[Link] Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans worms

Rangi

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2014.1636

This is a paper published in 2014 by Natasha Vita-More and Daniel Barranco, both associated with the Alcor Research Center (ARC).

The abstract:

Can memory be retained after cryopreservation? Our research has attempted to answer this long-standing question by using the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a well-known model organism for biological research that has generated revolutionary findings but has not been tested for memory retention after cryopreservation. Our study’s goal was to test C. elegans’ memory recall after vitrification and reviving. Using a method of sensory imprinting in the young C. elegans we establish that learning acquired through olfactory cues shapes the animal’s behavior and the learning is retained at the adult stage after vitrification. Our research method included olfactory imprinting with the chemical benzaldehyde (C₆H₅CHO) for phase-sense olfactory imprinting at the L1 stage, the fast cooling SafeSpeed method for vitrification at the L2 stage, reviving, and a chemotaxis assay for testing memory retention of learning at the adult stage. Our results in testing memory retention after cryopreservation show that the mechanisms that regulate the odorant imprinting (a form of long-term memory) in C. elegans have not been modified by the process of vitrification or by slow freezing.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdf/10.1089/rej.2014.1636

This is a paper published in 2014 by Natasha Vita-More and Daniel Barranco, both associated with the Alcor Research Center (ARC).

The abstract:

Can memory be retained after cryopreservation? Our research has attempted to answer this long-standing question by using the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), a well-known model organism for biological research that has generated revolutionary findings but has not been tested for memory retention after cryopreservation. Our study’s goal was to test C. elegans’ memory recall after vitrification and reviving. Using a method of sensory imprinting in the young C. elegans we establish that learning acquired through olfactory cues shapes the animal’s behavior and the learning is retained at the adult stage after vitrification. Our research method included olfactory imprinting with the chemical benzaldehyde (C₆H₅CHO) for phase-sense olfactory imprinting at the L1 stage, the fast cooling SafeSpeed method for vitrification at the L2 stage, reviving, and a chemotaxis assay for testing memory retention of learning at the adult stage. Our results in testing memory retention after cryopreservation show that the mechanisms that regulate the odorant imprinting (a form of long-term memory) in C. elegans have not been modified by the process of vitrification or by slow freezing.

I don't see how experiments on worms would have anything to do with it.

Now you are playing dumb. We are talking about chilling effects, and there are not that many cryobiologists (or cryonicists, for that matter). Everyone has gotten the message sent by the ban.

Oh you're right. And in the related news, global warming doesn't exist, evolution is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, etc...

What on earth are you talking about? The ban is right there in the bylaws. I don't need to misinterpret any hacked emails to talk about it or make up data like Wakefield did and the anti-vaxers do. You seem to be blinded by the phrase 'conspiracy theory'. Small groups organize all the time to promote or criticize particular theories in science, and even you admit the existence of the ban and hostility to cryonics; to paraphrase Patrick Henry, if that be conspiracy theorizing, make the most of it!

The ban's obvious rationale is that cryobiologists believe that cryonics is a pseudo-scientific practice and they don't want the reputation of their field to be tarnished by association with cryonics. You seem to claim that the ban is a matter of personal or tribal hatred

A lot of people do have very emotional reactions to cryonics, but I don't need to prove it's personal or tribal hatred, just point out that any papers to do with cryonics are not going to be treated the same. Whether the peer reviewer believes cryonics is absurd and the work must be wrong and is just searching for an excuse to reject it, or whether they personally hate Mike Darwin because he said something mean to them 40 years ago, doesn't make a difference.

As I said, this is a very serious allegation and it should be backed by evidence.

Please see the citations about the many serious flaws which have been demonstrated in peer review. Bias is the default. If you believe that peer reviews of cryonics papers will be shining exceptions, that should be backed by evidence because that would be a truly remarkable and extraordinary claim.

Dismissing the lack of scientific publications in favor for your pet position by accusing mainstream scientists of being biased is an overly general argument

That they are biased is not in question. The difference is that things like anti-vaxers have been disproven time and again and often to be based on fraud or deception, and have no experimental evidence and are not simple extrapolations of current theories, whereas cryonics, while still unproven and highly speculative, is none of those. There's a difference between proto and pseudo science.

The ban is right there in the bylaws.

Again, the bylaws bans members of the Society for Cryobiology from practicing or endorsing cryonics, it does not mandate them to sabotage the publication of research by cryonicists. One thing does not necessarily imply the other.
The former is an unusual, perhaps controversial, but IMHO understandable rule that does not constitute professional impropriety, the latter would be a gross breach of scientific ethics. If you want to claim that cryobiologists are doing the latter anyway, then you need evidence.

just point

... (read more)

35

[Link] Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans worms

35

35

35

[Link] Persistence of Long-Term Memory in Vitrified and Revived C. elegans worms

35

35