How does one inject cell therapies/jean hebert's tissue deep into the midbrain without damaging the tissue in between

[especially impt for parkinson’s]

I think one person said "you could replace the brain one column at a time, then have the brain gradually adjust (the brain is remarkably adaptable after local injuries), then remove another column, then do it again. But there’s surgical/logistic risk from doing this too many times.

(it might not work that way bc the horizontal connections still matter). it might be ok for the brain to lose some memory in the process of renewing itself (as long as you maintain continuity of consciousness)

I think someone mentioned deciduous and another mentioned clearpoint

eg

1 Like

(I wish I took better notes at the edge esmeralda neurotech thing, agh, I didn’t take notes via chatgpt as much as I should have)

==

You don’t do this by having cells “travel through” the brain. You do it by putting a very thin delivery cannula directly into the target using stereotactic navigation. The “in between” brain is not untouched, because biology refuses to be neat, but the injury is reduced to a narrow planned track. Tiny surgical vandalism, basically, but with maps. :brain::nut_and_bolt:

For the Parkinson’s/iPSC dopaminergic graft diagram, the real-world version is roughly:

  1. Pre-op imaging maps the route
    MRI, sometimes CT/vascular imaging, is used to plan a trajectory that avoids obvious blood vessels, sulci, ventricles, and functionally important tissue.

  2. Stereotactic navigation locks the coordinates
    Either a frame-based stereotactic system or frameless MRI-guided system is used. In the 2025 Nature bemdaneprocel trial, cells were delivered bilaterally into the post-commissural putamen, using either intraoperative MRI-guided frameless delivery or a frame-based stereotactic approach. (Nature)

  3. A burr hole is made, then a cannula goes through a planned path
    The cannula is narrow. It still displaces and injures tissue along its track, but far less than open surgery would. In the bemdaneprocel trial, they used a modified cannula and made multiple small deposits in each putamen rather than dumping cells in one blob like a deranged pastry chef. (Nature)

  4. Cells are deposited locally
    Dopaminergic progenitors are placed where dopamine input is needed, especially the putamen. They are not expected to wander through the brain to find their destiny like underpaid interns. They survive, mature, extend processes, release dopamine, and integrate locally over time.

  5. Post-op monitoring catches trouble
    MRI follow-up looks for hemorrhage, inflammation, graft overgrowth, tumor formation, edema, or misplacement. Immunosuppression is often used for allogeneic products, because the immune system also enjoys ruining ambitious biomedical projects. BlueRock’s phase 1 bemdaneprocel work used a one-year immunosuppression regimen. (BlueRock Therapeutics LP)

The key point: there is always some track damage, but neurosurgeons try to make it tiny, predictable, and outside critical structures. The trade is: accept a controlled needle/cannula path to reach a deep target that is already part of a severe disease circuit.

On Savanna Biotherapeutics: yes, if by “SMG” you mean their iPSC-derived microglia graft/replacement concept, it is similar in surgical genre but not similar in biological mission. Savanna says its SB-101 program is an iPSC-derived microglia therapy for ALSP, a CSF1R-mutation leukoencephalopathy, delivered by a one-time MRI-guided stereotactic procedure, with microglia intended to engraft, self-renew, and migrate throughout the brain. (BIO International Convention 2026)

So the comparison is:

Feature Parkinson’s dopaminergic graft Savanna SB-101 microglia approach
Cell type Dopaminergic neuron progenitors iPSC-derived microglia
Disease target Parkinson’s disease ALSP / CSF1R-related disease
Main target logic Replace lost dopamine input in putamen Replace dysfunctional brain immune cells
Desired spread Mostly local striatal integration CNS-wide microglial engraftment/migration
Delivery style Stereotactic brain delivery Publicly described as MRI-guided stereotactic delivery

The weird but important difference: dopamine neurons are site-specific wiring therapy, while microglia are migratory resident immune-cell therapy. Dopaminergic cells need to be placed where the dopamine deficit matters. Microglia can, in principle, spread through brain tissue and occupy ecological niches, which is why microglia therapy looks more like “replace the maintenance staff across the whole building” rather than “repair one broken circuit.” Recent iPSC-microglia work supports the idea that engineered iPSC-microglia can engraft and provide broader CNS delivery functions, at least experimentally. (ScienceDirect)

So: yes, Savanna is doing something procedurally adjacent, meaning stereotactic iPSC-derived cell delivery into the CNS. But it is not just Parkinson’s putamen transplantation with a different label. It is more ambitious in distribution, and therefore has a different safety problem: not just “can we place cells without wrecking the path,” but “can we control engraftment, migration, immune behavior, persistence, and long-term phenotype across the brain.” Humanity looked at the immune system inside the skull and said, “what if we swapped parts,” because apparently normal medicine was too relaxing.

2 Likes
1 Like

Dopamine paper
It was inserted by stereotactic neurosurgery, basically the same broad “needle-navigation into a deep brain target” universe as DBS, except instead of implanting an electrode, they injected a living cell suspension. Because apparently “put cells in the basal ganglia with GPS-for-brains” is where medicine is now. :brain::sewing_needle:

The short version

They did bilateral putaminal transplantation:

left putamen injection + right putamen injection

The putamen is deep inside the brain, so they did not open a huge flap and scoop around like medieval raccoons. They used a stereotactic frame/navigation system to guide a thin custom injection needle through planned paths into the putamen.

The Nature paper says the cells were transplanted into the putamen using the iPlan neurosurgical navigation system, with trajectories designed to hit the dorsal and caudal putamen while avoiding sulci and blood vessels. Surgery used a Leksell G stereotactic frame, a custom injection needle, and intraoperative cone-beam CT to confirm injection sites.

Step by step: what likely happened

1. They made the cell product fresh

Before surgery, they produced iPS-cell-derived dopamine progenitor cells. These were enriched using CORIN+ sorting, meaning they selected cells with a developmental marker associated with the ventral midbrain/floor-plate lineage. The final product was “fresh,” not frozen, and had to pass quality-control criteria before transplantation.

So they were not injecting raw iPS cells. Very important. Raw pluripotent cells would be a tumor-risk nightmare. They injected already-patterned dopamine progenitors / young dopamine neurons.

2. They mounted the patient in a stereotactic frame

The paper names the Leksell G frame. That is a rigid skull-mounted coordinate system. Barbaric-looking but extremely useful, because brains are soft wet maps and surgeons prefer not to freestyle their way through the caudate. :world_map:

The frame lets the team translate MRI/CT brain coordinates into real-world needle angles and depths.

3. They planned needle paths into the putamen

They used surgical navigation to plan trajectories into the putamen.

The target was not just “somewhere in the striatum.” They specifically aimed for the dorsal and caudal putamen, which is heavily involved in motor control and strongly affected in Parkinson’s.

They designed the paths to avoid:

sulci = grooves on the brain surface
blood vessels = obvious bad thing to spear
ventricles / risky tissue corridors = also best avoided, shockingly

4. They inserted a custom injection needle

A thin needle/cannula was advanced along each planned trajectory into the putamen.

The paper says they used three trajectories per hemisphere. Since it was bilateral, that means:

3 paths into left putamen
3 paths into right putamen
= 6 total needle trajectories

Each trajectory had four to eight injection deposits, so they distributed cells at multiple points instead of dumping one blob in one place like a confused baker piping frosting into the brain.

5. They injected multiple small deposits of cells

The dose was:

low dose: 2.1–2.6 million cells per hemisphere
high dose: 5.3–5.5 million cells per hemisphere

The methods section says they used 4–8 injections per trajectory, across 3 trajectories per hemisphere, to deliver 2.1–5.5 million cells per putamen.

So per side, roughly:

3 trajectories × 4–8 deposits each
= 12–24 little deposits per putamen

Bilateral total:

24–48 deposits across both putamina

That gives spatial coverage, letting the graft occupy a broader motor putamen region rather than forming one dense lump.

Why multiple tracks and deposits?

Because the putamen is not a tiny dot. It is a 3D structure.

If you inject one big bolus, you risk:

too dense a graft
poor diffusion of nutrients
uneven dopamine restoration
local pressure/injury
bad coverage of the motor territory

Multiple small deposits are trying to create a distributed graft field:

o   o   o
  o   o
o   o   o

Instead of:

      O

That matters because dopamine is a local circuit modulator. You want dopamine-producing cells spread through the motor putamen, not one dopamine meatball sitting in the corner. Biology, tragically, has geometry.

Why the putamen, not the substantia nigra?

Because the original lost neurons live in the substantia nigra, but their axon terminals release dopamine in the putamen/striatum.

To fully rebuild the original system, you would need grafted neurons in the substantia nigra to send long, accurate axons into the putamen. That is much harder.

So the pragmatic hack is:

Do not rebuild the entire nigrostriatal cable.
Put dopamine-producing cells directly at the output terminal zone.

The grafted cells become something like a local dopamine island in the putamen.

Not perfect anatomy. But maybe enough functional dopamine release to help motor circuits.

How they checked placement

They confirmed injection sites during surgery using cone-beam CT with an angiography system.

So the flow was roughly:

pre-op MRI/CT planning
        ↓
stereotactic frame coordinates
        ↓
planned needle trajectories
        ↓
needle insertion
        ↓
intraoperative cone-beam CT confirmation
        ↓
cell deposits
        ↓
serial MRI/PET follow-up

Why “bilateral” matters

Parkinson’s can be asymmetric, but motor circuits exist on both sides. The left putamen influences the right side of the body, and the right putamen influences the left side.

So bilateral transplantation means they treated both sides:

left putamen → helps right-body motor control
right putamen → helps left-body motor control

In the trial, the first participant had the two sides done separately with an 8-month interval for safety. The efficacy group had simultaneous bilateral surgery.

What happens after insertion?

Immediately after injection, the cells are just living grafted progenitors sitting in the putamen. Over months, the hope is:

survive
↓
settle/spread
↓
mature into dopamine neurons
↓
express dopamine machinery, e.g. tyrosine hydroxylase / AADC
↓
take up DOPA
↓
make dopamine
↓
release dopamine locally
↓
improve basal ganglia motor signaling

This is why the 18F-DOPA PET increased later. The grafts were not expected to instantly function like mature adult dopamine neurons the second the needle came out. Cells need time to mature and integrate, because apparently even neurons have onboarding.

The cleanest picture

Imagine the putamen as a long, curved motor-control sponge that lost its dopamine input.

They inserted a needle into several carefully planned deep-brain paths and left little clusters of dopamine-progenitor cells along each path:

LEFT PUTAMEN                     RIGHT PUTAMEN

track 1:  •  •  •  •             track 1:  •  •  •  •
track 2:    •  •  •  •           track 2:    •  •  •  •
track 3:  •  •  •  •  •          track 3:  •  •  •  •  •

Those dots are cell deposits. Over time, they are supposed to mature into dopamine-producing graft tissue.

So “inserted” means:

a stereotactically guided custom injection needle delivered many small deposits of fresh iPS-derived dopamine progenitor cells into both putamina, using 3 planned trajectories per side and 4–8 deposits per trajectory.

Yes, it damages some tissue along the needle path. Not “neuron genocide tunnel through half the brain,” but also not magical phase-shift teleportation. A stereotactic needle physically passes through brain tissue, so some neurons, glia, small axons, capillaries, and extracellular matrix along that narrow track get displaced, compressed, cut, or irritated. Biology remains annoyingly made of matter. :brain::sewing_needle:

The key is that the damage is meant to be small, planned, and clinically tolerable.

In this Kyoto trial, they used a neurosurgical navigation system, a stereotactic frame, and a custom injection needle. The trajectories were planned to target the dorsal/caudal putamen while avoiding sulci and blood vessels, and the injection sites were checked intraoperatively with cone-beam CT. They used three trajectories per hemisphere, with four to eight injections per trajectory, to distribute the cells through the putamen rather than dump one blob in one spot.

So the tradeoff is:

tiny controlled injury from needle tracks
vs
possible restoration of dopamine function in a dopamine-starved motor circuit

What gets damaged “in between”?

The needle has to pass from the skull entry point down to the putamen. Along that path, it may pass through:

cortex

subcortical white matter

deep gray/white matter corridor

putamen target

The immediate local effects can include:

mechanical tissue displacement
micro-tearing of cells/axons
tiny bleeding risk
local edema
reactive astrocytes / microglia
small gliotic scar along the tract

That sounds terrible because brains are precious wet circuitry, but neurosurgery has been doing comparable deep stereotactic routes for DBS, biopsies, ablations, and drug/cell delivery for decades. The whole point of stereotaxy is to make one narrow planned path instead of rummaging around like a raccoon in a filing cabinet.

Why doesn’t this usually ruin function?

Because the path is narrow and deliberately routed away from obvious disaster zones:

avoid major blood vessels

avoid sulci when possible

avoid ventricles or risky cavities when possible

avoid eloquent motor/sensory/language cortex when possible

avoid internal capsule if possible, because cutting motor fibers there would be exceptionally bad

The brain can tolerate very small focal tracks surprisingly well, especially if they avoid compact high-value fiber bundles. But “tolerate” does not mean “zero injury.” It means the injury is usually below the threshold that causes a noticeable neurological deficit.

For comparison, stereotactic brain biopsy, another needle-based deep-brain procedure, is generally considered low risk but not risk-free; the American Association of Neurological Surgeons lists intracranial hemorrhage around 1% and infection below 1% for stereotactic biopsy. That is not the same procedure as cell transplantation, but it gives the right risk category for needle-based stereotactic brain access.

Did the Kyoto patients show damage from the insertion?

In the published trial, no serious adverse events were reported among the seven safety-evaluable patients. The paper reports 73 adverse events total, mostly mild, with one moderate dyskinesia event; the authors say the event spectrum resembled things seen with dopamine medication, tacrolimus, and brain surgery.

For imaging safety, they looked for scary consequences after grafting:

18F-FLT PET → excess proliferation / tumor-like growth
T2 / FLAIR MRI → swelling, lesion, inflammatory-looking damage
18F-GE180 PET → microglial activation / inflammation

They reported no increased 18F-FLT accumulation, no T2/FLAIR hyperintense inflammatory-looking regions, and no appreciable 18F-GE180 uptake around the putamen.

So: the needle tracks almost certainly caused microscopic local injury, but the trial did not show obvious clinically severe injury, tumor-like growth, or imaging-visible inflammation over 24 months.

The cleanest answer

Does it damage neurons in between?

Yes, a little, locally, along each needle trajectory.

Is that the same as destroying the intervening brain?

No. The procedure is designed so the needle path is narrow and avoids high-risk structures.

Could it cause serious harm?

Yes, theoretically: hemorrhage, stroke-like deficit, seizure, infection, edema, misplacement, or injury to important fiber tracts. That is why the planning is so obsessive. Neurosurgeons are many things, but casual is not supposed to be one of them.

Why accept that risk?

Because Parkinson’s already involves major dopamine-system degeneration, and a tiny controlled surgical tract may be worth it if the graft restores useful dopamine function in the putamen. Tiny wound to insert a local dopamine factory. Horrifying and elegant, naturally.

Bemdaneprocel (BRT-DA01) is an investigational stem-cell-derived cell therapy being developed by Bayer and BlueRock Therapeutics to treat Parkinson’s disease. It involves surgically implanting dopamine-producing neuron precursors directly into the brain to potentially replace lost cells, re-form neural networks, and restore motor function. [1, 2, 3]

Probably the Japanese iPSC paper’s method disturbed more total putaminal tissue locally, but not necessarily more “brain damage” in the clinically bad sense. Annoying distinction, but unfortunately the brain is not a spreadsheet with a “damage” column. :brain:

Mechanical track damage: roughly similar

Both approaches used three trajectories per hemisphere/putamen.

For bemdaneprocel / BlueRock / hES-derived cells, they made nine deposits per putamen: three cannula passes, three deposits per pass. The cells were delivered bilaterally through one burr hole per side into the post-commissural putamen. (Nature)

For the Japanese Kyoto iPSC trial, they also used three trajectories per hemisphere, designed to target the dorsal and caudal putamen while avoiding sulci and blood vessels. They used BrainLab iPlan navigation, a Leksell G frame, a custom injection needle, and intraoperative cone-beam CT confirmation. (Nature)

So for the long needle/cannula paths through brain tissue, they are probably in the same ballpark: three tracks per side.

Injection-site disruption: Japanese paper probably more

The Japanese paper used four to eight injections per trajectory, meaning:

3 trajectories × 4–8 injections = 12–24 injection sites per putamen

BlueRock used:

3 trajectories × 3 deposits = 9 deposits per putamen

So the Kyoto/iPSC method likely created more individual deposit sites inside the putamen. It also used a higher cell number: 2.1–5.5 million cells per putamen, versus BlueRock’s 0.9–2.7 million cells per putamen. (Nature)

So if by “damage” you mean number of local tissue-disturbance points, the Japanese method probably caused more local micro-disruption.

But clinically, it did not look more damaging in the trial

The Kyoto trial reported no serious adverse events, no graft overgrowth, no apparent inflammation around the putamen by MRI/FLAIR or GE180 PET, and no graft-induced dyskinesias. (Nature)

BlueRock also looked reassuring: no tumors, abnormal tissue overgrowth, intracerebral hemorrhage, or serious adverse events attributed to the cells/immunosuppression; there was one seizure within 24 hours attributed to surgery. (Nature)

So the real comparison is:

Damage type BlueRock bemdaneprocel Japanese iPSC
Trajectories per putamen 3 3
Deposits/injections per putamen 9 12–24
Cells per putamen 0.9–2.7 million 2.1–5.5 million
Likely local deposit disturbance Lower Higher
Reported serious surgical/cell harm 1 surgery-attributed seizure; no hemorrhage/tumor no serious adverse events
Clear evidence of worse brain damage? No No

My read: Japanese method probably pokes/distributes more within the putamen, but it does not clearly damage more brain along the route, because both used three main trajectories per hemisphere. The “extra” impact is mostly within the target putamen, where they intentionally want broader graft spread. Tiny brutalist garden installation, but with dopamine cells. :seedling:

The big caveat: the papers don’t give a clean apples-to-apples “lesion volume from surgery” comparison. Without cannula/needle diameter, injected volume per deposit, infusion pressure, and post-op tract imaging quantified the same way, you can only infer. But from the procedure descriptions alone: Kyoto = more deposit sites and more cells; BlueRock = fewer deposits and fewer cells.