backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by ConcernedCalif.. on May 10 at 4:17 PM
Mouse skin cells were turned into cardiac cells needed for heart repair

Around the country, researchers are pouring massive amounts of time and money into stem cell research and how the research can be applied to treating disease and other conditions in the human body. A couple problems exist with some methods of getting the stem cells needed for the research. One problem is that the best source of embryonic stem cells are from human fetuses and the second is that stem cells from other donors still pose a risk of rejection by the patient.

Stem cell researchers from UCLA announced that they have been able to create a type of stem cell directly from the donor in animal trials. The researchers were able to take skin cells from a mouse and reprogram the cells to have similar properties to embryonic stem cells.

The cells used are called induced pluripotent stem cells or iPS cells. The study findings show that the researchers were able to differentiate the iPS cells into the three types of cardiovascular cells needed to repair the heart and blood vessels.

Dr. Robb MacLellan said in a statement, “The discovery could one day lead to clinical trials of new treatments for people who suffer heart attacks, have atherosclerosis or are in heart failure.” MacLellan is a researcher at the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Research at UCLA and senior study author.

MacLellan continued, “I believe iPS cells address many of the shortcomings of human embryonic stem cells and are the future of regenerative medicine.”

The researchers point out that while iPS cells are believed to be similar to embryonic stem cells; further study needs to be done to confirm the differentiation potential. Dr. Miodrag Stojkovic, co-author of Stem Cells says, “Theoretically, iPS cells are able to differentiate into 220 different cells types. For the first time, scientists from UCLA were able to induce the differentiation of mouse iPS cells into functional heart cells."

The study researchers cultured the iPS cells on a protein matrix known to direct embryonic stem cells into differentiating into cardiovascular progenitor cells. This type of cell is an immature heat cell that can become heart cells that perform different functions.

The researchers then isolated the iPS cells that differentiated into the cardiovascular progenitor cells with a protein marker called KDR. Once the cells were isolated they were coaxed into becoming mature heart cells that control heartbeat called cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells and vascular smooth muscle cells. Once matured the cardiomyocytes beat in the petri dish.

MacLellan concluded by saying, “Our hope is that, based on this work in mice, we can show that similar cardiovascular progenitor cells can be found in human iPS cells and, using a similar strategy, that we can isolate the progenitor cells and differentiate them into the cells types found in the human heart.”

In April DailyTech reported that the U.S. Army was conducting similar research into using a patient’s cellular structure to grow replacement body parts like ears and fingers.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Religious right, get over it
By Adonlude on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 2:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I am going to laugh when other countries get miles ahead of the US in stem cell research just because of the limitations you have mentioned. Its not like the US is the only nation with the technology, so whether you guys like it or not, it looks like its going to happen, not that I care, more pie for the rest of us ;)


RE: Religious right, get over it
By geddarkstorm on 5/5/2008 2:36:07 PM , Rating: 5
From the same article:

quote:
When embryonic stem cells are injected directly into the heart in animal models, they create tumors because the cells differentiate not only into cardiac cells but into other cells found in the human body as well. Likewise, using embryonic stem cells garnered from other sources than the patient could result in rejection of the injected cells.

The use of iPS cells may solve those problems. If the iPS cells come from the patient, rejection should not be an issue. Additionally, the use of cells that are already partially transformed into specific cardiac cell types may prevent tumor growth. The use of iPS cells also sidesteps the controversy some associate with deriving pluripotent stem cells from embryos or eggs, MacLellan said.


Embryonic stem cells are not the most promising biologically for medicinal purposes, though interesting for developmental biology and pattern formation. On the medical front, iPS are far more powerful as they circumvent the glaring faults of embryonic stem cells for that use.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By wordsworm on 5/5/2008 8:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you been? There are clinics in Thailand that will inject you with embryonic stem cells. They had a Discovery special on the subject. These are just some of the things I remember: eye sight was given to someone who was previously blind; a man who was a quadriplegic got the use of his hands, and was working on getting his legs back. Those are only the two I remember. They just injected the stem cells right into the area which then figured out what was needed and corrected the problem. That's downright miraculous.

For correcting vision problems, laser surgery sucks. It corrects one problem and another arises. I'm hoping that in the next 5-10 years I'll have enough money and the procedure itself will be cheaper so that I can get stem cells in my eyes. They also suggest that they could be used to grow new teeth. Might as well pull teeth rather than having a dentist give me fillings and caps, followed by the insertion of stem cells which would grow into new teeth.

If only they could make someone younger.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 8:03:44 AM , Rating: 3
Oh well yes if it’s in a Discovery special then it must be true...

I used to feel cable channels like Discovery and the history channel would be a way of melding education with entertainment; but they have become more tabloid the education.

Simple FACT: it’s no where near the time to use embryonic stem cells for clinical applications. As someone who has worked in this area for the past decade I assure you that. Even in the heart, the data from the largest heart stem cell study to date showed no advantage after 5 years from the control groups. The early data was promising but it looks like the additional cells just stimulated marginal additional vascular growth, it has some promise but at the current stage it will not be a simple quick cure. You can find places that will inject you with just about anything, and smear you with things like monkey placenta; that does not mean it’s safe or effective. I did not see the special you mentioned but either the Discovery crew was duped or your memory of what was actually said is faulty. Like the article stated embryonic stem cells have promiscuous differentiation, can cause tumors and do present rejection problems, NO ONE to date has overcome this. If you do save your pennies for an ocular treatment also invest in a Braille keyboard or some good speech to text software. Suggesting stem cell therapy in place of Lasik is simply nonsense. Lasik works somewhat for most; it is simply difficult to carve the cornea to compensate for a hardening of the lens. You are just making a permanent contact lens (which cannot be adjusted). The lens will continue to harden with age and stem cells simply cannot fix existing tissue. They MAY, eventually allow re-growth of the cornea for new surgery but that’s a way off, and as for producing a new lens well that still more science fiction than science at this point in time.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By wordsworm on 5/6/2008 9:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh well yes if it’s in a Discovery special then it must be true...


You know, for someone who portends to be educated, you seem to make no effort at all to research our contending opinions. A simple search online shows results which confirm what the Discovery program purveyed. Using the following search criteria via Google, "stem cell therapy for eyes." Here's a few links: http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002392.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6721685.stm
http://www.esf.org/media-centre/press-releases/ext...

Simple FACT: doctors in the US have been slowed down by US legislation. Regardless of whether or not this is good on a moral stance is an argument I'm not prepared to make. In fact, as time is showing, it's allowing researchers to discover new ways of getting cells to do what they wish.

As far as stem cells causing cancer is concerned:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...

As someone who has worked in this area for the past decade, you seem quite out of touch with current events. Perhaps you should read less fiction and watch more Discovery.

Stem cell therapy has the potential to be far better than laser surgery. That's a FACT. Growing the cornea so that it is complete rather than deforming it is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

In any case, before you dispute what another person says you perhaps ought to look around to see if there's something to it.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 10:43:27 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
As far as stem cells causing cancer is concerned:http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art...


First off you clearly do not understand what you are talking about, I NEVER said stem cells cause cancer, I SAID embryonic stem cells can cause cancer (see the difference). Now READ YOUR OWN REFFERENCE. They are addressing the issue that the current iPS cells require Myc (an oncogene) to continue to proliferate. Also most critical stem cell genes can act as oncogenes it simply a matter of the extracellular milieu. The group your reference points to is trying to use retrovirus constructs to overcome these limitations. These are NOT embryonic stem cells; there are NO federal restrictions on this type of research PEROID.

Again in your "quick search" you totally misrepresented my point. The cornea is a modified epithelium like your skin. It has the ability to grow and repair itself. When the area between the cornea and the sclera (called the limbus) is damaged corneal transplants fail. What the group in question did was a simple graft taking healthy SOMATIC cells from the healthy eye and transplanted them to the damaged one. Yes this uses "stem cells" but it is a far cry from restoring sight to the blind.

In many ways the slow down has benefited the scientific community. First off the animal work was and in many ways is still in its early stages, there was never the need to rush into human embryonic stem cell work (except for the glory). Do you realize dozens of people died one French cardiac stem cell trial with severe arrhythmias? The trials had to be stopped and now the patients are worse off than before and there was simply no reason to rush into them except for the glory (which almost NEVER results in good science). Similar "trials" are under way in South America where the rules are lighter; is this your idea of good science? These new protocols have promise (I would not be working in this field if I did not believe in them). My information comes from scientific journals not web press, I referee papers and grants, I assure you I am up to date. While I appreciate the interest the mass media has for emerging technologies its coverage is spotty at best. Many of my colleagues are grossly misquoted (believe me I call them when I read some of the loose quotes attributed to them, they are more often than not shocked that 2/3 of their quote is left off). This simply does not serve the public interest. Awareness is important, making it "sexy" and out right misleading to boost readership is bad, pure and simple.
The large number of people writing for grants has quite simply hurt research. Work is being published which never would have seen the light of day due to gross oversights, poor design, no replication ect. Our volume is increasing but the quality is diminishing. There is a rush to be first, more and more papers come out which cannot be duplicated and nothing else is published as follow up even from the authors. This drowns the fields and just confuses things. Public misconceptions about where we are and what is or is not allowable does not help; that is why I try to limit the over enthusiasm posts like your provoke.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/6/2008 2:28:17 PM , Rating: 2
Having re-read my reply I realize it was a bit harsh in places. I apologize if it seemed like a personal attack, it was not meant to be, it has been a tough day. I guess I am seeing too many good basic grants (I’ll admit my own included) getting triaged for more "sexier" work and receiving comments like why don't you use human es cells? Genetics, pure and simple I cannot seem to get across you cannot make sense of a complex system by using another complex system.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/7/2008 8:06:05 AM , Rating: 3
Although I should have said this sooner; the title of this article demonstrates one of my points above. Robb MacLellan did not create induced pluripotent stem cells, and he would never state that. Maybe the author of the blog did not mean to imply this but the title does. The credit goes to Drs. Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka at the Institute for Frontier Medical Sciences, Kyoto University and the Japan Science and Technology Agency in 2006. It may not be important to most but it is important to those of us in the field to have credit given where it is due..


RE: Religious right, get over it
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
A german researcher at UCLA was also involved in the original research. I don't recall her name, but lets not leave her out.


By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/7/2008 1:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Her name is Kathrin Plath....I couldn't leave it alone so I looked it up ;)


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/8/2008 9:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
I was certainly not trying to leave her out, merely referring to what I believe (from talking with Rudy J) was the first paper about IPS published in Cell 2006 (Takahashi & Yamanaka).


RE: Religious right, get over it
By ConcernedCalifornian on 5/8/2008 1:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
AAh...when I google this work. I get the people you mentioned and Plath in some of the older links.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By tmouse on 5/9/2008 8:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
I was using pubmed to look for the actual publications. Kathrin Plath (has done and still does)important work but I believe she was still working with Rudy when this paper came out.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 2:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
Pagan Left, stop being jerks! </tongue-cheek>

As part of the "religious right", I fully endorse stem cell research - just not at the expense of life. Science is proving that we don't need to kill unborn babies to obtain stem cells, so I see no dilema with this research or the advancements in medicine it brings.

Don't buy into the lie that religion or conservatism is holding back progress. Abortion isn't progress, stem-cell research is. Don't combine them and there won't be a problem.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By aegisofrime on 5/5/2008 3:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I will be flogging the dead horse again, but I have to say it.

In Vitro fertility treatments routinely create embryos that are either frozen, or destroyed. Instead of letting them go to waste they can be used for Embryonic stem cell research.

We do not need to kill unborn babies to obtain stem cells, so that pro-life argument is moot, unless you want to ban in vitro fertilization, which is basically contradictory to the whole pro-life thing anyway.


RE: Religious right, get over it
By mikefarinha on 5/5/2008 4:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure of the point you are making.

People that are pro-life are against the destruction of human life after the stage of conception.

It seems that you are trying to imply that pro-lifers are not against IVF. Pro-Lifer's are in-fact are against in vitro fertilization for the very reason you state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF#Religious_objecti...