Slashdot Log In
Bone Marrow Cells Repair Heart
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Jul 04, 2006 03:32 PM
from the heavy-hearted dept.
from the heavy-hearted dept.
Science Daily is reporting that Toronto researchers have discovered a method to utilize bone marrow cells in the repair of a damaged heart after a heart attack. From the article: "While it has long been known that bone marrow cells have the ability to clear the dead tissue after a heart attack, what has not been known until now is the critically important role of bone marrow adult stem cells in repairing a damaged heart, restoring its function and enhancing the growth of new blood vessels."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It can fix a damaged heart (Score:5, Funny)
Until then, you're not off the hook!
Re:It can fix a damaged heart (Score:3, Funny)
Way to go Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
And not to start a religious flame war, I noticed that despite their research revolving exclusively around adult (stem) cells, they mention "One treatment resulting from this discovery was to inject cells genetically modified to release large amounts of stem cell factor into the region of the heart injured by the heart attack."
Is the whole genetically modified cells (which/what kind of cells?) going to be a problem for the religious types who fret about these things?
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:3, Insightful)
Only until their own mortality comes into question. At least, for most of them.
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:4, Informative)
My wife worked in a hospital (children's ICU to be specific) for about 18 months and routinely had cases where she had to tell the parents "if you refuse blood products for your child, his/her chances for survival are less than half what they are if you accept them." And many, many times, the parents still refused for religious reasons.
These are the people who will still say "no" even when it's their own mortality in question.
Parent
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:2)
I ALWAYS say that!
** I'm not actually religious, but it serves the noisy little bastard right.
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:2)
But it is still not their own lives.
Do you have numbers on how many refuse it for themselves, and not their children ?
I'm pretty sure the numbers will be much more different.
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:5, Informative)
You can refuse immunization, etc. but if it's a life threatening situation the game changes entirely. Many states have this, AFAIK.
Parent
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:2)
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not hard to find examples where doctors have been wrong about the safety of treatments in the past, so we know they are not infallible. The Bible on the other hand...
Silly as it seems, I have known people who held these views and tried to convince me of them. When you realize that many of the same people believe the Earth is under 10,000 years old and that there is no such thing as "macro evolution", you can understand how hopeless it can be to try to convince them their medical ideas are wrong.
Parent
Saying NO to treatments due to religious beliefs (Score:2)
Heh. That's evolution in action: I like to see these genes get weeded out - but it's a concern when these fools have already bred. Hopefully they die before their children can be indoctrinated into the religious claptrap the parents fell for.
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:2)
If the child can't make his own decision, you tell the parents "tough shit" and you proceed with treatment.
Religion != good enough reason to injure someone else.
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:5, Informative)
I had the opportunity to sit into a session of the cardiology department at a large hospital here in Costa Rica, where the attendings were planning to do this kind of research in humans. Since I was only rotating through for a month as an intern, I never found out if they actually got the project started or not. Probably not. This was about 2 years ago and I haven't seen anything published.
Still it was interesting stuff, the haematologist who was visiting us went into a lot of detail. One of the problems they've had with the mice, apparently, is that these stem cells regenerate TOO MUCH myocardium (heart muscle). Apparently there were instances where heart muscle would colonize the injection sites and start growing outside the heart, in the thoracic cavity - tumour style.
One thing I will remember forever from this meeting was the department head, when she expressed surprise at the fact that yes, the patients DO have to be told what we're trying to do to them and yes, they DO have to give permission FIRST.
Anyway this research is promising but it's a long way from being used in humans routinely, so it's still a good idea to quit smoking...
Parent
Re:Way to go Canada (Score:2, Insightful)
This scientists, as do all, are elaborating over previous research, I think there's no place for nationalism in science (or in any other area, but especially in science, where knowledege should be public property. I mean, that's the spirit of the Open Source movement, and we don't think of open source production as a nation-related issue.
To back my words there is another report form 2003 published in slashdot a couple of months ago: Stem Cells in the Heart? [slashdot.org]
It says
Well, what do we find in Ref(A)? (Score:2)
Adult Stem Cells (Score:5, Insightful)
More Stem Cell Work, PERIOD. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:More Stem Cell Work, PERIOD. (Score:5, Insightful)
So, they are not alike. There are some clear differences. The main issue about adult cells is of course their potency, can one get to a cell that will differentiate to the desired tissue, and longevity -- is the telomeres already quite shortened. Research in both fields is a good thing, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are not pros and cons both ways.
Parent
Because.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for reasoned debate and hearing both sides of an argument, but the key word there is reasoned. If you have a moral objection to using foetal stem cells, then (as another poster more or less said) say so. Spoutin
ESCs work in mice, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Dr. Li's team used genetically-engineered mice in which bone marrow cells were modified to carry a green fluorescent marker allowing researchers to easily track them.
From AFA (from last year:
Embryonic stem cells from mice can patch up damaged heart muscle in sheep.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8006 [newscientist.com]
Moreover, if you read the original article carefully, you will see that the ASCs are merely signaling the heart to rebuild itself more rapidly, not directly rebuilding the heart. So this th
Re:Adult Stem Cells (Score:2)
Call to action (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Call to action (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the US has provided cures or vaccines for lots of diseases which have plagued the world. The USMC eradicated malaria in Cuba for example. Fat lot of good that did in terms of good will. It has never changed attitudes and never will because the people who hate the US typically couldn't give a flying fuck about their own people dying from disease, or any other cause.
Do you think the terrorists, who blow up civillians in their own country every day, will be impressed if the US cures AIDS? Most of them think that AIDS was cooked up by the Jews, or the Americans, or both.
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:5, Informative)
The debate in the U.S. isn't even about fetal vs adult stem cells. It's about who pays for it. The U.S. government hasn't banned fetal stem cell research. It just won't pay for it. If the promise is so good, where are the venture capitalists? They aren't to be found, which is why the fetal stem cell researchers want government funding. The reason the venture capitalists aren't to be found is because they are pouring money into adult stem cell research, not for moral reasons, but because the science shows it has the highest chance of success and therefore the lowest financial risk.
This Canadian finding is just one more confirmation of what the business people already know. The real question is why doesn't the main stream media in the U.S. run with this story?
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:4, Insightful)
The answer is that long ago people realized that the market tends to be rather risk averse, and often thinks in the short term. Also, no corporation in the US can match the amount of money the government throws around - what would be a staggering loss for a medium sized research company is very little for the government as a whole, allowing it to pursue very risky (but potentially beneficial) courses of research. Also, lack of shareholder pressure and legal liability allows the government to fund pure science that may never be "useful" (astrophysics, esoteric mathematics, etc).
Because tax money is being diverted from the private sector to the public sector to fund these things, the private sector has less to invest in potentially risky things as well, it is a self-perpetuating situation (which seems to be better than the alternative) and it is unlikely that we will see VCs stepping forward to work on embryonic stem cells in the US, especially if they must compete with government-funded research in the EU.
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why the universities are the ones who are complaining about the ban on federal funding of fetal stem cell research. There is nothing, however, to stop the Christopher Reeves Foundation, or the Bill Gates or anybody else to fund it, just not the federal government. The problem is that it is too speculative.
Proponents will say it is too speculative because we don't put enough research money into it. However, that is a bogus argument. The rest of the world does not share in the U.S. ban, and pours billions into it and still the science isn't there. All of the promise is with adult stem cells. Even the use of fetal stem cells is to get the undifferentiated cells to become differentiated, which by definition would be adult stem cells. The purpose of using fetal cells is the misconception that they would be easier to obtain (and for research they would but not for actual use).
What researchers need is a pure consistent strain of cells. Therefore if they can harvest the fetus for its stem cells and get them to multiply and differentiate into the cells they need, then they have a virtually unlimited supply of cells to test with. However, before they could turn anything into a cure, they have to deal with rejection and a slew of other problems. For this, the easiest thing is to use adult cells from the actual patient.
That is the beuaty of the Canadian procedure (if it works on humans). The could extract your bone marrow and use it to repair your heart. Since it is your cells produced by your body, there is no problem with typing and rejection that any other source would have.
To get this to work with fetal cells, they would first have to get the fetal cells to differentiate into stem cells that could repair the heart. That would prove the heart could be repaired (although Canada already proved that). Then they would have to figure out what stem cell they produced and whether they could harvest it from the patient. If so, great, if not, they'd have to try another type. Canada skipped all of the what if and went right to the likely candidate bone marrow.
It's this simplified research approach that has the VC drooling. Not only have there been over 100 "cures" and treatments already produced from adult stem cells, they are cheaper on the research side and cheaper on the treatment side (because of the rejection issues). For the VC, it's a win-win which fetal stem cells can't compete against.
As for the private sector's investment potential, one only needs to look at the profits of the pharmaceutical industry to see how lucrative it really is. If you have $100M to give as a grant to something that has a 30% chance of success (adult stem cell) or 3% (fetal stem cell) what would you invest in? The fact that they choose the adult stem cell research is why there is such a cry for federal funding. But shouldn't the government be putting it's (our) money where it has the greatest bang for the buck, too?
In the end, the debate is not about anything but money, big, big money. It's o
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:2)
Re:Call to action (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Call to action (Score:2)
Yes, I take the same approach as wikipedia. There's always dangers in tainting your original viewpoint that way, but they probably do have a lot of good references (even if they are slightly "selective" in favor of their viewpoint).
Re:Call to action (Score:4, Insightful)
I won't argue the point of fetal vs. adult stem cells - it seems to me, as a layman, that most of the stories and successful research has happenned around adult stem cells. Whether this is because they are more easily available or because fetal stem cell research has been effectively halted in the United States, I don't know. Likely, it is former, as well as there being issues using fetal stem cell lines of any type for treatments - after all, if they were viable in any shape, we should be hearing more from overseas research. So far, not much has been heard, at least to my limited knowledge.
What I will argue about is regarding the reasoning for banning funding to researchers. It is one thing if a researcher wants money for such research and is denied. It is another thing if they want to do the research, but aren't allowed because they (or their lab/research facilities) currently do government funded research in a completely unrelated (to stem cells) area. Since they take government funds in some manner, for some research, they have the choice of losing all government funding to all research, to research fetal stem cells, or to not research fetal stem cell lines at all and keep what funding they have.
So, if you are a university (where a lot of research occurs), you are (nearly by default) receiving some form of government funding. Ergo, you cannot do fetal stem cell research (outside of the contaminated lines which were grandfathered in), without losing your government funding for your robotics lab (along with a bunch of other areas). It is either be completely self or privately funded for all areas of research, and be able to research fetal stem cell lines - or keep your government funding for your other research, and forget any fetal stem cell research. Some choice. No wonder private funding isn't available - because once your institution tried to do it, you would also need funding for all of your other research activities, which isn't going to happen, of course.
I guess we should all hope and pray that fetal stem cell lines continue to be fruitless pursuits, and that somebody outside of America doesn't make that primary discovery that proves to make adult stem cell research obsolete or worthless. Somehow, I think we as country are going to eat our shorts on that one, all because of ignorant, petty and baseless religious objections.
Religion will be humanity's downfall, and the fundamentalists will be leading the charge...
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:4, Interesting)
The real difference between fetal and adult stem cells in lay terms is that fetal stem cells are undifferentiated (they can turn into anything), adult stem cells are differentiated and depending on where they are from limits what they can turn into. The irony, is that to use fetal stem cells, they first have to become differentiated, so they must be made into the equivelant of adult stem cells (are bodies don't like undifferntiated cells growing in them. we call them cancer). So, for fetal stem cells to work, means that adult stem cells have to work, too.
As for funding issues and loosing funding, I'm not sure you have that correct. In it's simplest form, I guess it is, but in practice, must universities could simply set up a seperate life-sciences foundation to do the stem cell research which wouldn't then jeapordize their other grants. I'm pretty sure that UCLA and other colleges and universities in California are still getting federal grants even though the state is funding fetal stem cell research.
Again, the media and others want the public to think that funding is cut off. However, prior to Bush releasing the limited stem cell lines, there was no federal research allowed. So, in effect, he allowed an increase in funding (I am not a Bush fan, by the way, just trying to set the record straight). With the limited lines he released, you can do any kind of research you want. As it turns out, though the lines aren't as useful as first thought.
There is also no ban on fetal stem cell research with non-human species. Almost every other area of medical research always began with animals. Even adult stem cell research uses animals, first. However, with fetal stem cells, the researchers insist on using stem cells from a human fetus as their first course. One can only assume that since animal fetal stem cells would be less controversial, less costly and more readily available, they would be a no-brainer and yet only a handful of labs in the U.S. use them.
The rest try to convince the public that the religious right or the Catholic Church or some other group is trying to keep cures from the public. When in reality, that is untrue. The Catholic Church, for instance is supportive of adult stem cell research, just not the destruction of the fetus to obtain fetal stem cells (which seems consistent with their stand on abortion, etc.). But why would the researchers and the media as their pawn use such a tactic? Well first, there is big money involved, billions in grant money, even more in the selling of cures. Second, the science shows that it is adult stem cells that hold the potential. By keeping people focussed on the bogus religious argument, they hope people won't realize the shaky science used to support their position (remember, to use fetal stem cells, you first have to differentiate them or make them adult stem cells). Third, it is the religious types, whether fundamentalist or Catholic or whatever that are trying to get some facts out -- if they are portrayed as the villian in all of this, then their arguments will be dismissed.
One last thing, you make the statement that it is no wonder that private funding isn't available. However, there is plenty of private funding available. It's just that the majority of it is going to adult stem cell research because of it's proven track record. Venture capitalists aren't stupid. They don't usually get wrapped up in the emotional and moral side of the argument but look simply at the return on their investment. Which course has the best chance of providing a return on their investment? Adult stem cells.
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:2, Insightful)
More likely it would be used to sell people their own bone marrow for a profit.
Re:Call to action (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Call to action (Score:3, Interesting)
Prior to that event (or something similar in a Ceasarian) a human body isn't a human being, and does not deserve the rights of a human being. Here in New Zealand, where we are nothing if not pragmatic, we understand that until a baby is born, it is not a person. It is therefore legal in New Zealand to perform an abortion on a baby which is at 8 months of a
Old news and already in clinical trials. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old news and already in clinical trials. (Score:2, Funny)
Some trials underway in Sydney (Score:2)
More here [smh.com.au].
These apparently use a new method of separating out and multiplying the needed stemcells, and so far seem to making good progress - the patient is already experiencing improved quality of life.
Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about other adult stem cells? Well, the skin is constantly regenerated by adult stem cells, and unquestionably ages. How much of that is due to the adult stem cells wearing out and how much is due to the chemistry of the skin changing over time I'll leave to experts. (There are experts on Slashdot?
Getting back to the heart of the matter (argh!
I wonder where else the bone marrow stem cells can remove damage. It would seem that many diseases leave residual damage that the body cannot ordinarily remove and repair. If a general solution existed for removing the damage, even if no solution existed for fixing it, it would seem you can't really lose and (if it stimulates the body's own mechanisms) you would likely gain.
Parent
Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:2)
Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:3, Informative)
Regarding other stem cells, bone marrow stem cells are in fact quite active through a
Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of people who would stand to benefit the most from "stem cells" (older, more medical problems) therefore are also disproportionately likely to have fewer cells with less regenerative capacity. One potential solution is to get cells from other people. A key problem with most adult cells (received from other adults) is the risk of immunologic rejection. This is likely to be much less of a problem with embryonic-derived cells, which don't express as many immunologically pertinent proteins. We just don't know what the best cell type will be - yet another reason to study both cell types in parallel.
Parent
Re:Should We Be Throwing Some In The Freezer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Injecting stem cells is a sham (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Injecting stem cells is a sham (Score:2)
No, but you began to grow roots, specially when your mother's basement is full of moisture
Where to get them? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Health care of the future (Score:2)
You sound like there's only so much to go around whereas I believe in increasing returns where there will be enough for everyone.
Re:Health care of the future (Score:2)
Re:Health care of the future (Score:2)