backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by Asetha.. on Apr 23 at 1:37 AM


David Fluri  (Source: daylife.com)
The new suspension method allows stem cells to be collected in larger numbers instead of being scraped off of a surface

Researchers from the University of Toronto's Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering (IBBME) have created a new method for growing stem cells in larger quantities.

David Fluri, a postdoctoral researcher at IBBME, and Peter Zandstra, a professor at IBBME, have developed a new suspension method for growing stem cells, which allows for the collection of greater numbers of stem cells and increases the chance of obtaining viable cells in a cost-effective way.

Traditionally, stem cells are grown on surfaces that need to be scraped and are then differentiated from other kinds of cells to avoid cell death. However, this method doesn't produce enough viable stem cells from each culture, and the high cost to use this method doesn't match the results.

But now, Fluri and Zandstra have combined the stem cell creation process with a bioreactor, which provides stable environments for such processes. The cells were also grown in suspension, making the process more stable and safer for more viable cells.

By doing this, mouse cells were reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells, which can become any kind of cell. They were then changed into cardiac cells.

Fluri and Zandstra hope that this new technique can be used to eventually treat heart disease. It is designed to work with large scale processes and provide the quantity needed for successful stem cell research and drug development.

"This is an enabling technology," said Zandstra. "It takes something we showed we could do before at low efficiency but not at such numbers that could be used in manufacturing."

Source: Eurekalert



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This could have been the US
RE: This could have been the US
By corduroygt on 4/10/2012 12:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
LOL @ your links from the stormtroopers' websites.


RE: This could have been the US
By Mint on 4/10/2012 8:14:37 AM , Rating: 1
Note that corduroygt's link is about SPENDING, while your links are about DEFICIT.

Now, how is it possible that both sets of numbers are true? Well, it's very easy for deficit to go up while spending goes down: just reduce tax revenue.

Maybe you tools should stop blindly listening to lies from conservative politicians and media and examine the data yourselves. If you did, you'd realize that Obama has increased spending far less than Republican presidents, and the deficit problem is entirely due to tax revenue reduction. That's why all the DT repubs point their finger at things like the DOE energy grants, which amount to 0.03% of the economy during Obama's tenure, because the reality is that there's barely been any spending increase since Obama took office. Raw numbers:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GCEC96...

From corduroy's link:
Clinton is the most austere, followed by Obama. The most spendthrift are (1) Nixon-Ford, (2) Reagan, and (3) Bush II.

Comparison of Obama and Reagan:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/real-g...
At this point in the Reagan recovery government spending had risen 11.6 percent; this time around it’s actually down by 2.6 percent. So if we had followed the Reagan track, spending would be almost 15 percent higher.


RE: This could have been the US
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2012 9:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
Mint what the hell are you talking about? There is simply nothing that backs your claim up that Republican Presidents spend more than Obama. Even at the height of the Iraq War, the federal budget wasn't this high.

Cords link was about spending per capita. Which, of course, doesn't even begin to tell the whole story about our economy and federal budget. Frankly it's cherry picking.

Obama proposed a budget that was so ridiculous (it would have added $12 trillion to the debt) that not even ONE DEMOCRATS would vote for it. It failed 97-0 in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Raw numbers? Obama is now responsible for $6.2 trillion in debt in less than one term; versus George Bush whom Obama demonized for being responsible for $4 trillion over EIGHT FULL YEARS.

You cannot explain all this away from "reduced tax revenues". And of course tax revenues are down, because of Obama's policies we have MILLIONS of people out of work. The economy is being shackled by unprecedented Government spending and public debt.

The Government doesn't have money. Whenever the size and budget of the Government increases, it does so by directly reducing the private sector. Until you and your leftist friends understand this very simple concept, you'll always be on the wrong side of these debates.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki