Maybe I am completely off track, but you don't need radioactive marker molecules if you go for two-photon imaging, you need fluorescent markers.
Also, it is sad to see that even today, every publication in the neurobiology field has to mention Alzheimer's. It's about finding how the brain works, and if it is applicable to Alzheimer's, then great, but at the current state, this is a very long shot.
I think the connection is made to Alzheimers because ... there might be a connection.
Like they say right there in the article, one of the waste products is amyloid. Given amyloid buildup is pretty much what we consider Alzheimers to be, I don't see why it's ridiculous to pencil in an arrow here.
I mean if some people's bathtubs were overflowing and scientists had just discovered how drains work, don't you think it would be reasonable to speculate on a connection?
It's also an extremely important medical condition to treat. If you show promise of a breakthrough in treating Alzheimer's, you can save hundreds of thousands of minds every single year. With the upcoming wave of elderly in the US, the cost of untreated Alzheimer's is predicted to skyrocket.
Last I checked, it wasn't clear whether the amyloid plaque buildup was a cause or side effect of Alzheimer's. Has the understanding of this changed in the past four years?
>I mean if some people's bathtubs were overflowing and scientists had just discovered how drains work, don't you think it would be reasonable to speculate on a connection?
True, but
1) I have worked in the field 15 years ago and we made a connection with Alzheimer's in every grant proposal because the disease was (is?) badly understood and is really scary. We never even cared about the possibility of whether our research indeed could be applied to A., but it was a great way to get funded
2) Brains lacking those channels have a lower amyloid clearing rate. Alzheimer's brains have a higher rate of amyloid. There is no reason to believe that the first leads to the second.
3) Brains are no bathtubs. Seriously.
This is interesting research on its own, no need to spice it up by the default A. reference.
Is it spicing it up or is it making science relevant for people who might not otherwise be interested? Someone who knows someone with Alzheimer's may take more interest - that's not a bad thing.
Also, it is sad to see that even today, every publication in the neurobiology field has to mention Alzheimer's. It's about finding how the brain works, and if it is applicable to Alzheimer's, then great, but at the current state, this is a very long shot.