Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Grow Your Own Heart Valves

Posted by samzenpus on Tue Sep 04, 2007 09:24 AM
from the congen-circulatory-sphincters dept.
Biotech Science
jcr writes "Medical researchers in Britain have succeeded in growing a heart valve from adult stem cells taken from bone marrow. The research is being reported in the journal of the Royal Society today. Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

Grow Your Own Heart Valves 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Whole heart next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow (16139) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:29AM (#20463915) Homepage Journal
    So how far does this leave us from growing a whole heart? Or other organs?

    At some point, transplants from donors will be for emergencies only, and the shortages and wait lists will be a thing of the past.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by devC (1143613)
      It is amazing that they did this with adult stem cells and not embryonic stem cells. I wonder why the big push for embryonic stem cells?

      • Re:Whole heart next? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jimstapleton (999106) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:37AM (#20464013) Journal
        embryonic are omni-potential, instead of just pluripotential.

        Until the last two or three years (if I remember correctly, the time frame may be off), with adult stem cells, they can grow a limited set of tissues only. Even now it takes work to make adult stem cells able to differentiate into any other cells. Embryonic stemm cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option.

        I can't remember if they can now make adult stem cells omni-potential, or just increase their potential to add just a few more cell types.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Dausha (546002)
          "Embryonic stemm (sic) cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option."

          However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human. You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery? We Americans fought a war over this 150 years ago, and I find i

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by locokamil (850008)
            Why the devil has parent been modded flamebait? Just because he doesn't agree with the groupthink doesn't mean that it's a null/void opinion!

            • It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is "baiting" people to start a flame war. The same post could have been rewritten with a different tone and not been flamebait. A tone like that won't win many people over.

              I'm not sure I can see calling it slavery. Cannibalism would be more appropriate, and just as flamebaiting. Even then, I think it would matter the source of the stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have been created without using an embryo. I those cases, a human life was neve

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Dausha (546002)
                "It's flamebait because it's written in an angry tone and is 'baiting' people to start a flame war."

                It wasn't meant in an angry tone. This is exactly a question, raised 1.5 years ago in my law school Health Law class, somebody else posed to a PhD Bio-ethicist. He avoided answering the question, and I thought somebody here could pose an answer. Whenever somebody's right of autonomy is stripped and the person reduced to property status, we call it slavery. (Voluntary renunciation of autonomy would be indentur

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Jhon (241832) *

                    An embryo would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an embryo stops growing and developing, almost immediately.
                    An infant would NOT become a human on its own, and this is why we do not treat it as a human. On its own, an infant stops growing and devoloping, almost immediately.
          • See, not that I disagree, but there's a very big flaw in that argument in that there isn't a clear line drawn - Same with the abortion debate.

            So taking an embryo and using it for science is wrong, it's murder, etc, etc. Yes, I agree to some extent. What about all the potential humans flushed down the toilet by those dreadful female teens during their period? Shouldn't they be forced to mate at every opportunity to enable the ovum of the month the chance to become a human being? After all, women typically ov [wikipedia.org]
            • Actually this is pretty simple...simple enough for a 4-year old to understand. Sperm and eggs, separately, are not human beings. When they join together, they form into a human being. If you remember your high school biology, the sperm and egg each only have half the DNA needed to form a human. Once the egg is fertilized, only then do you have a human.

              This is true for any organism that reproduces sexually, by the way.
              • So, for example, if I go in with my wife, and they harvest my sperm and her eggs, and fertilize 10 or so eggs (common practice) and we end up only needing one fertilized egg to be implanted and the other 9 stay on a freezer shelf for a few years before they are routinely discarded, does that make the person who discarded them a mass murderer?

                By your example, yes. It is often these embryo's which are almost always destroyed, that could be used for stem cell research...It's not all about abortion. Not even cl
                • If somebody would like to adopt those 9 embryos, implant them, and bring them to term, what is the problem with that? Look up snowflake babies and you'll see that there is pro-choice resistence to the practice.

                  There is nothing inevitable about discarding embryos.
              • I understand that, but just because it requires intervention doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken to ensure that these two ingredients to humanity, while they exist, shouldn't be put to the highest possible potential to form as many new humans as possible, to give them the chance at life that the argument always talks about. Where a woman who is perpetually pregnant and having children could bring life to a great number of new humans, a woman who is abstinent will deny that potential for life to thos
                • You call both a sperm/egg and a fertilized egg "potential" human life, but by doing so you are displaying your bias against the status of a fertilized egg as a full member of the human family. In my opinion, once an egg is fertilized, something fundamental has changed and a new person has been formed.

                  If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins? If your answer is "I don't know", then shouldn't you err on the side of caution and support the protection o
                  • The reason that a fertilized egg is referred to as a "Potential" human life is because it is not a human. No bias needed.

                    "If you don't believe that full personhood begins at conception, then when do you believe it begins?" It happens gradually. There is no magic point that you are instantly human. That is why we DO err on the side of caution, and don't allow abortions a week before a due date. While we might not know exactly when the line is crossed between organ and human, we do know that it is not

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by plague3106 (71849)
            However, left to his own devices in his native environment, a human embryo will develop into an autonomous human.

            No, there could be a miscarrage.

            You are taking a life and converting it into property without giving that life a chance to decide.

            We do the same thing to other living things all the time. We kill catapillers before they become butterflys.

            How does harvesting an embryo not equate to slavery?

            Because its a mass of cells, and not a human being? There's no brain, arms, legs, heart, anything. It cann
        • What's to stop harvesting stem cells from a fetus which is then returned to the womb and carried to term? Nobody could get upset about benefiting from the use of one's own stem cells.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hercynium (237328)

          Embryonic stem cells however can change into anything, without any modification. They are much easier to work with, ...

          Just to put in some requisite corrections to some popular (mis) understandings...

          The clause, 'without any modification' is flat out wrong, applied to either type of stem cell.

          I'm not a stem cell researcher myself, but It's my understanding that adult stem (AS) cells are actually easier to work with. In addition they're clearly more readily available. That being said, this is all the bleeding edge of medical and life science and *nothing* is 'easy'

          ... and as of a couple of years ago they were the only option.

          I'm assuming what you mean by this statement is that 'they

          • A lot more money is being thrown at adult stem cell research - it's really not comparible which is more useful from the start.

            You put $10B into research on ethanol from corn, vs $100K into research for ethanol from cane... Which one will show up better? Which one is actually better?

            The scales were weighted and the measurement isn't good.
            • A good point; the ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research has resulted in a comparative lack of funds.

              Another argument would be that embryonic stem cell research is 'higher level' research - more theoretical than practical. The lessons learned there could filter down and help adult stem cell research develop practical treatments.

              For one thing, without some extensive modification you'll have problems with immune systems rejecting the cells; just like with transplanted organs unless you make it a ha
          • The problem is that omni-potential cells might not be a good thing. Embryonic stem cell treatments seem to have a lot of extra problems with tumor formation which is one of the reasons why we don't have any such treatments approved by medical bodies. Cancer is radical change in cell function. Change is not always good.

  • Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:29AM (#20463919) Homepage
    As the owner of a slightly defective valve, I feel encouraged that when the time comes, I'll have my own supply of spare parts. (Or will be able to use loaners while mine are being grown.) Good work, folks!

  • Preventing Rejection (Score:5, Funny)

    by pscottdv (676889) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:32AM (#20463943)

    Growing a heart value from your own cells means that tissue rejection isn't an issue

    What slashdotters need is a way to grow a girlfriend from their own cells.

      • If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest?
        Masturbation perhaps?
        • If you have sex with your own clone, is that still incest?
          Masturbation perhaps?
          This exact set of jokes about clones showed up in a SciFi short story in the mid-60s (I believe). I can't recall the author or title for the life of me, but the story concerned a large number of clones (magically turned into both sexes) who worked as a team, mining something out of some remote planet. The two non-clone supervisors found it very difficult to understand the social interactions, etc etc.
      • Simple enough; remove the Y chromosome and substitute a duplicate X.

        Make sure you screen for some defeciences first though.

  • Tissue Rejection Not an Issue (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slughead (592713) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:35AM (#20463987) Homepage Journal
    Tissue rejection isn't an issue with heart valves (one of the few tissues where it's not a problem).

    The problem with heart valves is that if you replace one with, say, a pig valve, it won't grow. For adults, this is not a problem, but for kids, it means they'll have to have a replacement in a few years as their heart literally grows out of the valve(s).

    This new grow-your-own approach would probably be best for children. For adults, however, heart valve replacement is actually fairly routine and requires no anti-rejection drugs afterwards.

    • Re:Tissue Rejection Not an Issue (Score:5, Informative)

      by ambulatorybird (1151807) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:50AM (#20464145)
      I've had a valve replacement myself, and I believe there are two problems: (1) pig valve: those are basically like leather, and they wear out after 5 years, requiring replacement even in adults. And open heart surgery isn't normally something one wants to have on a regular basis. (2) artificial valve: blood clots form on them, requiring the patient to take anticoagulant drugs for the rest of his life.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by cayle clark (166742)

        When I was getting ready to have my aortic valve replaced, the surgeon showed me a porcine valve; in appearance it is nothing like leather, but rather an incredibly thin and flexible structure. The aortic valve is not like a flap valve, but more like three little plastic grocery bags hung from the sides of a pipe. When blood flows one way, the leaflets collapse against the wall; when it flows the other way, whap, they fill up and block the tube.

        There is no rejection problem with porcine or bovine heart v

      • Are you sure the lifetime of a pig valve is that low? I took a class about the history of artificial organs, and recall reading about newer generation processing to pig valves to make them last at least 15 years.

  • Silly question, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FlyByPC (841016) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @09:36AM (#20463997) Homepage
    ...won't this be a problem if there's a genetic defect in the patient's heart valves? In other words, won't the replacement be following the same DNA blueprint, and have the same problems?

    IANanMD, but I would think this would pose problems with usability, wouldn't it?
    • Well if the valve failed because a defect in the formation as it grew, you'd be able to see that defect while it was growing in the lab and if it didn't have the defect, it could be implanted.

  • That's nothing! (Score:4, Funny)

    by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @10:02AM (#20464281)
    Real geeks build their own pacemaker.

  • I'm open to it.

    Too soon?

  • If it's being reported in a proper journal, do we have a link to the journal itself rather than something from the Daily Hysteria?

    The Daily Mail is famous for blowing medical reports out of all proportion - they "cure cancer" an average of 2 or 3 times a year.
  • The procedure is still untested in animal experiments, meaning they don't know if transplanted it will work at all but this is certainly encouraging. Best of luck to Dr. Yacoub and his team.

    Also I couldn't find a link to the paper by Dr. Yacoub which should have been here [royalsoc.ac.uk]

  • Yay heart valves (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As a person born with a bicuspid Aorta valve (In other words, my Aorta valve, the valve that pumps blood to most of the body, has two flaps instead of three) this excites me greatly. Since I was born I've had to live every year with the possibility that I would have to have a mechanical implant if I ever overexerted my heart. I truly, truly hope that this caches on, not just for me but for the 1 in 300 (According to my cardiologist the number is that high) people who have the same or similar conditions to
  • How many years does it take to grow a replacement part? Do we need to start growing replacement bodies a few months after birth in order to have a ready supply of spare parts?

  • Been there, done that (Score:3, Funny)

    by marol (734015) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @12:18PM (#20466347)
    I grew my own heart valve once.

      • Re:php (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Retric (704075) on Tuesday September 04 2007, @10:37AM (#20464795)
        So, ignoring the fact that a strong push into embryonic stem cell research would have resulted in zero additional baby deaths you assuming we would be in the same place today? Ethics aside we are probably in a worse place today than we would be without embryonic stem cell research. Over time millions of people may die because we are just a little behind where we could be. However, we will never know what could have been...

        Thanks.

        PS: The point of research is to find out how to do things. It was unlikely we would ever use embrionic stem cells as "standard" treatment but we could have learned a lot about how cells work much sooner.

          • Re:php (Score:4, Insightful)

            by kasparov (105041) * on Tuesday September 04 2007, @01:53PM (#20467879)

            All the productive therapies are coming out of the adult side, not the embryonic side. Had we concentrated our funds on adult stem cell research, we might be even further ahead.
            Gee, do you think that the adult side being more productive currently might be because funding has been severely limited on the embryonic side? Of course the option with the most funding has an easier time being developed. Jesus, funding has been concentrated on adult stem cell research! There is almost no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Not to mention the fact that the embryos that would be used for embryonic stem cell research are just being thrown away! No one is going to outlaw IVF because it would be just about impossible to get a law passed forbidding couples that desperately want to have a child the option of IVF. So the embryos are going to be there no matter what. Why not use them? Forbidding embryonic stem cell research in no way shape or form "saves babies". And you have the nerve to decry people "emotionally manipulating the process" with their tear-jerking testimony? BULLSHIT!
      • Oh, do fuck off. This has nothing to do with adult stem cells being just as good as fetal stem cells, but how am I supposed to argue against someone whose head is so far up their ass that they think babies are "killed" for stem cells? Seriously, you're fucking useless and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance.

        • ...and should've been aborted while your parents had the chance.
          Ironically, that may have helped further embryonic stem cell research...
    • The problem of NHS dentistry in the UK is a national scandal - and is no joke. In many parts of the UK there is no NHS dentistry provision at all, or waiting lists to join NHS practices that beggar belief.

      The NHS, free at the point of delivery, unless it's something to do with your teeth, but Clove Oil is supposed to be good for toothache.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.