Regeneration is a trick many animals, including lizards, starfish, and octopuses, have mastered. Axolotls, a salamander species originating in Mexico, can regrow pretty much everything from severed limbs, to eyes and parts of brain, to the spinal cord. Mammals, though, have mostly lost this ability somewhere along their evolutionary path. Regeneration persisted, in a limited number of tissues, in just a few mammalian species like rabbits or goats.
“We were trying to learn how certain animals lost their regeneration capacity during evolution and then put back the responsible gene or pathway to reactivate the regeneration program,” says Wei Wang, a researcher at the National Institute of Biological Sciences in Beijing. Wang’s team has found one of those inactive regeneration genes, activated it, and brought back a limited regeneration ability to mice that did not have it before.
Of mice and bunnies
The idea Wang and his colleagues had was a comparative study of how the wound healing process works in regenerating and non-regenerating mammalian species. They chose rabbits as their regenerating mammals and mice as the non-regenerating species. As the reference organ, the team picked the ear pinna. “We wanted a relatively simple structure that was easy to observe and yet composed of many different cell types,” Wang says. The test involved punching holes in the ear pinna of rabbits and mice and tracking the wound-repairing process.
The healing process began in the same way in rabbits and mice. Within the first few days after the injury, a blastema—a mass of heterogeneous cells—formed at the wound site. “Both rabbits and mice will heal the wounds after a few days,” Wang explains. “But between the 10th and 15th day, you will see the major difference.” In this timeframe, the earhole in rabbits started to become smaller. There were outgrowths above the blastema—the animals were producing more tissue. In mice, on the other hand, the healing process halted completely, leaving a hole in the ear.
Finally, the tellurium meshes, especially the infrared vision capability they offered, were tested on healthy macaques, an animal model that’s much closer to humans than mice. It turned out implanted macaques could perceive infrared light, and their normal vision remained unchanged.
However, there are still a few roadblocks before we go all Cyberpunk with eye implants.
Sensitivity issues
Tellurium meshes, as the Fudan team admits in their paper, are far less sensitive to light than natural photoreceptors, and it’s hard to say if they really are a good candidate for retinal prostheses. The problem with using animal models in vision science is that it’s hard to ask a mouse or a macaque what they actually see with the implants and figure out how the electrical signals from their tellurium meshes are converted into perception in the brain.
Based on the Fudan experiments, we know the implanted animals reacted to light, albeit a bit less effectively than those with healthy vision. We also know they needed an adaptation period; the implanted mice didn’t score their impressive results on their first try. They needed to learn what the sudden signals coming from their eyes meant, just like humans who had used electrode arrays in the past. Finally, shapes in the shape recognition tests were projected with lasers, which makes it difficult to tell how the implant would perform in normal daylight.
There are also risks that come with the implantation procedure itself. The surgery involves making a local retina detachment, followed by a small retinal incision to insert the implant. According to Eduardo Fernández, a Spanish bioengineer who published a commentary to Fudan’s work in Science, doing this in fragile, diseased retinas poses a risk of fibrosis and scarring. Still, Fernández found the Chinese implants “promising.” The Fudan team is currently working on long-term safety assessments of their implants in non-human primates and on improving the coupling between the retina and the implant.
On Tuesday, the team behind the plan to bring mammoth-like animals back to the tundra announced the creation of what it is calling wooly mice, which have long fur reminiscent of the woolly mammoth. The long fur was created through the simultaneous editing of as many as seven genes, all with a known connection to hair growth, color, and/or texture.
But don’t think that this is a sort of mouse-mammoth hybrid. Most of the genetic changes were first identified in mice, not mammoths. So, the focus is on the fact that the team could do simultaneous editing of multiple genes—something that they’ll need to be able to do to get a considerable number of mammoth-like changes into the elephant genome.
Of mice and mammoths
The team at Colossal Biosciences has started a number of de-extinction projects, including the dodo and thylacine, but its flagship project is the mammoth. In all of these cases, the plan is to take stem cells from a closely related species that has not gone extinct, and edit a series of changes based on the corresponding genomes of the deceased species. In the case of the mammoth, that means the elephant.
But the elephant poses a large number of challenges, as the draft paper that describes the new mice acknowledges. “The 22-month gestation period of elephants and their extended reproductive timeline make rapid experimental assessment impractical,” the researchers acknowledge. “Further, ethical considerations regarding the experimental manipulation of elephants, an endangered species with complex social structures and high cognitive capabilities, necessitate alternative approaches for functional testing.”
So, they turned to a species that has been used for genetic experiments for over a century: the mouse. We can do all sorts of genetic manipulations in mice, and have ways of using embryonic stem cells to get those manipulations passed on to a new generation of mice.
For testing purposes, the mouse also has a very significant advantage: mutations that change its fur are easy to spot. Over the century-plus that we’ve been using mice for research, people have noticed and observed a huge variety of mutations that affect their fur, altering color, texture, and length. In many of these cases, the changes in the DNA that cause these changes have been identified.
Logitech CEO Hanneke Faber recently discussed the possibility of one day selling a mouse that customers can use “forever.” The executive said such a mouse isn’t “necessarily super far away” and will rely on software updates, likely delivered through a subscription model.
Speaking on a July 29 episode of The Verge’s Decoder podcast, Faber, who Logitech appointed as CEO in October, said that members of a “Logitech innovation center” showed her “a forever mouse” and compared it to a nice but not “super expensive” watch. She said:
… I’m not planning to throw that watch away ever. So why would I be throwing my mouse or my keyboard away if it’s a fantastic-quality, well-designed, software-enabled mouse? The forever mouse is one of the things that we’d like to get to.
The concept mouse that Faber examined was “a little heavier” than the typical mouse. But what drives its longevity potential for Logitech is the idea of constantly updated software and services.
To be clear, Logitech hasn’t announced concrete plans to release such a product. But Faber seemed optimistic about the idea of a mouse that people never need to replace. The challenge, she admitted, is finding a business model that supports that idea without requiring an exorbitant hardware price. “Our stuff will have to change, but does the hardware have to change?” she asked. “I’m not so sure. We’ll have to obviously fix it and figure out what that business model is. We’re not at the forever mouse today, but I’m intrigued by the thought.”
The price of a “forever mouse”
Speaking with Faber, Decoder host and Verge Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel suggested that a “forever mouse” could cost $200. While that would be expensive compared to the typical mouse, such a product wouldn’t be the first software-heavy, three-figure-price computer mouse. Still, a price tag of around $200 would limit the audience to professionals or enthusiasts.
Faber also said the average price of a mouse or keyboard is $26, though she didn’t cite her source. Logitech is seeking growth by appealing to the many people who don’t own both a mouse and keyboard and by selling more expensive devices. A “forever mouse” could fall under the latter. Alternatively, the price of the mouse’s hardware could be subsidized by subscription payments.
In any case, pushing out software updates would require Logitech to convince its customers to use an app to control their mouse. Such software can offer a lot of programmability and macro support, but the need to constantly run peripheral software could be a nuisance that eats up computer resources. Earlier this year, users complained when Logitech added a ChatGPT launcher to its peripherals.
Mouse subscription
Subscription models have been gaining popularity among business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-consumer (B2C) tech companies because they offer a more reliable, recurring revenue source than hardware sales. When Patel asked Faber if she could “envision a subscription mouse,” she responded, “possibly.”
Faber said subscription software updates would mean that people wouldn’t need to worry about their mouse. The business model is similar to what Logitech already does with video conferencing services (Logitech’s B2B business includes Logitech Select, a subscription service offering things like apps, 24/7 support, and advanced RMA).
Having to pay a regular fee for full use of a peripheral could deter customers, though. HP is trying a similar idea with rentable printers that require a monthly fee. The printers differ from the idea of the forever mouse in that the HP hardware belongs to HP, not the user. However, concerns around tracking and the addition of ongoing expenses are similar.
What about hardware durability?
Logitech’s CEO didn’t discuss what durability features a long-lasting mouse might incorporate. But enabling easier self-repairs and upgrades would be a different approach to a longer-lasting computer mouse that could more directly appeal to users.
Logitech already sells parts for self-repairs of some of its mice and other gadgets through iFixit. This shop could be expanded to feature more parts, offer more guides, and support more products.
A “forever mouse” would also benefit from a design with self-repairability in mind. Features like hot-swappability for mouse button switches for upgrades/repairs; easily replaceable shells, wheels, and feet; detachable cables; and customization options—all accompanied by readily available parts and guides—could go a long way toward making a mouse that fits users’ long-term needs.
During the interview, Faber also discussed Logitech’s goals of doubling its business and cutting its carbon footprint by 50 percent by 2031.
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison squirted raw H5N1-containing milk from infected cows into the throats of anesthetized laboratory mice, finding that the virus caused systemic infections after the mice were observed swallowing the dose. The illnesses began quickly, with symptoms of lethargy and ruffled fur starting on day 1. On day 4, the animals were euthanized to prevent extended suffering. Subsequent analysis found that the mice had high levels of H5N1 bird flu virus in their respiratory tracts, as well their hearts, kidneys, spleens, livers, mammary glands, and brains.
“Collectively, our data indicate that HPAI [Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza] A(H5N1) virus in untreated milk can infect susceptible animals that consume it,” the researchers concluded. The researchers also found that raw milk containing H5N1 can remain infectious for weeks when stored at refrigerator temperatures.
Bird flu has not historically been considered a foodborne pathogen, but prior to the unexpected outbreak of H5N1 in US dairy cows discovered in March, it had never been found at high levels in a food product like milk before. While experts have stepped up warnings against drinking raw milk amid the outbreak, the mouse experiment offers some of the first data on the risks of H5N1 from drinking unpasteurized dairy.
Before the mouse data, numerous reports have noted carnivores falling ill with H5N1 after eating infected wild birds. And a study from March in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases reported that over half of the 24 or so cats on an H5N1-infected dairy farm in Texas died after drinking raw milk from the sick cows. Before their deaths, the cats displayed distressing neurological symptoms, and studies found the virus had invaded their lungs, brains, hearts, and eyes.
While the data cannot definitely determine if humans who drink H5N1-contaminated raw milk will suffer the same fate as the mice and cats, it highlights the very real risk. Still, raw milk enthusiasts have disregarded the concerns. PBS NewsHour reported last week that since March 25, when the H5N1 outbreak in US dairy cows was announced, weekly sales of raw cow’s milk have ticked up 21 percent, to as much as 65 percent compared with the same periods a year ago, according to data shared by market research firm NielsenIQ. Moreover, the founder of California-based Raw Milk Institute, Mark McAfee, told the Los Angeles Times this month that his customers baselessly believe drinking H5N1 will give them immunity to the deadly pathogen.
In normal times, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration strongly discourage drinking raw milk. Without pasteurization, it can easily be contaminated with a wide variety of pathogens, including Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, E. coli, Listeria, Brucella, and Salmonella.
Fortunately, for the bulk of Americans who heed germ theory, pasteurization appears completely effective at deactivating the virus in milk, according to thorough testing by the FDA. Pasteurized milk is considered safe during the outbreak. The US Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, reports finding no H5N1 in retail beef so far and, in laboratory experiments, beef patties purposefully inoculated with H5N1 had no viable virus in them after the patties were cooked to 145°F (medium) or 160°F (well done).
Enlarge/ The Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard is making a comeback.
Microsoft
In April, Microsoft announced that it would stop selling Microsoft-branded computer peripherals. Today, Onward Brands announced that it’s giving those discarded Microsoft-stamped gadgets a second life under new branding. Products like the Microsoft Ergonomic Keyboard will become Incase products with “Designed by Microsoft” branding.
Beyond the computer accessories saying “Designed by Microsoft,” they should be the same keyboards, mice, webcams, headsets, and speakers, Onward, Incase’s parent company, said, per The Verge. Onward said its Incase brand will bring back 23 Microsoft-designed products in 2024 and hopes for availability to start in Q2.
Enlarge/ Some of the Microsoft-designed gear that Incase is relaunching.
Incase also plans to launch an ergonomic keyboard that Microsoft designed but never released. Onward CEO Charlie Tebele told The Verge that there’s “potential” for Incase to release even more designs Microsoft never let us see.
Licensing deal
The return of Microsoft peripheral designs resurrects (albeit in a new form) a line of computer gear started in 1983 when Microsoft released its first mouse, the Microsoft Mouse.
Neither Onward nor Microsoft shared the full terms of their licensing agreement, but Onward claims that Incase will leverage the same supply chain and manufacturing components that Microsoft did, The Verge noted.
“Microsoft will still retain ownership of its designs, so it could potentially bring back classic mice or keyboards itself in the future or continue to renew its license to Incase,” The Verge reported, pointing out that Onward isn’t licensing every single one of Microsoft’s computer peripherals. Some classics, like the Intellimouse or its modern iterations, for example, don’t make the Incase reboot list.
For its part, Microsoft is still “convicted on going under one single” Surface brand, Nancie Gaskill, general manager of Surface, told The Verge.
That said, in Microsoft’s old designs, Incase, whose website is currently filled with backpacks, bags, and laptop and AirPod cases, suddenly finds itself selling keyboards, mice, and other peripherals. Onward’s other brands, Griffin, Incipio, and Survivor, also don’t sell the types of products that Incase is licensing here. If all goes well, Incase could build its own computer accessories portfolio.
Microsoft’s initial departure from Microsoft-brand peripherals meant it would only focus on more expensive, higher-end designs worthy of Surface branding. But that left a gap for the numerous users who felt satisfied with Microsoft’s various designs that were simpler and more affordable. Incase’s venture could help serve those customers, while Microsoft’s legacy with such products can continue without major investment from the tech giant.
Here’s a full list of the Microsoft-designed peripherals that Incase plans to bring back in 2024:
