Fair overview. This is not a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. It is a quantitative question at three levels:
1. What brain regions and neuron types?
2. What is the precise gain or turn-over of numbers of neurons per year?
3. What rates of change per year per type per brain region?
For humans we have essentially no hard data with which to address these three questions for structure or neuron type. Sadly this is also true for mouse with still shaky exception of the dentate gyrus and rostral migratory stream of one strain of mouse—C57BL/6J.
I still regard Pasko Rakic’s work as definitive—that in adult rhesus monkey females injected 4 to 6 times over several years with high levels of tritiated thymidine there is no evidence of adult neurogenesis in any brain region. Sure: proving the negative is a bitch, but these studies place a very low limit on levels of adult neurogenesis in primates—even in hippocampus. Meaninglessly low levels. And I have scanned this collection with Rakic.
The end of this review is on-the-mark: There are still very good reasons to be enthused about the POTENTIAL of adult neurogenesis. Being able to induce useful levels of adult neurogenesis would be a game changer. But reality and potential are different beasts.
I think this is probably right, dentate gyrus aside. Just flipping through the most recent publications, found this one: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ana.27181
I'm curious if the body breaks down dead neuron cells in the central nervous system. There needs to be space for neurogenesis. For instance, the spinal cord can only be so large, constrained by the spinal column. If there's not enough fluid between the nerves a stricture can occur.
Yes it does—a process called apoptosis that is a “clean” way for a cell to die.
A follow up question(s) that occurs to me are: “Do neurons die?”
What is the lifecycle of a neuron? Does it get replaced? Will a neuron, whose connections to the broader brain decayed or otherwise went away, continue to “live”?
I’ll go ask ChatGPT, but spare this rigorous community the unreliable answers to my passive interest.
So without sharing what ChatGPT said, I will say that assuming it is correct it makes a lot of sense on this topic alone why individuals engaged in lifelong learning live longer and are less prone to Alzheimers.
In what sense could adult neurogenesis be useful? Stroke recovery? What about for "normal" people? And as opposed to just brain changes from traditional neuroplasticity?
Inducing regrowth of some cells could be a cure for parkinsons, for example.
CTE is cumulative. It adds over time, like hearing loss.