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
By Asetha on 4/10/2012 4:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
'Religious conservatives' seem to be a euphemism for caricatures of people you invent in your head. Apparently you've never read Plantinga, Piper, Aquinas, Craig, Wilberforce etc.

They don't deserve to live huh? Well, start shooting them, then. It's not murder if you kill sub-humans, and sub-humans exist in some countries.

Such as Nazi Germany, you Gestapo swine.


RE: This could have been the US
By antistormtrooper on 4/10/2012 8:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know who they are, but a quick glance at Plantinga (ID supporter LOL) and Aquinas (based his stuff on the Bible, LOL) shows that I am not missing much. Arguments formulated in ields outside of Sciences and Mathematics do not have much pull, and ones based on religious texts are absolutely 100% worthless.

Humanity would be better off if they did not live. However, that doesn't mean I'd do anything about it.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
Considering you are ignorant of both the authors and their works, I suggest you either a) stop talking about things you don't understand, or b) read their works?

Plantinga's naturalism argument goes something like this:

Natural selection selects based on survival, not anything else. This means you should have no reason to believe your own reasoning abilities. The example he uses is a man in the jungle faced with a tiger. The man may believe that tigers should be petted, and the best way of petting a tiger is to run away from it. The man survives and passes on his genes. Nature selected him not for his reasoning abilities but because he survived.

Basically naturalism and evolution are not coherent together.

But since you LOL at the man and not his arguments...I guess you win in your own mind? It's a great way of avoiding a difficult argument, I admit.

Nice support for murder, by the way. You don't look like a freak at all.


RE: This could have been the US
By Asetha on 4/23/2012 1:37:21 AM , Rating: 2
I just noticed you advocated they die but are unwilling to do anything about it.

Why? If you think we are better of without people like them, why not kill them yourself?

Could it be because you know murder is wrong? Who said it's wrong? Can you give me an objective reason why murder is wrong without resorting to an immaterial reason? You said that mathematics and science are all that basically matters. Therefore, if blue is better than green should people with green eyes be killed?

Your statement is nonsensical, I suggest you leave the thinking to those who can.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














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