Neuronal Regeneration in Vivo

[barbitu8]

My brother recently underwent a liver transplant. He lives a thousand miles away, but reports from relatives is that he has some memory loss and right-sided weakness. He had a difficult operation and spent time in rehabilitation. It appears he had a stroke during the operation.

I understand that the operation in using an artificial heart and lung machine can induce a microemoblism that can produce a stroke. I've also read that as scientists acquire more knowledge about neurons, they are able to produce neuronal regeneration in vitro. My question is does this occur naturally? It has been standard wisdom that neurons don't regenerate. Has that changed? I understand that even if they don't, there is some plasticity even in mature and older adults, which allow for new axonal and synaptical connections, compensating fof the lost neurons, so that improvement is possible even without new neurons.

As an aside, unfortunately, the hapatitis C is now attacking his new liver and there's nothing to be done about that since any infection-fighting chemicals would also destroy his alien liver. I would think, however, that that would not be a problem for another 15 years or so, or am I wrong. I mentioned that to my brother (the time factor), but he said that the virus is [i] attacking [/i[ his liver, indicating his liver may be destroyed (again) in a much shorter time. Any info here?

[Smeghead]

I'm going off the top of my head here, but I vaguely remember reading something about this a few months back. I have no idea where. I believe evidence has been uncovered fairly recently that the conventional wisdom of non-dividing neurons in adults is wrong; that they do, in fact, regenerate at some rate naturally.

Gosh, that was precise, no?

[KarlGauss]

Originally posted by barbitu8
the hapatitis C is now attacking his new liver and there's nothing to be done about that since any infection-fighting chemicals would also destroy his alien liver. I would think, however, that that would not be a problem for another 15 years or so, or am I wrong. I mentioned that to my brother (the time factor), but he said that the virus is attacking his liver, indicating his liver may be destroyed (again) in a much shorter time. Any info here?

I am neither an infectious diseases nor transplant specialist. So caveat barbitu8.

Recurrence of Hep C post transplant is common. In the middle of this article (http://www.med.stanford.edu/shs/txp/livertxp/outpatient.management/management.html#management2) (under the heading of "Chronic Hepatitis C") from an apparently reputable source, it seems to imply that there's no great urgency in treating the recurrent Hep C infection in order to save the transplanted liver.

The treatment that's often used to treat Hep C (i.e. interferon) stimulates the immune system. So, its use in a patient with a transplanted liver is theoretically risky because it could cause sufficient immune stimulation to lead to rejection of the transplanted liver (note that immunosuppression is the usual standard, default treatment in any transplant patient). That being said, this short blurb (http://www.adis.com/advances_hepc/issue_02/interhep.html), also from an apparently reliable source, would suggest that's too much of a worry.

[barbitu8]

Thanks KarlGauss for the links on the reinfection. That was my biggest concern, of course, and your links have alleviated it somewhat.