One of the experiments I’ve been working to implement is designing an inexpensive focused ultra sound helmet which can both image and target specific structures in the brain. The construct was that I was going to try to split the groups into generic targets based on morphology of the various structures and test stimulation vs. no stimulation across the structures and try to build a new network centric based map of function.
The problem I’m having is that even if this works out really high efficacy behavioral/functional modification paths, it still doesn’t answer the why questions at all. Over the last few months it’s becoming more apparent that the mechanic which enables neurostimulation as a whole is that they modify RNA methylation rates, which in turn modify peptide exchange rates. While this kind of specificity is great as it’s fairly easy to disprove, doing so requires invasive measures (particularly blood work) and cranks up the cost/complexity of all this to answer the question I really wanted to answer.
Is there something I’m missing which could provide a non invasive mechanic to verify (not correlate) that methylation rates are being modified? Even if I was willing to do the blood work, I’d still need a pretty beefy spectrometer setup or reaction series to discern particle densities. I’m obsessed with the why because the why will allow creating a formulaic understanding that’s generalizable in nearly all conditions rather than the hunt and peck approach which will take much longer to determine the properties across the full range of human constructions. I’d really like to avoid the mixed/poor efficacy of current stimulation techniques which work when they work, but usually don’t.
Any suggestions on how to do this without blood?