Prozac found to promote brain plasticity in key cells, reshaping their energy systems

A new study shows that the widely used antidepressant fluoxetine does more than boost serotonin levels: it changes how brain cells manage their energy and rebuild their connections, potentially helping the brain "loosen up" and adapt during depression treatment.

Using cell type–specific transcriptome profiling, researchers found that after two weeks of treatment, a special class of brain cells, called parvalbumin interneurons, which help keep brain activity balanced, became less rigid in the prefrontal cortex. Their mitochondria showed reduced expression of genes linked to energy production, while genes related to plasticity were upregulated.

At the same time, the protective perineuronal nets that normally restrict plasticity weakened. Together, these changes may allow the brain to enter a more plastic, or adaptable, state, though the causal links between them remain to be clarified.

This is important, since depression is linked to overly rigid brain circuits that resist change, and by softening these circuits and altering how their mitochondria function, fluoxetine may create a window of plasticity or flexibility in the brain. The findings also suggest new biological markers, such as mitochondrial changes or weakened perineuronal nets, that could one day guide or improve treatment.

"The findings point to a new understanding of how antidepressants may help people recover: not only by lifting mood, but by giving the brain room to rewire its circuits by altering its energy systems," says Juzoh Umemori.

Fluoxetine is widely sold under the brand name Prozac, but is internationally available under many different brand names.

The book focuses on a group of University of California, Santa Cruz, physics graduate students (known as the Eudaemons) who in the late 1970s and early 1980s designed and employed miniaturized computers, hidden in specially modified platform soled shoes, to help predict the outcome of casino roulette games. The players knew, presumably from the earlier work of Shannon and Thorp,^[1]^[2]^: 43 that by capturing the state of the ball and wheel and taking into account peculiarities of the particular wheels being played they could increase their odds of selecting a winning number to gain a 44 percent advantage over the casinos.^[3]^: 59

Me: is this even remotelypossible? ---> by capturing the state of the ball and wheel and taking into account peculiarities of the particular wheels being played they could increase their odds of selecting a winning number to gain a 44 percent advantage over the casinos

Copilot: It’s not just remotely possible—it was actually attempted, and with some success, though not without serious caveats.

The claim you're referencing comes from the real-life exploits of the Eudaemons, a group of physics grad students at UC Santa Cruz in the late 1970s. They built a wearable computer (hidden in a shoe!) to predict roulette outcomes by measuring the ball and wheel’s motion. According to their own analysis, their algorithm could theoretically flip the house edge—turning a typical 5% casino advantage into a 44% player advantage.

🎯 Is it feasible?

Yes, in theory. Roulette isn’t purely random—especially in physical wheels. If you can:

Measure the initial velocity of the ball and wheel,
Account for wheel imperfections (like slight tilts or biases),
And input that data into a predictive model fast enough…

Then you can narrow down the likely landing zone significantly. Edward Thorp and Claude Shannon laid the groundwork for this in the 1960s.

⚠️ But in practice?

The Eudaemons’ system was fragile and error-prone.
Their shoe computer overheated, malfunctioned, and was hard to operate discreetly.
Casinos eventually upgraded their wheels and surveillance, making such exploits nearly impossible today.

So yes, the physics checks out. But pulling off a 44% edge in a real casino environment? That’s where theory meets the roulette table—and the odds get messy.

Me: Yeah, considering the time frame ---> late 1970s and early 1980s. "Prove me wrong" comes to mind.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.