data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Japanese Scientists Create Artificial Eyeballs 149
MikeyMars writes: "CNN is reporting that Japanese scientists have grown artificial eyeballs [cnn.com] for tadpoles. This is the first time in the world something like this has been accomplished. 'Since the basics of body-making is common to that of human beings, I think this might help enable people to regain vision in the future,' Asashima was quoted as saying."
Re:WIll this work on turtles? (Score:1)
TROLL!!? TROLL?? (Score:1)
BBC Also have this story (Score:1, Informative)
Re:BBC Also have this story (Score:2, Informative)
Now eat it (Score:5, Funny)
Mon Dieu! (Score:1)
Growing an Eyeball..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Growing an Eyeball..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Growing an Eyeball..... (Score:1)
You are correct on one thing though: How do we know it actually works as it "should"? I guess we'll have to wait until we can do this in a human subject an (s)he can tell us
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like they designed eyeballs from scratch. They took undiferentiated cells, which already had the information on how to become regular eyeballs, and then made them grow in that direction. Going from this to actually changing the ways those eyes work would be like engineering eyeballs from scratch. We're not even close to having the information or technology required to get there. Sure we know how eyes work, but changing genes to make them produce different results is NOT where we are right now.
Besides, if we had the ability to do this, I wouldn't consider it a misuse, although I can see why a lot of people would. Besides, all of the applications you mention are already available, cheap and common through different gadgets
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:1)
From the previous slashdot article on tetrachromats, it appears that it's because of the eye construction that they can see, but maybe you need to be born with it for the nervous system to be able to handle the information? it might be an interesting experiment at least..
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:1)
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:1)
The problem I have with this article (hum, or this fifteen lines summary, should I say) is that they leap directly from "we took undifferentiated cells" to "we implanted the new eyeball in the toadpole".
So, if they've been able to grow a single organ and not a total organism, that's already very interesting, even if it's not "from scratch" (which is a totally different, and much more complicated problem).
Olivier
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:5, Interesting)
them from changing the spectrum of vision? perhaps adding uv or infrared to the normal visible light
Firstly, such an eye would have very few advantages on a microcamera - in terms of ease of use, it would be much simpler to hide tiny cameras in artificial cavities in someone's body than to do what you're proposing. Furthermore, the nervous system requirements to process the additional information simply are not there (infrared = red and your superspy can't see normal colors? Ooh, sign me up today.)
In order to do what you're proposing, you'd need to take a human eye and genetically modify it so that it could safely detect either infra-red or UV light, problems with that proposal include -
1) The human eye works by converting photons in the visible range into electrical potentials, which then produce nerve impulses. Photons are converted into electrical potentials by chromphores (big, organic molecules with many double bonds.) These chromophores can allready detect UV, but when they do they're destroyed. There's a membrane in the eye that exists purely to screen UV out. So, if you want to be able to see UV, you have to modify all the receptors that are allready in there to resist UV.
2) Genetic modification of these chromophores is exceedingly difficult, since they are not coded for by genes in and of themselves (they are produced by a host of other proteins.) So, you'd need to replace the dozen or so proteins that make a chromophore (in a particular cell, at a particular time) with a dozen or so genes/proteins that make some UV (or IR) sensitive chromophore. Then, you'd need (somehow) to alter all of the proteins that recognised the old chromophore so that they recognise the new chromophore, instead, so that it is properly inserted into the cellular architecture. This sort of technology is, optimistically, a century away, and has many more sinister potential uses than making an organic wide-spectrum camera.
3) It is extremely difficult, using only organic molecules, to distinguish between IR and physical heat. Unlike infrared light, which makes bonds bounce back and forth more quickly (= heat), or ultraviolet light, which cleaves bonds (in addition), visible light has the property of raising the electric potential of "pi" electrons; electrons which participate in a double bond but which are not strictly required for the bond to exist. Note that by this definition "visible" light does extend a little farther in each direction than what we can actually see.
After you've finished your epic feat of genetic and chemical engineering, you need to take your modified cells and insert them into embryos who have had there eyes removed and see if the modified cells still grow into eyeballs. I envy your budget.
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:1)
I do, however agree that modifying our genetic makeup to do this would be dificult at best, impossible at worst.
Pat
Re:fake eyeballs (snakes seeing infrared) (Score:1)
In any case, adding the "pits" that snakes use to sense heat to someone's eyes would be even more difficult.
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:2)
IIRC, there are a number of animals (some snakes come to mind), that already have a sensitivity to infrared. In which case, it's less a matter of having to design from scratch and more an issue of figuring out how nature does it. Hell, maybe we'll just invent a way to successfully graft snake heat receptors. A daunting task, but not so unapproachable.
Of course whether or not it would ever be useful is still questionably, especially if one has to given up some portion of the normal spectrum in exchange.
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:1)
extra-spectrum vision (Score:1)
I agree with you're other points, but not this one. I've read reports of some women having extra green receptors. They don't have extra resolution in their retina, just two sets of green receptors sensitive at different frequencies. This may explain why color blindness is less prevalent in women, if they start out with two and lose one they still can see color about as well as a man.
If you managed to engineer new color receptors that weren't baked by UV and were sensitive from infrared to UV you could have the three RGB's and a UV and infrared. You would have a harder time finding the edge between a green and blue surface at the same brightness but it wouldn't be a handycap since we already have much lower color resolution than brightness res, just look at how JPEG and TV signals are encoded.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is someone out there that can already see well in UV and infrared, there isn't much of an advantage so it won't wipe out our simple RGB eyes in the gene pool. I only discovered I was more sensitive to IR than average because I was getting blinded by the bright IR LEDs that others would only admit to seeing in a dark room. Not much of an advantage in our modern world, and with no extra 'regular red' sensitivity I couldn't really distinguish it from a bright red (it is really red, prolly cuz it's completely undetected by the blue & green receptors.)
Still your other points hold, it's far off. If we can replace a blind newborn's eyes in 20 years with normal eyes that would be fantastic in and of itself.
I'd really love to have 1024 individual sensors for a in-eye spectroscope though. "Johny is that a diamond or cubic zirconia on Sally's finger?" or better yet, "Cmdr. Checkov is that planet M-Class?"
Re:extra-spectrum vision (Score:1)
two and lose one they still can see color about as well as a man.
Color blindness is less prevalent in women because the gene that allows color perception is on the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes - in order for a woman to be color blind both copies of the gene must be "broken". Same story as hemophilia - the gene that causes blood to clot is on the X chromosome, so if a man gets a single broken copy from his Mom, he has the condition.
with no extra
'regular red' sensitivity I couldn't really distinguish it from a bright red (it is really red, prolly cuz it's
completely undetected by the blue & green receptors.)
Okay, the "near IR" that you can see is part of the spectrum that behaves as "visible" light but which our eyes (mostly) cannot detect. Detecting that light, and calling it red, doesn't do much to disturb your color vision, since, most of the time, that extra "color" shows up alongside regular red light and it doesn't do much.
Now, the deep infra-red, the kind that you need to be able to see to have "heat vision" doesn't have this property. You have cone receptors that see this particular color of light. Now, where in the nervous system are you going to attach them? My point is, there isn't a "fourth color" to attach them to - there is a great deal of complicated graymatter involved in vision processing and you can't just add a whole new set of inputs (well, we still don't know much about how it works but it certainly appears you can't.) Imagine, instead of seeing just R, B, G, R+B = V, R+G = O, and G+B = Y, we'd have to have six new secondary colors, hot Red, hot Blue, hot Green, hot Violet etc., as well as a new primary color (hot Black) and the brain just isn't equipped to cope with that.
You can wire them up just as if they were more red cones; so a hot newspaper looks pink. However, at that rate, the person would have a lot of trouble making any sense of what he or she saw.
Re:extra-spectrum vision (Score:1)
You can wire them up just as if they were more red cones; so a hot newspaper looks pink. However, at that rate, the person would have a lot of trouble making any sense of what he or she saw.
But I think you could. They aren't impulse filters. If you wired up the near-IR sensors as red you would be able to distinguish "very red" IR from regular red. Frequencies that are red still have some green response, IR will have much
less if any green response. You could plant
nIR-R-O-G-Y-B-UV
\ |
R - G - B
Something IR or Red has only a red response
Orange has a Red & Green response, etc.
You could also do this
fIR-nIR-R-G-B-UV
\ / \|/ \|/
R - G - B
This might make you red-green colorblind, but maybe just less sensitive to the transition.
After a little combining in the eye you have basically the same inputs to the brain. I don't think this would be needed really, the brain learns to see, if it got a different set of initial inputs it would probably adjust. Just look at the color blind, most don't know they are until they take some test for it. I think the really hard stuff is making IR and UV receptors that work in a mammal.
I agree that we know very little about how the brain actually processes vision. The parts we do know like the edge detecting filters don't need color.
Re:extra-spectrum vision (Score:1)
Re:extra-spectrum vision (Score:1)
Re:fake eyeballs (Score:3, Funny)
For those incapable of recognizing sarcasm, I will give you a clue by indicating that the above paragraph was NOT flamebait or troll, but merely expressing my frustration that anyone could be so fucking stupid as to moderate the parent post as "Insightful."
Re:our basics of body making similar to tadpoles? (Score:1)
Tadpole Haiku (Score:1)
Remove tadpole eye
Try not to drop new one
Tadpole sees perfect
Re:Tadpole Haiku (Score:1)
5 syllables
7 syllables
5 syllables
Of course, tradtional Haiku is also in Japanese, applied to the seasons, whatever. Personally I don't mind as long as it sounds good.
tyrell & green to drop 'green' (Score:3, Funny)
Re:tyrell & green to drop 'green' (Score:1)
"I just do eyes, just eyes." [geocities.com]
Re:tyrell & green to drop 'green' (Score:1)
Re:tyrell & green to drop 'green' (Score:1)
Re:tyrell & green to drop 'green' (Score:1)
(response - "c-c-c-c-cold..."
Oh great... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh great... (Score:1)
Crazy newfangled moms....
name that movie (easy) (Score:1)
"If only you could see...what I've seen with your eyes."
Re:name that movie (easy) (Score:1)
You tadpole, huh? (Score:1, Redundant)
If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes
Problem Solved? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Problem Solved? (Score:1)
I guess, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I guess, (Score:1)
Finally (Score:1)
-- Xenph, "Bionic Eyes" Jan. 2002 [slashdot.org]
Considering the source... (Score:1)
What's next? (Score:2, Informative)
INT. COLD STORAGE ROOM NIGHT
Except for the work table with its sharp gleaming instruments, the room is as barren and sterile as a morgue. The glass-doored apartments in the walls look like crypts. Some of them small as post office boxes. From one of the Chew removes a vacuum, packed box. Carefully separating the seal, he reaches into the purple jell and with a pair of tweezers extracts an eye.
Through the jeweler's glass, which he has not bothered to remove, Chew holds the eye up to the light and studies it a moment. His other hand searches through his pockets.
...
CHEW: I know you. I made your eyes. You are nexus - 6.
ROY: If only you could see what I have seen with your eyes.
The entire original script may be found at http://www.nootrope.net/bladerunner.html [nootrope.net]
Re:What's next? (Score:1)
Great step (Score:4, Informative)
They actually managed to restore the sight of a tadpole which had had its eye surgically removed. The new eye reacted to light a week later. The tadpole was later disected, and the researchers confirmed that the optic nerve had reattached itself.
I am sceptical of this working for more developmentally mature organisms, especially in adult mammals, however. The nerve reattachment is tricky, and there is other stuff besides. Nerve cells need to be trained early in development. There have been experiments on kittens, where one eye is sown shut after birth, and then allowed to open normally several weeks later. The kittens are always blind in that eye. Even if a human adult had sight in childhood, and lost his eyes later, I wonder if the nerve cells could be retrained for newly grown eyes.
Re:Great step (Score:5, Interesting)
As well, even if it were only useful in immature organisms, it could be marvelous for kids who are born blind at birth (obviously in cases where there is simple physical eye damage). Further, my brother has Retinitis Pigmentosa, which is a progressive eye disease where he loses his peripheral vision. He still has fine eyesight in the little field he has; he can read, but is very likely to trip over large objects because he can't see them in his peripheral vision. As he likes to say, "I'll see the penny on the other side of the room; I'll just trip over an elephant I didn't see on the way there." As I understand it, his problem is entirely in his eyeballs; if you could replace them, it would completely solve his problem (until RP showed up in them again 30 years from now, assuming that the cause isn't local to the eyeball).
I do have concerns as well that the eye would be able to hook up. But I think a good analogy might be the cochlear implants for deaf people. They hook up in adults, but the inputs are so different from the natural ones that most adults never learn to integrate the information. However, with a grown eyeball, that shouldn't be a problem - the information should be very similar to what they used to receive.
Still exciting stuff, if only from a biohacking standpoint...
Re:Great step (Score:1)
I was born with improper muscular control over one eye, which meant that I never developed binocular vision. The problem was detected when I was still a very young infant, but the doctor said that it was too late -- they could fix the muscle problem, but the period during which my brain would be able to develop the necessary associated brain-bits (sorry for the technical term) was over.
Sucks, really.
Re:Great step (Score:2)
However, it has led to a weird confluence with his RP - as I decribed earlier, RP causes his vision in each eye to reduce to a pinpoint. Since his brain never really wired up for binocular vision, he doesn't really have the strong lock keeping his eyes looking the same way. As a result - completely unconsciously - his brain is turning one of his eyes OUT. This effectively doubles his field of vision, at no real loss to him (since he can't see depth-of-field anyway). Isn't the brain an amazing thing?
Re:Great step (Score:1)
As it turns out the patient really just had severe cataracts, which were then surgically removed. Bingo, the guy could 'see'!
But he had enormous problems adapting to the new inputs his brain was receiving. He wasn't able to interpret depth very well; moving objects terrified him because he couldn't tell how far away they were. In his life he had adapted completely to being blind, and the operation turned out to be something of a mixed blessing.
Here's an excerpt [oliversacks.com].
As a side note, the book also contains the fascinating story of Temple Grandin, the autistic professor who has huge difficulties with human social interactions but who has made a career out of designing super efficient slaughtering houses that don't panic animals during the process leading up to their deaths.
Re:Great step (Score:2)
Temple Grandin is a very interesting woman, and I keep running across her. I'll much look forward to hearing a complete history of hers; in the past I've only run across her in the types of thumbnail descriptions you used.
Re:Great step (Score:1)
Re:Great step (Score:2)
The brain would probably correlate the signals from the new eye with the signals from the remaining natural eye, and begin to train itself that way. Perhaps even restoring true binocular vision. But only in a few rather limited circumstances.
Having no existing signal to provide such correlation would exclude people totally blind in both eyes.
If sight in both eyes had already begun failing do to a degenerative condition, the new eye would have a degraded signal to correlate against, and would quite possibly retrain to the same degraded standard.
It seems that this would be most useful in cases where a degenerative condition had been diagnosed prior to symptoms becoming too severe. Presumably, the new eye would not suffer from the same degenerative condition, and even though it is retrained to a degraded standard, would not degrade further.
And no, IANAN (neurologist).
Re:Great step (Score:1)
Don't forget about them frying it up and serving it in a French restaurant afterward too....
Re:Great step (Score:2)
That's the understatement of the century.
If you can reattach nerves, you can do much
more than "just" cure blindness.
You'll be able to cure almost all paralysis,
probably brain damage, and even, yes, cure Death,
at least some forms of brain-death.
Ears (Score:2)
Re:Ears (Score:1)
Re:Ears (Score:1)
We're chiefly visual creatures. I'd rather be deaf than blind. Much safer, plus you can drive.
Re:Ears (Score:1)
There are many forms of deafness. It can be a conductive deafness - for example if the bones in your middle ear are broken or ossified. This is similar to but much worse than the way your hearing weakens if you don't pop your ears on a plane descent. This sort of deafness is easy to fix. Often amplifying the sound will help.
Then there is neural deafness, which can be in the cochlea (where the implants help) or directly in the acoustic nerve (such as when a tumour of the nerve - acoustic neuroma - has to be removed. It can also be developmental if you have never heard sounds, although in these people the brain seems to rewire the centres to other language such as signing.
These different forms of deafness will require different treatments.
The new eyeball described here wont help with certain forms blindness. Cortical blindness, due to a stroke of the brain centres processing vision, for example, isn't going to be helped by this.
Michael
Eye Yai Yai (Score:1)
Sorry, couldn't stop the were-cheeser tranformation....
What's up with today? (Score:2)
The things I have seen... (Score:1, Redundant)
(Sorry, it just had to be said.)
And also.... (Score:1)
Stem Cell Restrictions in the Land of Bushy (Score:2)
Re:Stem Cell Restrictions in the Land of Bushy (Score:1)
As long as they don't add those little watermark bugs in the lower right corner I don't think people would mind so much.
You think that NBC logo is annoying now, wait til you have to see it every second of every day.
Re:Stem Cell Restrictions in the Land of Bushy (Score:1)
There is one important distinction between what you imply and the truth With respect to human stem cells research. There is not a restriction on embryonic stem cell research, just a policy not to fund using federal dollars. Since there is not a shortage of biotech research funds in this area, there is not much of an issue in reality.
Choices, Choices (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Choices, Choices (Score:1)
on a sidenote Im going to kill myself if I see another bladerunner-I-made-made-your-eyes reference/joke geez enuff is enuff.
Companion: Artificial Eyelids (Score:4, Interesting)
There are problems beyond the tech, of course. First, I imagine that one might suffer nausea after prolonged use. Second, what would happen when millions of drivers began watching television on their eyelids while driving down the highway, squinting or holding one eye open so they can catch CNN?
Re:Companion: Artificial Eyelids (Score:1)
Re:Companion: Artificial Eyelids (Score:2)
No fun.. (Score:2)
More than four eyes... (Score:2)
Prediction (Score:1)
Can't replace a complete brain at once without losing personality and accumulated knowledge/memories. So replace one piece of brain until completely new brain.
Eyball and bugs (Score:1)
Now (Score:1)
as an x10 -- for security purposes that is.
Great, but... the Japanese? (Score:3, Funny)
~Philly
Wow. Two eye stories on the same day. (Score:2)
Blade Runner baby! (Score:1)
Awesome (Score:1)
Wait, I've seen this before. . . (Score:2)
"I only do eyes. .
Reminds me of Blade Runner (Score:2)
seize the moment! (Score:1)
Chu... (Score:1)
Elgon
who needs god now we could just spawn one of (Score:1)
Blade Runner.. (Score:2)
J.F. Sebastian. He's the one you want....
holy blade runner batman (Score:1)
yeah yeah, go ahead an mod me OT... it's ok, I'll see you coming with the new eyes I just got thru eBay...
Puts a new meaning to... (Score:1)
Sorry. Couldnt Resist.
d00d (Score:1)
Default subject (Score:2)
I see. (*ba dum bum*)
Thank you, thank you, don't forget to tip the bartender.
-Legion
Monty Python's comments: (Score:1)
Horace ate himself one day
He didn't stop to say his grace
He just sat down and ate his face
..."Stop him, someone," Mother cried
"Those eyeballs would be better fried."
And then you wonder why you can't get no dates
Local News (Score:1)
And nearsighted? (Score:1)
Re:This sounds like a huge step... (Score:1)
The problems would still be their we would just be able to give people a replacement. This seems at first like a great thing but what is to stop some one from getting an overhaul every 30 -40 years replace every organ in their body (we've all seen the sci-fi movie where the bad guy takes organs from people he has killed to keep him self alive) but is living forever... or at least until the brain wears out a good thing? Heck why stop their if we could just use some advanced MRI scanner you could image the brain and load it in a computer and interface the computer to the body (or robotic body) and live forever but when in all that mess do i stop being me once i have replaced all my body parts and have an electronic brain (that could be copied for backup incase anything happens to me) is it still me? And what if I copy myself are both of them me? They would think so... I would just point out that starting to replacing bodily organs can/will open up a whole new source of problems
Re:This sounds like a huge step... (Score:2)
I dunno. Lets find out.
Re:Imagine a beowulf cluster of these... (Score:1)