Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Medicine News

Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New Fovea 86

Al writes "A woman with a rare, inherited form of blindness is now able to read, thanks to a gene therapy that caused a new fovea — the part of the retina that is most densely populated with photoreceptors — to grow in her eye. The patient suffers from Leber congenital amaurosis, meaning an abnormal protein makes her photoreceptors have a severely impaired sensitivity to light. She received the experimental treatment twelve months ago when physicians injected a gene encoding a functional copy of the protein into a small part of one eye — about eight-to-nine millimeters in diameter. Along with two other patients receiving the same treatment, her eyesight improved after just a few weeks. Now the physicians report that this patient seems to have developed a new fovea, exactly where she received the injection. Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth, the results suggest that the brain is able to adapt to new visual stimuli remarkably quickly."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gene Therapy Causes Blind Woman To Grow New Fovea

Comments Filter:
  • by FlyingSquidStudios ( 1031284 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @03:29PM (#29078275)
    but when the new eyes achieve sentience and telepathically conspire to enslave humanity, don't tell me I didn't warn you against this sort of thing!
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      I for one welcome our new gene modified fovea overlords.

      or

      "All in favor say "Aye""

  • "Fovea"? That sounds dirty. Gene therapy is the Devil's work, I tell you!!!
  • Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wanax ( 46819 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @03:38PM (#29078341)

    This is very cool stuff. But in terms of adapting 'remarkably quickly' to visual stimuli after congenital blindness, I'm slightly dubious. There's been quite a bit of recent research done on this recently through Project Prakash [mit.edu] (which is also a very cool humanitarian mission at the same time), which finds that adults who regain vision see things very differently than we do... For example that have major problems with depth, object segmentation (think two overlapping squares -- normal observers will typically say there are two squares, overlapping, while newly seeing adults will report 1 square, where the overlap occurs), full field motion etc.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bluesatin ( 1350681 )
      But are the problems caused by the brain or just bad eyesight? I can imagine anyone 'regaining' their sight probably doesn't have the same quality eyes as someone that has never lost their vision.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by slider142 ( 1618867 )
        Even with perfect eyesight, most visual cueing and a lot of filling in of detail is done by the brain, and not received by direct physical stimuli through the optic nerves. This can be seen in optical illusions meant to highlight or isolate certain aspects of visual construction.
      • If the brain does not receive visual stimuli as a child, then the visual centers never form properly, or at all. There is a certain time window, where the brain is plastic enough to learn the new input. After it has passed, then there are certain things the brain can not do, or do well - like learn new languages without an accent.

    • Re:Cool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by wfstanle ( 1188751 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @04:13PM (#29078563)

      But who cares if she perceives most things differently than you or me? According to the article, is seems that she has learned to read. That means that she sees text and is able to get the same meaning as we do. If it was otherwise, she wouldn't be able to read. Remember, reading is getting meaning from text.

      • by am 2k ( 217885 )

        Still, even when she's able to read, when it comes to computer use, having that object segmentation issue the GP is talking about might heavily impact the ability to use overlapping windows in a GUI... Better use awesome [naquadah.org] or something similar.

        • I think it's not so much of an issue for her because the problem was that she was EFFECTIVELY blind due to extremely insensitive photoreceptors, it's quite possible she was taking in visual stimuli just on an entirely subconscious level and that's how she was able to adapt and learn to read this quickly.

        • naw, since she learned to read text so easily but has problems with overlapping squares she would be right at home with something like Linux without a GUI at all = commandline all the way, do not install xorg on this woman's computer and give her all the good CLI tools, lynx and links2, irssi, she might turn out to be a guru genius on VIM with c code and perl scripts...
          • by ae1294 ( 1547521 )

            s, lynx and links2, irssi, she might turn out to be a guru genius on VIM with c code and perl scripts..

            Pfft.... until she masters emacs I will not be calling her My Master...

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I would not be so sure.

          I have strabism. More specifically, the kind of strabism where you can choose which eye you want to see with.
          The bigger effect of this condition is a total lack of automatic brain-computed stereovision and depth. I must compute depth mentally, it's slightly less precise than the normal brain-computing. As a side effect, (most) optical illusions are ineffective on me.

          I think the effects are very similar to her. The brain droped the useless parts a long time ago.
          According to your grand-

    • Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @04:27PM (#29078649)

      Bloody hell man, we have newly seeing adults now! Who cares if their vision is not quite the same as ours!

      • My kingdom for a mod point...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kryptKnight ( 698857 )

        Who cares if their vision is not quite the same as ours!

        The newly seeing adults might, once they get over the shock and realize they still can't get a driver's license, engage in sports or many other everyday activities to the same extent as normally sighted people.

        Just because we've made progress doesn't mean there isn't more to be done.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Just because we've made progress doesn't mean there isn't more to be done.

          Just because there's more to be done doesn't mean we can't celebrate our achievements.

      • They do presumably, if they want their vision to be useful.
      • Actually.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by wanax ( 46819 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @10:53PM (#29080697)

        I care quite a bit, since I study vision... and understanding the differences between a newly seeing adult and a seeing adult really help us understand a lot about brain development and theories of vision. Things like this, and Project Prakash which I've noted above have also shown that 'critical periods' in neural development, while they exist, are a lot less important in humans than say, cats (or barn owls), where most of the classic studies of critical period have been done. This leaves me optimistic that both genetic/stem cell approaches and neural prosthesis in general have a lot more promise than was thought several years ago.

        The point of my comment though, was that the summary implied that she had gained essentially normal visual function, which I doubt is the case... and that while this is an amazing treatment that can probably help quite a few people, we still have a lot of work we can do to improve it -- especially on the low-tech side such as better visual displays and therapy regimens that improve final post-operative function.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Even on slashdot, you've got to be very careful with your language when a "wonder" story comes along. That is your only mistake. To avoid that reaction, it probably isn't enough to say "this is cool stuff... but". You must make the layman believe that you are still giving it the respect that you've probably actually given a thousand times over, studying and exploring it. That doesn't amount to anything more than being a little more praising, to offset the scientific clarification (particularly if you a
          • by thedrx ( 1139811 )
            Good post. And I don't have any mod points (as to preemptively answer the 'this is what the mod system is for' cries)
        • Re:Actually.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Sunday August 16, 2009 @12:57AM (#29081235)

          Ok, fair enough, I can understand that. But the other poster is right: you treat this as it is almost meaningless, while in reality someone who was blind can now at least read a clock. That's a better level of vision than I have without my glasses, btw.

          And hey, who knows, maybe you are curing blindness every day, maybe this will _not_ lead to further enhanced cures, maybe the "real" breakthrough is just around the corner. But for now this seems to be a major step, and once in a while it is good to step back and stare in awe at what mankind has achieved thus far.

          Now bring on that Mars-colony already, damnit. I was born after the first man walked on the moon, I don't want to die before the first man walks on Mars...

          • by wanax ( 46819 )

            Indeed, I am guilty of pursuing a sports theory of science.. where while I am always willing to laud or congratulate the previous advance.

            While I've tried to step back and appreciate our achievements ("Failure is not an Option" is my favorite documentary)... I won't stand in awe if there is room for tangible improvement of our general situation.

    • by mikael ( 484 )

      There have been cases where toddlers weren't allowed to crawl around on a floor but instead kept in baby bouncers, would have depth perception problems - a ball thrown towards them wouldn't be perceived as an object moving towards them, but an object that remains out of reach but is getting larger.

      There are other cases whether people who had cataracts since they were born, wouldn't be able to perceive shape or correctly. They wouldn't understand shadows, but instead assume there was a flat cardboard cutout

    • And I find the ability to adapt to new stimuli very very impressive, when I see that monkey that got a robotic arm's controller "glued" onto its brain, and now is able to "naturally" use is, as if it were a third arm [youtube.com].
      And I don't even talk about brain-computer-interfaces that actually are making people have genuine bionic arms and legs right now. The 6 million dollar man is literally just a matter of powerful servos and properly "sewing" it into tho body nowadays.

    • by radtea ( 464814 )

      This is very cool stuff. But in terms of adapting 'remarkably quickly' to visual stimuli after congenital blindness, I'm slightly dubious.

      Where the brain is concerned, YMMV is worth keeping in mind. There are plenty of cases where individuals exhibit far greater neurological plasticity than the norm, and from the sounds it the woman in this case had SOME sensitivity to light, so it is probable that although technically blind from birth she had sufficient visual stimuli to give her basic object-recognition

  • an amazing achievement, hopefully a preview of better things to come and a brighter future for us all
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by D Ninja ( 825055 )

      an amazing achievement, hopefully a preview of better things to come and a brighter future for us all

      It's already considerably brighter for the woman with the new fovea...

      • an amazing achievement, hopefully a preview of better things to come and a brighter future for us all

        It's already considerably brighter for the woman with the new fovea...

        Actually, given the nature of her defect, I would say it's considerably less bright - though this is a good thing.

    • by ae1294 ( 1547521 ) on Saturday August 15, 2009 @04:57PM (#29078853) Journal

      an amazing achievement,

      indeed but the real question is can this technology be used to make a man's penis longer, harder and lets not forget thicker. Until that day comes we will always be at war with our selves...

    • As long as you can keep the people who lied about their own miracles [wikipedia.org] away from [christianitytoday.com] the methodology [wikipedia.org] that makes breakthrough science [wired.com] possible.

  • small? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by prgrmr ( 568806 )
    when physicians injected a gene encoding a functional copy of the protein into a small part of one eye â" about eight-to-nine millimeters in diameter.

    That's 1/3 of an inch! How many injections did it take to cover that area? Or, is the article so poorly written that the author failed to convey there was just a single injection with the injected material spreading out that far? Maybe we should ask the author [technologyreview.com] directly?
    • That was my thought too. I think when talking about our eyes this articles definition of small, and the rest of the general populations definition differ quite sizably!

  • "Windows has finished installing drivers for your new device, it is ready for use"
  • Can you imagine living in darkness your whole life and then see for the first time? It would be amazing to see that there is more to surfaces than just texture.
  • What's the mechanism to inject gene sequence into existing cells? How do you sustain them after the cells so modified have died off?
  • TFA says that instead of fixing what was there, they managed to make a different part of the eye more sensitive. Maybe this treatment might become commonplace one day, to give people better-than-normal eyesight where it's needed.

  • "Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth.."

    How did she learn to read!? She was blind!

    • by Xelios ( 822510 )
      Well as usual the summary got a little excited and left out an important piece of TFA: "...a patient discovered that she could read an illuminated clock in the family car for the first time in her life."

      Still an amazing step forward, maybe if they finish treating both eyes the gains will be even more pronounced.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by catmandue ( 1132331 )
      My wife has the same disorder as the patient in the story. She learned to read by using Braille when she was 5. We have discussed this scenario many times and she likes herself just like she is (except for not getting to drive her half of our car). She is "normal" and thinks that "fixing" people is a slippery slope. Diversity comes in many forms;what happens when one day we are all the same?
      • by pxc ( 938367 )

        It can be a slippery slope if you treat these kinds of operations as "fixing people", but I think if you treat it instead as enabling them to do something new (to them, at least), you don't run the risk of "fixing" people who don't feel that they are broken.

        • It can be a slippery slope if you treat these kinds of operations as "fixing people", but I think if you treat it instead as enabling them to do something new (to them, at least), you don't run the risk of "fixing" people who don't feel that they are broken.

          Too bad if they feel they aren't "broken". They are, by any reasonable standard. Besides, that seems to be a thing for deaf people only; I've never heard of the equivalent for blind people.

        • by fractoid ( 1076465 ) on Sunday August 16, 2009 @02:58AM (#29081601) Homepage

          It can be a slippery slope if you treat these kinds of operations as "fixing people", but I think if you treat it instead as enabling them to do something new (to them, at least), you don't run the risk of "fixing" people who don't feel that they are broken.

          Dude, if something about me doesn't work, it's broken. If they make it so it does work, it's then fixed. That's what these words mean. "But I like it like that" doesn't change anything.

          Now, if you were talking about "fixing people" who have non-functionally-impairing differences (skin/hair/eye colour, accent, etc.) then that would be different.

      • I respect your wife's "normal" self-image, but I can't wrap my head around her refusal to accept a treatment like this. If I could get a simple treatment that would give me extended spectral perception or better night vision or even better-than-"normal" acuity, I'd be all over it.

      • World Peace?

      • Diversity comes in many forms;what happens when one day we are all the same?

        Ah, the old diversity card. Are you saying that your wife becomes less unique if she gains new abilities? I would think that makes her more unique, or "diverse" if you will. She would then have the experience of someone of learning an entirely new way of perception as an adult. How many people get to experience something that friggin' awesome in their lifespans?

    • by nbauman ( 624611 )

      http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view.php?WorkID=henry6p2&Act=2&Scene=1&Scope=scene [opensource...speare.org]

      History of Henry VI, Part II Act II, Scene 1

      Duke of Gloucester. How long hast thou been blind?

      Simpcox. Born so, master.

      Duke of Gloucester. What, and wouldst climb a tree?

      Simpcox. But that in all my life, when I was a youth.

      Simpcox's Wife. Too true; and bought his climbing very dear.

      Duke of Gloucester. Mass, thou lovedst plums well, that wouldst venture so.

      Simpcox. Alas, good master, my wife de

  • Peripheral Vision (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Could this be used to grow a fovea covering the entire retinal wall, giving us peripheral vision as sharp as central vision?

  • once posited that humans are "hard-wired" for speech (quotation marks are around his words). This is still an open question but the data seem to show he was right, and more data over time has swung the pendulum toward this view. It appears as if the DNA leads us toward syntax in some yet unknown manner.

    Perhaps we are also hard-wired to see. This seems very likely to me; likely enough that I am willing to put a huge bet on it, if there are any takers....

    TFA just reinforces the view that human sensory abiliti

    • Perhaps we are also hard-wired to see.

      Yes, we have eyes. And there have been studies on the way the brain develops its interpretation of the world in humans and animals, getting babies to crawl along glass surfaces with large drops below the glass, and cats that were exposed to only vertical stripes all their life and could then not distinguish horizontal objects (something like that anyway).

      human sensory abilities .. are dependent on genetic information.

      Yes. Culture.. well the sexual parts, yes.

  • Hallway repair please. /And leave off the hymen.
  • Company are selling pills claims will inject gene code of a 7" owner.

  • But she's blind, not infertile.
  • physicians injected a gene encoding a functional copy of the protein into a small part of one eye â" about eight-to-nine millimeters in diameter

    Did anyone else think of that part on Star Trek First Contact where Picard dreams about being borg and having that machine inject something in his eye. Still gives me the creeps.

    Anyways, pretty cool scientific advancement.

  • by rew ( 6140 ) <r.e.wolff@BitWizard.nl> on Sunday August 16, 2009 @02:33AM (#29081513) Homepage

    Because the woman has been effectively blind since birth, the results suggest that the brain is able to adapt to new visual stimuli remarkably quickly.
    We knew that already. People have been equipped with a camera and an actuator that "projects" an image through the tactile nerves on a patch of skin.... Those people similarly report being able to "see" using that hardware.

    This leads me to believe that our brains are not hardwired to interpret visual information only on just the optical nerve. During the first few years, we learn what nerves are connected where. And our brains are flexible, and will be able to adapt to changes in what-connects-where.

    In an experiment, a long time ago(*), a person was equipped with glasses that flipped the image in his eyes upside-down. In about two weeks he didn't notice the difference anymore. Also, learned skills, like skiing, were instantly possible with the re-wired visual hardware. Adapting to the original situation (no flipping glasses) was quicker than adapting to the flipping glasses.

    (*) http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html [wearcam.org] I intended "a long time ago" to mean something like "in the 19-seventies", turns out the original experiment dates back to 1896!

  • Test only, please ignore.

    Having issues posting thru proxy.

  • The race to be "First" has spawned really stupid replies that waste our time and obscure pertinent observations. Is there a solution?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...