Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found 230

Posted by michael from the key-to-the-universe dept.
nexex writes "From the Washington Post, 'Scientists yesterday said they have discovered a long-sought "master gene" in embryonic stem cells that is largely responsible for giving those cells their unique regenerative and therapeutic potential.' The report summarizes an article in the newest issue of the scientific journal, Cell."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found More

Stem Cell "Master Gene" Found

Comments Filter:

  • Potential (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:56PM (#6086368) Homepage Journal
    Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells? Hopefully this kills off any remaining debate over cloning/killing babies and paves the way for real, theraputic research.

    • Re:Potential (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Turing Machine ( 144300 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:02PM (#6086400)
      They still need to learn how to turn it on.

      As I understand it (and I'm not even an amateur in this field, so take this for what it's worth) that's one of the major problems facing genetic scientists. There are many, many cases where they know which gene is responsible for something, but they don't yet know how how that gene is switched on (or off).

      I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-)

      • Re:Potential (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pe1rxq ( 141710 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:14PM (#6086463) Homepage Journal
        No, more like knowing the account is named 'root' but not having the password.

        Jeroen

      • Re:Potential (Score:3, Insightful)

        by s88 ( 255181 )
        "I guess it's like knowing the root password, but not having a shell or any other way of making use of it. :-) "

        Isn't it more like knowing that root is the account you want, but not knowing the password?

        Scott

      • Re:Potential (Score:2, Insightful)

        by moz711 ( 217919 )
        Why bother figuring out how it's turned on? Just engineer a transgene, with the gene and a promoter sequence that you do know how to control (there are many different types, and some can be manipulated by external chemical control). Then insert the transgene into a test cell and use the added promoter sequence to turn it on at will.

        • Re:Potential (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nounderscores ( 246517 )
          Good idea. And you could put in an antisense version with a promoter to turn off the natural copy at will.

        • Re:Potential (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Cipster ( 623378 )
          The problem with that is that you would have to continuously control the gene externally (essentially try and baby sit it). It would be much more easy to figure out how to turn an upstream switch on since:
          -You get to take advantage of cellular signal amplification so you will only need a small initial signal to turn on the cascade.
          -You can take advantage of the regulatory system apready in place so the newly activated cells don't turn into a tumor or worse.

      • How to Turn On A Stem Master Cell (Score:5, Funny)

        by thedbp ( 443047 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @08:32PM (#6087291)
        1. Put on some smooth jazz or R&B. Al Green will do nicely.

        2. Light some candles and incense. Sandalwood is perfect, especially if you can get some sandalwood massage oil.

        3. Compliment the Stem Master Cell heavily, even if you don't believe a word of what you're saying.

        4. Offer a deep-fetal-tissue massage.

        5. After a nice 20 minute session, rub the Stem Master Cell's buttocks and thighs, hightening their pleasure with small injections of dopamine.

        That should do it! Lord knows it works for me.
      • They still need to learn how to turn it on.


        A little dinner.. a little wine.. a little atmosphere..

        Too easy :)

    • Re:Potential (Score:3, Funny)

      by Pinguu ( 677142 )
      isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells?
      What's the stem cells IP? I'm gonna hax0r it ^^

    • Re:Potential (Score:4, Informative)

      by stoborrobots ( 577882 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:19PM (#6086492)
      One opportunity to kill off this debate is listed in this New Scientist article [newscientist.com] someone else posted...

      He says a more immediate use of the key gene would be to enable the medical profession to grow "millions and billions" of ESCs from existing samples. These could then more safely be used in humans, as they would not have been exposed to the "cocktail" of chemicals currently needed.

    • Re:Potential (Score:5, Informative)

      by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:10PM (#6086725) Homepage Journal
      Since they've now apparently isolated this gene, isn't it kind of like having "root" access to stem cells?

      Not quite. Because you know which gene is responsible does not mean you know how to 1) activate it, 2) turn it off, 3) modulate it's activity. All three of these possibilities will be different in various tissues that may have differing rates of turnover. Take for instance lung tissue versus neural tissue. Lung tissue turns over quite a bit from stem cell populations, whereas neural tissue does not (well mostly does not).

      The whole genomics world is just the beginning in that there will be a whole post-genomics world where scientists need to figure out how all of the code works. We just now are getting to the point where we know what the code is and its general order, but we do not know how all of it works. It's like reverse engineering a system where we are not certain of all of the rules by which the system is constructed. With computer code at least, one can know the general order of code, its structure and execution. Bioscience is more......slippery. :-)

    • One gene to rule them all, and in darkness bind them? /frodo
    • Embryonic stem cell research WAS real theraputic research.

  • Is this patentable? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dtolton ( 162216 ) * on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:58PM (#6086374) Homepage
    Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
    information? I would hope that since this is being done at a
    University that won't happen. Although with all the recent patent
    craziness, I wouldn't be completely suprised if they granted a patent
    on it.

    It still concerns and dismays me greatly that there is any discussion
    of patenting things like the human genome. As many have said, they
    are a discovery rather than an invention. Let's hope this research
    follows that philosophy.

    Sadly, the fact that stem cells have great potential application to
    ease human suffering is seen by many people as a great way to make a
    buck. It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our
    tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high
    per item cost to help defray research costs. ::sigh::

    • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:5, Funny)

      by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:03PM (#6086407) Journal
      The human genome has already been patented. Patent number 00000001 is owned by God, and was issued a few million years ago. But, I don't think he's capable of enforcing it as there are no lawyers in heaven.

      • Actually, Heaven does have *one* lawyer (HUMOUR) (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:40PM (#6086579)
        Following a distinguished legal career, a man arrived at the Gates of heaven, accompanied by the Pope, who had the misfortune to expire on the same day.

        The Pope was greeted first by St. Peter, who escorted him to his quarters. The room was somewhat shabby and small, similar to that found in a low-grade Motel 6-type establishment.

        The lawyer was then taken to his room, which was a palatial suite including a private swimming pool, a garden, and a terrace overlooking the Gates. The attorney was somewhat taken aback, and told St. Peter,

        "I'm really quite surprised at these rooms, seeing as how the Pope was given such small accommodations."

        St. Peter replied, We have over a hundred Popes here, and we're really very bored with them. We've never had a lawyer.

      • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:4, Funny)

        by roskakori ( 447739 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @09:24PM (#6087458)
        The human genome has already been patented. Patent number 00000001 is owned by God
        no, you are mistaken. although patent number 00000001 is owned by god, it refers to "light".

    • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dissy ( 172727 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:07PM (#6086430)
      > Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
      > information

      Thats the nice thing about being a University, they dont need to patent, they just publish.
      Why pay for a patent if its suppost to be open? When you publish, you can always prove prior art to any future patents a jerk would try to make to steal the technology. And thats all that needs to be protected if it is to be open and public knowledge.

      I just hope having it open instead of using it to make huge profits is exactly what they have on their minds.
      • When you publish, you can always prove prior art...
        ----
        Once someone else gets a patent, it takes about $10 million in legal fees to invalidate it, even if there exists prior art. That's why a lot of companies these days patent dubious things; they feel that a patent in their hands is a legal defense tactic against someone *else's* predatory moves.

        C//

    • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:11PM (#6086452)
      I would hope that since this is being done at a
      University that won't happen.

      So would I, but bitter experience has proved that this expectation is unreasonable. A number of the existing stem cell lines that have been annointed as available to federally-funded researchers are in fact patented by the University of Wisconsin, if memory serves. However, perhaps the fact that this latest discovery was made in Scotland and Japan will change things.

      It's even worse that most of this research is funded by our tax dollars, then we have to turn right back around and pay a high per item cost to help defray research costs.

      I hear this a lot on Slashdot, but it misses half of the point. The problem is with patents on basic research, which do not represent a marketable product. A gene patent is commercially useless without extensive further research, e.g. traditional drug development. In contrast, many patents held by academic groups are for inventions that have immediate commercial potential. For instance, the automatic DNA sequencer was invented at Caltech, presumably with federal grant money, then patented. It was immediately commercialized, enabling a high-quality product to get to market quickly. (It was also truly revolutionary at the time.) Gene patents, on the other hand, are usually just used to stifle further research by competitors who might actually be capable of realizing its medical and economic potential.

      (This is distinct from junk patents that hardly meet any of the other standards such as novelty and non-obviousness. I've also seen a fair number of those applied for by academic groups. I think this reflects the sad fact that competition has become so much more intense that scientific ethics have increasingly disappeared - this is not limited to patents. Since I'd prefer to keep my job, I can't go into as much details as I'd like.)

      • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:27PM (#6086814) Homepage
        Patenting existing genes is unconstitutional in any event. As is clearly stated, both patents and copyrights exist to allow *inventors* and *artists* to profit from their work for a brief period of time, before that work must be released into the public domain.

        Discovered natural events, like genes, are not 'invented'. There is no constitutional basis for issuing a patent for a discovery of this nature. You could patent the *invention* used to isolate and manipulate the gene, but patenting the gene itself is bogus, a ridiculous extension of the process that goes well beyond constitutional protections.

        Unless, of course, the people involved in trying to patent the gene suffer from the delusion that they are god.

        Max

        • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @08:26PM (#6087263)
          I agree, but unfortunately it's not really 'unconstitutional" until the Supremes say so (or until Congress passes a law, which wouldn't make it unconstitutional but would have the same effect). What's needed is for a gene patent to stifle medical research on some high-profile illness, particularly an illness that afflicts some group with lots of money and political clout. Only people realize the damage that gene patents can do, there will be considerable motivation to steamroll over the whining of biotechs and patent lawyers and declare them illegal. I'm a little surprised that Myriad's BRCA1 patent hasn't done this here, though Canada and France seem to be slowly getting the message.

          (Again, this is different from, say, AIDS drug patents, which I'd argue are still necessary even though Big Pharma needs to chill the fuck out. People would be far more outraged if a gene patent was used to block the sale of a live-saving drug, though I'm not sure how this is any different from Myriad suing breast-cancer researchers. Call it the difference between greed and spite.)
    • Darl McBride at a hastily called press conference said that when they threw out the baby with the bathwater here recently they found these patents left in the tub.

    • In my Bioethics class at Yale I was informed that, in order to be patentable, the information coding a gene cannot be natural.

      For instance, if I manually create a new gene that exists nowhere in nature (as far as we know) then I am free to patent that, but if I merely discover a gene that already exists, I may not patent it.

      I will say nothing, though, about the patenting of techniques, which I will leave to abler minds.

      • Re:Is this patentable? (Score:2, Interesting)

        by skywire ( 469351 )
        You have the right idea about patents in general. However, a few years ago Congress decided to let discoverers of genes patent them. This is certainly a legal oddity (conflicting with the core meaning of patents in US law), but they wanted to encourage such discovery, and the patent system was a practical tool for effecting the policy.

  • LIES ALL LIES!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:58PM (#6086379)
    This GOVERNMENT filth is misinformation!

    Support BABY HARVESTING. It's the only way for a brighter future! Kill cancer, HARVEST BABIES!

  • Does this mean no more embrionic research? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SpamJunkie ( 557825 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @04:59PM (#6086381)
    Can anyone familiar with the details say if this will end the need to do research on embryos? This seems to be a controversial aspect of stem cell research and eliminating this need may help win public acceptance.
    • The article suggests that in the near term, this will actually boost the need for research on embryos, to figure out how this "nanog" stuff works...

      However, it does mean that (hopefully) down the track, those things which can now only be cured with embryonic transplants will be curable with alternative techniques...

      Happy to answer any other queries on the subject (have been following the subject *VERY* closely for a few years now... Also working in bioinformatics this month...)

      • Actually, I am not aware of any actual embryonic stem cell treatments that are in clinical use. The hope has been high but hasn't panned out yet. The supposedly less capable adult stem cell therapies *are* out there and curing people without all the moral difficulties embryo therapies present.

        Could you give a ref. to an actual embryonic treatment that is in actual use?

        • Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? (Score:4, Informative)

          by stoborrobots ( 577882 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:51PM (#6086645)
          You're right (or at least to my knowledge) from a clinical perspective... There are no clinical-grade or even advanced research-grade treatments available... I didn't stress the "plausible but not proven" sense of the word "can" in my last post. My bad...

          However, I seem to recall some successes in among the spectacular failures... The only thing I can turn up seems to be this rather cryptic link [kroisscancercenter.com] (scan down to point 3) which alludes to the successes I (think I) can remember... It was a while ago though, before I was following this... So my memory may be unclear, or I may be hyping this more than it deserves... I will be back in touch if I find a more concrete reference...

          Also, there has been considerably less research on the embryonic stemcells than the adult variants, because of the moral difficulties, which may partly explain why there are more successes with the latter...

          • I can smell the snake oil from here. Low life expectency patients (read desperate), techniques that have not, apparently been peer reviewed and demonstrated efficacious, this sounds suspiciously like shamanism which, if they're just injecting saline and calling them fetal cells, I don't have much of a problem but if they're actually using the cells to gain advantage of the placebo effect...
      • The basic research has been done and will be done on mouse embryos.

        The discovery will hopefully lead to a cell line (originated from only a couple of human embryos, a single time) that can be growed indefinitely and without using chemicals to keep the cells from differentiating.

        So yes, there would be no more need for human embryos for "production" of stem cells and it would probably be safer and more reproducible for the patients as well.

    • Re:Does this mean no more embrionic research? (Score:5, Informative)

      by nfk ( 570056 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:15PM (#6086472)
      They answer that in the article:

      "THE DISCOVERY of the gene brings scientists closer to a holy grail of biology: the ability to turn ordinary cells into those that possess all the biomedical potency of human embryonic stem cells, eliminating the need to destroy embryos to get them.

      Researchers cautioned that the new work (...) will not bring a quick end to the political controversy over human embryo research."

      They even say that it might intensify research on embryos, for now.

  • Unacceptable research? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stoborrobots ( 577882 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:05PM (#6086415)
    If they have found the controller for the unlimited reproduction abilities of these cells, then we may be well on the way to curing many of these harmful diseases... True cures for Alzheimers and Parkinsons???

    maybe even eliminate costly transplants...

    Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)

    Hopefully the people in charge realise that this is more than an attempt "to transcend embryo research ... [because] it's wrong".
    • Who knows, we could even save Michael J Fox's career... =)

      Or even save Michael Jackson's face!

      Er...its pretty far gone, maybe not.
    • Hopefully the people in charge realise that this is more than an attempt "to transcend embryo research ... [because] it's wrong".

      Yes, they understand all the good things you can do without killing babies now.

    • I know I will takea karma hit for saying this, but so be it because what I have to say is true. It applies to all those who suuport this type of research. What's next? Testing chemicals and bio-warfare on mentally disabled people?
      I bet that's what the Nazi's thought when they started to run all those tests on Jewish prisioners. You sound just like them. You want a cure at what cost? I have an aunt with Parkinsons who would love to be cured, and I have a man who was like a grandfather to me die
  • What happens if you turn the Master gene on for a normal cell, or off in the stem cell? Does that automatically make the cell grow into a baby? That would be wild!

    • Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Baumi ( 148744 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:12PM (#6086455) Homepage
      Stem cells don't automatically grow into babies - if that were the case, this'd be the Easy Route to human cloning.

      An in-depth look into what stem cells are, can be found here [nih.gov].
    • No, but the question is interesting. I wonder if a gene therapy that activates this gene leads to incredibly increased cancer risk (beyond the risk already associated with gene therapy of course) because setting the STEM_CELL flag might also deactivate growth and replication controls?
      If so, would this mean that in order to repair/regrow tissue we whould probably do it offline (in a growth tank or something) and then insert the ready grown and thus stem-cell-free tissue into the body of a patient?
      Any biologi

    • Re:can you turn Master gene on/off? (Score:4, Informative)

      by diaphanous ( 1806 ) <pgarland.gmail@com> on Saturday May 31, 2003 @08:58PM (#6087380)

      I'm not very knowledgeable about stem cells, but I read the Chambers et al. paper (but not Mitsui et al.), and I think I understand the main points and if I'm wrong hopefully someone more knowledgeable will correct me.

      Mouse embryonic stem cells use a couple of factors- gp130 signalling, Oct4, and Nanog to retain their state as stem cells. Chambers et al. showed that that raising the levels of Nanog allows embryonic stem cells to maintain their "stemness"- their undifferentiated state- in the abscence of gp130 signalling. If you remove nanog, then whether the embryonic cells remained stem cells or became more specialized would probably depend on the levels of gp130 signalling, although it seems that nanog may be the limiting factor.


      ~Phillip

    • You must make sure you've also set the jumper correctly or you could leave it on CS

  • This is also on Newscientist.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:10PM (#6086445) Homepage Journal
    And was posted on May 30 Link follows: Here [newscientist.com]

  • Foreskin restoration!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Martin Marvinski ( 581860 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:17PM (#6086479)
    Now I can finally get my foreskin back after 43 years without it!

  • Help! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does anybody have the Locus Link ID,
    Unigene ID, official HUGO name or even
    the genomic coordinates for
    the NANOG gene?

  • Turn on? (Score:4, Funny)

    by jabbadabbadoo ( 599681 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @05:59PM (#6086673)
    Can I exploit this knownledge to turn on women, you think?

  • Welcome (Score:3, Funny)

    by Barkmullz ( 594479 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:06PM (#6086694)
    I, for one, will welcome our new master gene overlords

    • AHHHH! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ghoser777 ( 113623 )
      "AYBABTU," then "In Soviet Russia..."

      When will the lame jokes end?!?! I only hope this valuable research will lead us towards a way to turn off the "lame-joke" gene.

      Matt Fahrenbacher

  • Incase anyone's interested... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Andorion ( 526481 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:12PM (#6086732)
    There's a cool song about stem cell research by Dream Theater, called "The Great Debate", off "Six Degrees of Turbulance" - I suggest checking it out =)

    ~Berj

  • Master Gene? No! Mistress Gene! (Score:5, Funny)

    by screwthemoderators ( 590476 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:12PM (#6086733) Journal
    A gene that tells all others what to do should definitely be feminine-

  • BBC has more commentary (Score:4, Informative)

    by stoborrobots ( 577882 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @06:34PM (#6086842)
    See this page [bbc.co.uk]

  • Now if we could only find a cure of the common cold.

  • Old news (Score:2, Funny)

    by Ambush ( 120586 )
    I saw Russell Crowe regenerate his cells last night in Virtuosity [imdb.com]. Of course, he used glass rather than stem cells, but it was a neat party trick anyway.

    ;-)

  • Convert DNA to Binary... (Score:3)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @08:18PM (#6087233) Homepage Journal
    and you'll see in the beginning of the gene:

    int main (int argc, char** argv)
    { ...
  • Has anyone listened to Dream Theater's "The Great Debate"?

    After listening to that song, I can't read any discussion about stem cell research without rolling my eyes over that stupid song. :)

  • Useful to find this gene role in cancer (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Saturday May 31, 2003 @11:20PM (#6087869)
    A lot of tumor cells use signaling pathways which are activated normaly only in embryogenesis - turning the cell signaling off is a new promising way to treat cancer without the typical debilitating chemotherapy side-effects. The ability to switch this master stem-cell gene off could be useful in this respect.
  • The master gene [imdb.com] was discovered decades ago :)
  • Briefly, for those who went to high school here in the states:

    Gene (DNA) -> RNA -> Protein

    So, each Gene makes a single Protein product.

    Reearchers have found the Gene that makes the protein product that causes a cell to behave as a stem cell. This Gene is found in every cell of your body, but, under normal circumstances, the protein product is found only in stem cells.

    While I'm clearing things up I might as well explain some more.

    Melanin, for example, is the pigment that turns your skin brown. The

Slashdot Top Deals

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken

Close