree extremely. lithium is toxic to the human body, most people wouldnt take it at all. thus, poison.
however, to some people that need it, lithium is a fucking lifesaver. you may have a phd, and more power to you for it, but you can still make mistakes.

of course i make mistakes. but in this case, what you're saying and what i am saying does not add up to my mistake. since "toxic" and "lifesaver" are not really incompatible.

i was trying to simplify so that the person arguing could understand the point. vaccines are toxic too but are used in medicine and can be lifesavers. plus what about dosage? pretty much anything under the sun can kill you, thus be a poison if you take the right amount. you can infuse someone with too much water and kill them and call water a poison. this kind of argument does not go anywhere.

secondly, i was talking about neurotoxins, ones that kill brain cells-- people spend their whole lives researching just one neurotoxin... and we are throwing these words around so casually. it's really not the point.

your point about lithium is well-taken. i would go further than that... you can find anything to be a lifesaver. it could be sports, knitting or heroin. you could die from heroin. but you could also die from over-exercise, i presume one could die from compulsive knitting! so knitting is toxic?

no medical professional or scientist will (or can) ever tell you heroin, sports and knitting are equally viable options to deal with hardship or existential angst...

but people will do the heroin and i believe in taht free choice.. i think the important point that you and i agree on is, it doesn't matter.. each to their own and something which is regarded as "bad" can save another person. i agree with this theoretically and personally.

but don't pull science into it. science, especially medicine, has to have its methods in order to function.

would i take lithium? only if its side-effects countered its benefits. would i take meth? same argument.

and if anyone is considering taking meth or any drug, all i'm saying is take an honest look at what this will do to you. if you read a headline too good to be true, research it. what we know is this WILL kill your brain cells, not protect them, and as far as we know those cells WILL NOT come back. maybe in 20 years we'll know something different. we might find these substances are safer than they seem or even more harmful. that's all open... all i am saying is each person serves themselves best looking at the facts and taking responsibility.

this is not about judgment. at the end of the day, noone cares what you did to your body. not the drug administration, not the scientists, not the politicians, not the drug pushers. noone but you. it's your life...

i'm sorry maybe it's odd that i get passionate about this topic. i could just say, i know what i need to know, who cares about what the others believe. but part of my passion is making drugs a free choice. and this goes both ways. telling you they are BADBADBAD kind of brainwashing might be oppressive and harmful but so is DRUGSAREGOODFORYOU kind of simplification.

swim has done loads of self-destructive things -- but swim does not condone shrouding them in some veneer of acceptability. there are various "scientific" reasons humans are drawn to drugs. but denying their obvious consequences is not going to take us anywhere (except Denialville)...

hope you understand that i am not trying to be antagonistic. and i never would have mentioned i have a phd if the person above was not being disrespectful. and anyway i thought that was going to be my last post here. i only came back because of so many nice people e-mailing...

ciao for now.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Well articulated and oh so true!

[renegades]

Gee, I hope if I get a stroke they give me meth at the hospital. Matter of fact I would demand it. Plus Prof Ricaurte's x debacle where x got mixed up with methampetamine Prof Ricaurte was injecting an x level dose of methampetamine. No wonder why 4 of the 16 primates died. MDMA dose is 125 mg whereas methampetamine the dose is about 10 mgs. So ricaurte was giving over 10 times the amount of meth that it takes to catch a buzz. What an idiot, and his research was used to pass the Rave Act. Shouldn't the Rave Act be void since all the testimony was about 10x lethal dose of meth not ecstacy. No the government won't because it will have to admit it made an grevious error. If is so toxic according to the DEA, why are troops coming back from Iraq with PTS are now receiving x to help relieve their stress. So esctacy has a medical use, will the DEA now schedule it as a 2 no longer as a schedule 1. No they never will. Even with the facts in front of their bureaucractic faces they will never admit that they were wrong. When the DEA went to the DEA judge to get mdma controlled, the judge agreed but made it a schedule 3. However the DEA were prosecuting these cases as a schedule 1 offense in 1985 in deviance of the judge. When judge francis young found out, all the cases prosecuted as a schedule 1 offense in the last 3 years were thrown out of court and the people were let out of jail in 1988. Way to go DEA, you must have some real smart people working for you. Do you know how much that cost our justice system. It should come out of the DEA budget. Well anyway they passed the analog act and the rave act through Congress using bad data who overuled the judge making it a schedule 1 offense.The history of how x became illegal. Its too bad, it is such a love drug it could have work wonders for socially shy people, remember the bar scene in 84-88, it was all about X. Pretty much most people in the bar were on it. But the atmosphere was electric, people hugging strangers, having long conversations with perfect strangers, it was a love fest. Now the bar scene is all about coke and meth. The atmosphere has changed strangers remain strangers and people just hang out in their own group and look at outsiders with suspicision All due to the paranoia that these drugs cause in people.

[~lostgurl~]

This article published today seemed kind of appropriate to this thread

Human Brain Can Make New Cells
16/02/2007 10:30 AM
Maggie Fox
Reuters

New evidence shows that the human brain can manufacture fresh brain cells, researchers said on Thursday in a study that may lead to better ways to treat brain damage and disease.

Scientists had known that other animals, such as rats and mice, make new brain cells throughout their lives and there had been indirect evidence that human beings can, too.

Using magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans and electron microscope images of tissue donated from the brains of people who died, Maurice Curtis of the University of Auckland in New Zealand and Peter Eriksson of Sahlgrenska Academy in Goteborg, Sweden, and colleagues found the elusive cells.

Just as in mice and rats, these cells are born in one part of the brain and then migrate to the olfactory bulb, where smells are processed. They mature into neurons on the way.

In animals, they said, brain damage prompts the birth of new cells. "Our study provides the foundation for this possibility in the adult human brain," they wrote in their report, published in the journal Science.

Humans have far more developed brains, so searching for these cells has been harder than it was in rodents.

In mice and rats it has been clear these cells are born in the forebrain and then migrate to the smell centre. There, they can help the animals learn and adapt to new smells.

Smell is less important for humans, but it is still important for sensing dangers from smoke, for instance, or rotten food.

And studies show that the loss of smell may be an early sign of brain-destroying illnesses such as Parkinson's, the researchers said - a hint that these cells may be important.

"This study is exciting because it reveals a group of brain cells in the adult human brain that are continuously regenerating," said Dr. Mark Baxter of Britain's Oxford University.

"Animal studies have pointed to the existence of such groups of cells, but it has been difficult to determine whether they exist in the human brain as well," Baxter, who was not involved in the research, said in a statement.

"This opens another direction by which we may discover ways to repair human brains that are damaged from injury or diseases, and underscores the importance of animal research in guiding biomedical research in humans," Baxter said.

Another expert, Sebastian Brandner, head of the Division of Neuropathology at the Institute of Neurology at University College London, agreed.

"These findings are important for several reasons: Understanding stem cell biology is essential to study brain repair in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's and it is even possible that stem cells are the source of some brain tumours," Brandner said in a statement.

http://xtramsn.co.nz/technology/0,,1...957355,00.html