Slashdot Log In
Advance In Making Stem Cells From Skin
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Mar 02, 2009 09:53 PM
from the we-don't-need-no-steenkin'-viruses dept.
from the we-don't-need-no-steenkin'-viruses dept.
KillerBob writes with an advance on the news from a year back that stem cells can be produced from human skin — discussed here. Now Canadian researchers have found a safe way to generate stem cells without using viruses to modify the genome, a process that can have its own dangers. "The ethical debate over embryonic stem cell use may soon be moot, thanks to a Canadian team of researchers who, together with a team out of Scotland, has found a safe way to grow stem cells from a patient's own skin. The revolutionary finding, described in a paper published yesterday by the international science journal Nature, means doctors may be one step closer to treating a multitude of diseases, including Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's."
Related Stories
[+]
Stem-Cell-Like Cells Produced From Skin 265 comments
MikShapi writes "Skin cells can now be turned into something resembling stem cells. A genetic modification to four genes using a viral vector reverses differentiating, making the cells revert to a stem-cell state, capable for becoming any other cell in the body. The researchers are calling them 'iPS cells' or 'induced pluripotent stem cells.' In their experiments, iPS cells in the lab turned into nerve cells, heart muscle, and other tissues. The research was published in Cell and Nature by teams from the universities of Kyoto and Wisconsin. The article notes that if the new method proves successful, 'we can disconnect the whole stem cell debate from the culture war, from battles over embryo politics and abortion rights.' And, should this technique be adopted, stem cells will henceforth be abundant, easier and cheaper to come by for research and therapeutic purposes."
[+]
Safe Stem Cells Produced From Adult Cells 207 comments
hackingbear writes "Wired, citing a paper published in Science magazine, reports that Harvard scientists may have found a safer way of giving a flake of skin the biologically alchemical powers of embryonic stem cells by turning adult cells into versatile, embryonic-like cells without causing permanent damage. The technique involves 'adding cell-reprogramming genes to adenoviruses, a type of virus that infects cells without affecting their DNA.' Four-month trials on mice demonstrated that the resulting stem cells are free from unpredictable cancer-inducing mutations. This is definitely a breakthrough in stem cell research."
Additional coverage is available at Yahoo, and Science hosts the research paper, although you'll need a subscription to see more than the abstract.
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.
Wrong way around... (Score:4, Insightful)
Advance In Making Stem Cells From Skin
Don't get me wrong, I understand why this is cool. But I'd still much rather hear that there'd been a breakthrough in making skin from stem cells.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trolling, just asking, because I haven't even thought about it:
Isn't the idea that you more or less just inject the stem cells in the skin for example and they convert to skin cells?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That would be the general idea, yes. But, unless I'm missing something, there's no actual clinical treatment for doing that for skin yet. If I am reading correctly, the only "production-ready" stem cell treatments are involving cancer (specifically leukemia and other blood-related cancers) - there's been some success at replenishing bone marrow after a round of chemo knocks out all of the existing marrow.
Re:Wrong way around... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As they are, they're really expensive, rare, and possibly dangerous to make so they have to be screened very well.
I don't see why they should be. The IVF facilities are full of discarded blastocysts waiting to be put to good use.
Re: (Score:2)
That has to be one of the most heinous and disgusting statements I have ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea here would be to use stem cells created from your own skin or other tissues; thus having identical genetics and avoiding rejection.
Though for research purposes, yes, that would work. But regardless, it looks like the issue will be moot soon anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every Skincell is Sacred (Score:5, Funny)
We must move to ban all exfoliating soaps! Murder!!
Clicky (Score:2)
clicky [ucomics.com]!
Just around the corner... (Score:5, Insightful)
We see these stories about eight times a year. "New alternative to embryonic stem cells just around the corner". It's never clear how far around the corner it really is, though.
In any case, I'm certain that sooner or later some brilliant soul will crack this code. I can't help but wonder, though: how much scientific effort has been displaced into "finding other ways to make stem cells" that could otherwise have gone into "finding ways to use stem cells to treat medical conditions".
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:5, Informative)
Embryonic stem cells can have the nucleus removed and replaced with the hosts DNA thus creating an embryonic stem cell with the DNA markers of the patient. The delay in advancing Stem cell's is at least a decade now as without use of embryonic stem cells they haven't developed the techniques to properly use them even if they do find a way to make adult version stem cells without using embryonic material.
The great fear of the abortion movement is that the public would become aware that the vast majority of embryonic material wouldn't be from abortion (where 95% of the material is mutilated tissue of little value) but the unused fertilized eggs contained in hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics around the country that are no longer needed by the parents that successfully produced children. Most importantly that these parents would then donate these unused fertilized eggs to curing diseases like Alzheimer and cancer, regrowing damaged organs or new skin for burn patients. It's ironic that the anti-abortion movement would rather see the eggs destroyed than used.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um.. You DO realize that what you refer to as "Big Pharma" are multinational business corps with many research facilities spread throughout the globe, who make extensive use of grant programs to get Universities worldwide to do some of their legwork, and who basically have their hands in pretty much all the "pies". There aren't US "Big Pharma" corps, anymore than there are European "Big Pharma".. They boil down to just a handful of entities who directly own or control hundreds (if not more) of subsidiaries, and they're ALL global players.
Yes, the fact that the previous US President banned research on (embryonic) stem cells did put a wrinkle on the worldwide research being done in the field.. On the one hand, the US market for drugs and medical treatments is too big to ignore, so there was less of an incentive to develop technologies, procedures and know-how on stuff that the big corps might not be able to deploy in such a profitable market (and thus reducing their perceived return on that investment). On the other hand, there are many great minds working in those fields in the US (both native and foreigners), often with ties to education institutions, and it wouldn't be so easy to uproot all those people just so they could send them somewhere where they could legally do/continue research.
So, for the "Big Pharma" it just made sense to look into other venues of research, or for ways to bypass the ban by using other types of cells with which you could eventually get the same results. And in this regard, while I consider the ban to have been a huge mistake (especially the totally bogus reason for said ban), we haven't really lost anything because the other venues pursued would have to be done eventually anyway, all the better that it happened when the corps were so eager to get results that could translate into money.
I don't know if there were (many) other countries following suit on the ban, but I do know that it was and still is a sensitive issue in many countries in Europe, so maybe in the end the money ended up drying in other places too.. But it hasn't been completely abandoned either, as I remember reading several studies published these last 8 years relating to research done on embryonic stem cells.
Directly and indirectly, the US does have a BIG impact in the world in many areas (which is probably why so many of us follow what happens over there so closely -- and become so obnoxiously opinionated).. But don't think others wouldn't step forward to pick up the slack if you guys over there went the Amish way, either. :)
Parent
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ironic that the anti-abortion movement would rather see the eggs destroyed than used.
The anti-abortion movement would rather not have unused fertilized eggs lying around in the first place to create such ethical dilemmas.
And besides, using the fertilized eggs does destroy them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's not ironic. Anti-abortionists have all the compassion in the world for the sick. We just don't believe that one person should be healed based on the death of another person, and in our eyes, the embryo is a person. Killing an innocent person (even one that doesn't yet have a brain) to save somebody else is not a good outcome. Depending on the variety of anti-abortionist, some (especially Catholics) reject the creation of these embryos outside of the womb in all cases because of all the moral proble
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The great fear of the abortion movement is that the public would become aware that the vast majority of embryonic material wouldn't be from abortion (where 95% of the material is mutilated tissue of little value) but the unused fertilized eggs contained in hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics around the country that are no longer needed by the parents that successfully produced children.
First, there are not hundreds of thousands of fertility clinics in the US. Although, that's a nit-pic.
The main point is that your statement is a straw man. It's not that those opposed to embryonic stem cell research think that these cells will come from abortions. The problem is that these frozen embryos in these fertility clinics are thawed and encouraged to begin development before they are destroyed in order to harvest the stem cells from them. The problem is that human life is human life. Experimen
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:5, Informative)
Alternatives to *embryonic* stem cells are in medical trials right now. It is called adult stem cells and something like 80 real-world trials are happening right now. One of the first uses of adult stem cells goes back a few years, it is known as "bone marrow transplant."
I don't think I have heard of a single clinical trial using embryonic stem cells. That is why embryonic stem cells need government subsidies. The real money is in treatments that have hope of working.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I think your parent had some sarcasm in the last sentence that you missed. Embyronic stem cells need government funding because no sane entrepreneur would waste his money on a treatment that has no chance of working. Or at least that's what I understood.
Unfortunately, I think the real story is that if someone gets embryonic stem cells to work somehow, he will patent the process to make a fortune out of it. The pharmaceutical companies want to get to this holy grail, but don't want to risk their own money o
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a couple years ago about a German experiment that cured a congenital heart disfunction with donor-supplied stem cells. This cost a total of 200 or 300 euros.
I'd really like to see an article on this, if I could.
You see, this sort of thing would require at least two medical procedures and lab work; extraction, lab modification/screening, implantation.
For the heart, I don't see implantation being cheap, I don't see the labwork being cheap, etc... Either they're talking about a very limited selection of the costs(national healthcare took care of the rest!), or there's a few zeros missing in there.
It it's true, and really that cheap, you'd think it'd have been tru
Embryonic cells have the same problems (Score:2)
Even though some people keep painting embryonic stem cells as the holy grail of stem cell research, this is quite frankly rubbish. Unless they are your own cells you face the same rejection and immune defence problems with embryonic stem cells as you would with any donated organ.
Until we figure out human cloning (which is another ethical issue), embryonic stem cells are only interesting in that they are an easy source of stem cells for study. The most obvious path at present for actually using stem cells in
Re:Just around the corner... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because something is controversial doesn't mean it's useless. I think you'll find that Science in general has a habit of being controversial (e.g. "Big Bang vs. God"), but that doesn't make the findings any less valuable or useful. Who knows what this research might lead into, it might be something really cool, it might be nothing, but there's a good chance that in future, OTHER research will be based upon it.
Parent
Not quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Killing babies still has a much better chance of growing me a new liver.
Re:Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
as my wife (who does research and writes articles in neuroscience) says: 90% of the research is to find something enough interesting to get more money for your researches.
It's not bad, it simply is how it works in science research. When you write an article, you always have to project your discovery into the future and tell how it will (not would) affect and save the life of many sick people, even if you know it will happen in 100 years at last.
Loftiest "That's what she said!" evar.
Also as important... (Score:3, Interesting)
The question of whether these cells can be re-differentiated without using a virus to reprogram the cells is an important question yet to be answered from this research.
There is another important question to be addressed with this technique, however.
The article mentions cancer as a side effect for virus-engineered stem cells and immune rejection for stem cells from other people.
Would this technique manage to create stem cell-derived new cells without their own set of side effects?
Cancer is assumed
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it's diseased, most of your liver will still be there to begin with ?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that with a lot of research done with embryos that are dead* to begin with, that we'd learn more about the stem cell process and have a better idea of what to do with our adult stem cells to either transform them into 'younger' versions or turn them directly into cell types that we need.
I think it says something when Europe, with over double the population of the USA, can't simply bypass our refusal to federally fund one research path by allocating more funding to it and cornering the 'm
Lame lame lame (Score:5, Funny)
Quit wimping around.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And deal with anti-rejection drugs? I'd rather not.
Clearly it's rather early on, but this does seem like a promising advance... it would be interesting to see if the same technique could be used in other areas - delivering useful genes to somatic cells, cancer cells, etc. It might have interesting implications for gene therapy research.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig Southpark :
[B]Cartman[/B]: Hello. Is this the University of Colorado Biology Department? Great, uh I understand you're currently doing research on stem cells? Cool, because I'm currently in possession of some aborted fetuses that I'm looking to unload? Uh, how much do you pay? No, no, come on, I got a guy who's gonna give me eighty dollars a pound right now. How about a hundred? Oh you're breaking my balls! I'll think about it.
[B]Cartman[/B]: Bosnod Medical Group? Yeah, I called earlier about the stem
article (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not without being a university student (or something like that)...
However, the abstract is available here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07863.html [nature.com]
Re:article (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and there's a news story linked from Nature's front page on the topic:
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090227/full/458019a.html [nature.com]
It also links to a second paper at:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07864.html [nature.com]
Parent
Jumping Genes (Score:2)
It may be possible to achieve the same approach using raw strands of RNA that never modifies the DNA, but I'm sure smarter people than
By the way... (Score:4, Interesting)
The real deal - now if we can just get funding... (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer - I work with these guys on occasion.
I am an hESC biologist, and this stuff is quite significant. I expect iPS cells will take over from hESC in the near to mid-term future (5-10 years). Not that I have any problems with hESC, but as a professional in the field, if they can do the same things and not bother people as much, why not? It's worth noting though that this would never have happened without research on embryonic stem cells to allow us to identify the culture conditions etc necessary to maintain puripotence. This lab is not-coincidentally also one of the few Canadian labs licensed to make new hESC lines from discarded blastocysts. Also worth noting that iPS lines will eliminate some of the ethical issues around hESC - but definitely not all of them. This will be particularly important in the U.S. IIRC - Canadian law on hESC is defined around pluripotence (e.g. it includes human iPSC), whereas I don't think this is the case south of the border.
In a timely juxtaposition, the other primary front-page story in today's Globe and Mail was about cutbacks to Canadian research funding. While you guys get Obama and an extra $10bn to the NIH, we are stuck with a conservative government and losing hundreds of millions from our research councils [theglobeandmail.com]. Our Minister of Science and Technology (a chiropractor FFS) apparently screamed at representatives of the national organization of University professors and stomped out of the room when asked about it.
For those Canadians reading this: Canadian scientists are among the best in the world. We can compete on this and many other playing fields - but we need stable, non-politicized funding, most particularly for basic research like this. Industry will not do this kind of work, the profits are too far down the road. Our government needs to stop playing silly power games, and pay attention to the task at hand, before we lose a lot of these top players to the U.S.
Please write (snail-mail as always is both free [parl.gc.ca] and most effective) your MP and encourage them to support scientific research in Canada. If nothing else, when the bailout money runs out and the carmakers finally go belly up, this is where the next generation of jobs will come from.
What is ethics? (Score:2)
Is ethics the business of identifying rules regarding what we'd feel bad for having done, so that we can avoid guilty feelings?
I can kind of understand theists' reasons for striving to act in a moral/ethical way, but I've never gotten a clear explanation of why non-theists would put energy into ethics (medical ethics, in this case).
only a matter of time. (Score:2, Insightful)
No cures forthcoming (Score:2, Insightful)
To which I say "Horseshit!" The day that American medicine finds a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's is the day that American medicine goes out of business. Doctors, HMOs, big pharma and hospitals are too busy making money off the sick to fix these problems.
We've been paying for a war on cancer for over 50 years and don't have a cure; surgery remains butchery; antibio
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul? Is that you? :)
Re:No cures forthcoming (Score:5, Insightful)
To which I say "Horseshit!" The day that American medicine finds a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's is the day that American medicine goes out of business. Doctors, HMOs, big pharma and hospitals are too busy making money off the sick to fix these problems.
Then why hasn't Europe, Canada, or Australia, with national healthcare systems, found cures? Surely it'd be in their best interests to cure stuff?
We've successfully cured cancer lots of times. The problem is that there's millions of versions of cancer; heck, you could say everybody who gets cancer gets their own, personalized version. A person can get cancer, completely separate, unrelated cancers, multiple times. Alzheimer's is ultimately fatal. A living patient is more likely to pay money for healthcare in the future than a dead one. They actually cured type 1 diabetes a couple times; they're working on fixing a problematic side effect(90% of the test group got cancer from the treatment). I think they're working on some gene therapies for parkinson's, not sure, have to head to work.
Cancer's worse than the common cold for variants; surgery has gotten a lot better(laparoscope and such); welcome to evolution; vaccines still work great.
1. No way - we have enough problems with medical malpractice. I'd like to fire the worst 2% or so.
2. Agreed. Medical knowledge has significantly outpaced the ability of a MD to store it in his head
3. There's a limit to how much you can specialize; everything in the human body interrelates. I'm serious. Dentists need to know some heart stuff because messing around with your teeth can screw up your heart.
4. Good idea; goes along with my idea of firing the worst 2% or so.
Parent
Why did they sick it in the first place? (Score:2)
This is the more important question. But somehow, doctors, the phamaceutic industy, and "health" insurance companies do not care at all about it.
The only thing I ever hear is "We found out how to fix this, and that.". Never "We found out how you can prevent yourself from ever getting this."
As long as the medical "science" does not concentrate on prevention, they're still stuck in the middle-ages.
For example all the so-called "diseases of old-age" can be back-traced to eating bad food for decades, toxins/dan
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the "diseases of old age" have many possible causes and it takes a long time to identify them.
People forget that in 1900 greater than 3 out of 100 children died between th
Bring on the Moral Wizards (Score:2)
The supposed ethical issues with embryonic stem cells were a red herring. What the loonies really want is no stem cell work at all to take place. So now the self appointed guardians of morals and ethics must put on their pointy hats and try to find a way to declare skin cell derived stem cells immoral.
How moral or ethical is it for these ignorant idiots to have opinions in the first place?
Amusing in a pathetic way (Score:4, Insightful)
...that the bulk of the comments here are some sort of ridicule for the Christian Right, instead of plaudits for the idea of an advancement that makes the 'farming' of stem cells morally neutral.
Are we really so shallow that rather than confronting someone else's (and it's not a trivial % of the populace) genuine moral questions in sympathy, that we simply mock them? Don't bother replying, we all know the answer.
I don't necessarily agree with the concept that every zygote is sacred; nevertheless I can well see the difficulty of harvesting something from those zygotes for the people who do. (More accurately stated, their fear that there will be a sudden discovery of 'value' in these zygotes, inspiring the full range morality-free behaviors which typically characterize humans when confronted by something of value.) What's more ironic is that the unbelievable, staggering values that's been postulated for embryonic stem cells remains apparently that after all these years: apparently the entire world outside the US is furiously researching uses for these cells, as well as any US lab capable of operating free of the US gov't largesse, but nobody's managed to come up with a real-world useful therapy yet? Curious.
To get back to the point, I feel however that Christians' furor over stem cells would be more accurately directed at the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of fertilized eggs 'disposed of' in the artificial insemination process every year...but that cat is well out of its particular bag, culturally speaking.
I find it equally ironic that some of people that rail against the 'naive' Christians for their 'ridiculous' discomfort at harvesting a resource from zygotes, are some of the same people who express outrage at the ripping of inorganic resources from a not-potentially-a-person ground. I guess it just depends where a person sees value.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dupes are the left over stem cells that refused to differentiate.