Neuronal Nanotubes - Psychedelic Basics - Diagnoses - Creative Hobbies - Goodall Obit

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Breedlove, S

unread,

Oct 4, 2025, 7:52:35 AMOct 4

https://www.science.org/content/article/neurons-can-communicate-hidden-network-nanotubes-study-finds

Neurons can communicate via hidden network of nanotubes

By Catherine Offord

Neuroscientists have been studying synapses, the fundamental junctions that allow rapid communication between neurons, for well over a century. But now, a research team has identified a different set of neuronal connections in the brain—one that might bypass synapses altogether, the group reports today in Science.

Using high-resolution images of mouse and human brains, the researchers documented a network of tubes, each about 3 micrometers long and just a few hundred nanometers thick, connecting neurons to one another. In mouse cells, the team found evidence of neuron-to-neuron transfer of electrical signals via these nanotubes, and even the passage of proteins linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

“We’ve been looking at the brain forever now, and every once in a while, a surprise comes along,” says Lary Walker, a neuroscientist and professor emeritus at Emory University who was not involved in the work. Although there’s still a lot to pin down about these nanotubes’ basic biology, he suggests the discovery could have wide implications for scientists’ understanding of neuronal communication and disease.

Researchers already knew some cells form nanotubes. In a 2004 Science paper, a team in Germany described tiny channels that emerged spontaneously between rat kidney cells in a dish and allowed the transfer of organelles. Studies since then have documented these so-called tunneling nanotubes (TNT) in a variety of cell and tissue types, and have linked their presence to processes including organ development, tissue repair, and the spread of viruses within the body.

Recent research has identified TNTs forming between neurons and microglia, the brain’s immune cells, and hinted that they have important functions in brain health and disease. But scientists have struggled to find such conduits connecting neurons to one another in the mammalian brain. The search is particularly tricky because neurons’ branching ends, or dendrites, form a tangled mass with one another, and because researchers lack molecular markers distinguishing nanotubes from other cell structures.

https://www.thetransmitter.org/psychedelics/why-we-need-basic-science-to-better-understand-the-neurobiology-of-psychedelics/

Why we need basic science to better understand the neurobiology of psychedelics

By Devin Effinger, Melissa Herman

Psychedelics show growing promise as treatments for a variety of psychiatric diseases. Clinical trials have demonstrated rapid and persistent improvements in major depressive disorder, for example, sparking interest among both psychiatrists and neuroscientists. However, the clinical use of psychedelics is challenging; the drugs induce prolonged visual hallucinations and must be administered and monitored by trained staff, which creates barriers in terms of their availability and accessibility.

Clinical trials are also challenging. Psychedelics produce profound subjective effects that make it impossible to properly placebo-control or effectively blind participants. And given the widespread cultural fascination with these drugs, it’s difficult to remove expectancy bias—if someone strongly believes a drug will work, that can influence their perception and reporting of their outcome. Moreover, these drugs are typically delivered and tested in combination with psychotherapy. Discerning whether any treatment effects stem from the drug versus the psychotherapy, as well as the role of therapy in clinical response, is a point of debate within the field.

To help resolve some of these issues, we need to better understand the neurobiological mechanisms involved. Human imaging studies have shown that some psychedelics, such as psilocybin, produce long-lasting alterations in global connectivity and negative affect. But to design more effective versions of these drugs, we need to uncover their underlying mechanisms of action at greater resolution—something that is possible only through preclinical research at the level of molecular, cellular and systems neuroscience.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/03/health/can-a-diagnosis-make-you-better.html

Autism, A.D.H.D., Anxiety: Can a Diagnosis Make You Better?

By Ellen Barry

Around the time of the pandemic, I began to notice something happening in my social circle. A close friend, then in her early 50s, got a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She described it as a profound relief, releasing her from years of self-blame — about missed deadlines and lost receipts, but also things that were deeper and more complicated, like her sensitivity to injustice.
Listen to this article with reporter commentary

Something similar happened to a co-worker, and a cousin in his 30s, and an increasing number of people I met covering mental health. It wasn’t always A.D.H.D. For some of them, the revelation was a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: After years of inarticulate unease in social situations, they felt freed by the framework of neurodivergence, and embraced by the community that came along with it.

Since then I’ve heard accounts from people who received midlife diagnoses of binge eating disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety. Nearly all of them said the diagnosis provided relief. Sometimes it led to an effective treatment. But sometimes, simply identifying the problem — putting a name to it — seemed to help.

Lately, it seems as if we never stop talking about the rising rates of chronic diseases, among them autism, A.D.H.D., depression, anxiety and PTSD. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has pointed to these trends as evidence that Americans are “the sickest people in the world,” and has set about upending whole swaths of our public health system in search of causes, like vaccines or environmental toxins.

But much of what we’re seeing is a change in diagnostic practices, as we apply medical labels to ever milder versions of disease. There are many reasons for this: The shame that once accompanied many disorders has lifted. Screening for mental health problems is now common in schools. Social media gives us the tools to diagnose ourselves. And clinicians, in a time of mental health crisis, see an opportunity to treat illnesses early.
© 2025 The New York Times Company

--------------------

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03197-z

Creative hobbies could slow brain ageing at the molecular level

Gemma Conroy

Whether it’s dancing the tango or playing the guitar, engaging in a creative pastime can slow brain ageing, according to a study of dancers, musicians, artists and video game players from multiple countries.

The analysis used brain clocks — models that measure the difference between a person’s chronological age and the age their brain appears to be — to assess whether creative activities help to maintain neurological youth. In brain regions that are most susceptible to ageing, engaging in creative activities increased connections with different areas of the brain. Although experts had ‘younger’ brains than their less-experienced counterparts did, even learning a creative skill from scratch had an anti-ageing effect on the brain.

The findings were published on 3 October in Nature Communications1.
Song and dance

Previous studies suggest that engaging in creative activities can help to keep the brain young and foster emotional well-being. But few have investigated the biological basis of these brain benefits or what drives them, says study co-author Agustín Ibáñez, a neuroscientist at Adolfo Ibáñez University in Santiago, Chile. “There is really poor mechanistic evidence,” he says.

How fast are you ageing? Ordinary brain scans reveal the pace
To address this gap, Ibáñez and his colleagues created brain clocks using neuroimaging data of brain activity taken from 1,240 participants across 10 countries. These machine-learning models used functional connectivity, a measure of how brain regions work together, to estimate brain age. The researchers then applied their brain clocks to 232 tango dancers, musicians, visual artists and video game players of different ages and experience levels to calculate their ‘brain age gap’ — the difference between their predicted brain age and their actual age.

--------------------

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/01/science/earth/jane-goodall-dead.html

Jane Goodall, Who Chronicled the Social Lives of Chimps, Dies at 91

By Keith Schneider

Jane Goodall, one of the world’s most revered conservationists, who earned scientific stature and global celebrity by chronicling the distinctive behavior of wild chimpanzees in East Africa — primates that made and used tools, ate meat, held rain dances and engaged in organized warfare — died on Wednesday in Los Angeles. She was 91.

Her death, while on a speaking tour, was confirmed by the Jane Goodall Institute, whose U.S. headquarters are in Washington, D.C. When not traveling widely, she lived in Bournemouth, on the south coast of England, in her childhood home.

Dr. Goodall was 29 in the summer of 1963 when National Geographic magazine published her 7,500-word, 37-page account of the lives of primates she had observed in the Gombe Stream Chimpanzee Reserve in what is now Tanzania. The National Geographic Society had been financially supporting her field studies there.

The article, with photographs by Hugo van Lawick, a Dutch wildlife photographer whom she later married, also described Dr. Goodall’s struggles to overcome disease, predators and frustration as she tried to get close to the chimps, working from a primitive research station along the eastern shore of Lake Tanganyika.

On the scientific merits alone, her discoveries about how wild chimpanzees raised their young, established leadership, socialized and communicated broke new ground and attracted immense attention and respect among researchers. Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist and science historian, said her work with chimpanzees “represents one of the Western world’s great scientific achievements.”

On learning of Dr. Goodall’s documented evidence that humans were not the only creatures capable of making and using tools, Louis Leakey, the paleoanthropologist and Dr. Goodall’s mentor, famously remarked, “Now we must redefine ‘tool,’ redefine ‘man,’ or accept chimpanzees as humans.”