Stem Cells Restore Feeling In Paraplegic 540
Vicissidude writes "According to WorldNetDaily scientists in Korea report using umbilical cord blood stem cells to restore feeling and mobility to a spinal-cord injury patient. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal Cytotherapy, centered on a woman who had been a paraplegic 19 years due to an accident. After an infusion of umbilical cord blood stem cells, stunning results were recorded: 'The patient could move her hips and feel her hip skin on day 15 after transplantation. On day 25 after transplantation her feet responded to stimulation.'"
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:0, Informative)
Stem cell research can be funded by state or by private organizations. Also, there is nothing limiting research other types of stem cells.
If you hate that the Bush Administration puts America in a bad light, why do you aid the cause by spreading misinformation which makes America look far worse than it really is?
The paper's title, abstract, and URL (Score:5, Informative)
A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study pp. 368 - 373
K-S Kang, SW Kim, YH Oh, JW Yu, K-Y Kim, HK Park, C-H Song, H Han
DOI: 10.1080/14653240500238160
Abstract:
HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.
http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(hibl2tibmt1yld
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:5, Informative)
Lumbar laminectomy was also done (Score:5, Informative)
The posted article does not mention that the patient also had a Lumbar laminectomy performed.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/ [wesleyjsmith.com] We have to be cautious. One patient does not a treatment make. Also, the authors note that the lamenectomy the patient received might have offered some benefit. But still, this is a wonderful story that offers tremendous hope for paralyzed patients. Typically, it has been extensively ignored in the American media (although it has gotten some foreign press attention). (Can you imagine the headlines if the cells used had been embryonic?)
http://www.spineuniverse.com/displayarticle.php/ar ticle545.html [spineuniverse.com]
"The goal of a laminectomy is to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerve by widening the spinal canal. This is done by removing or trimming the lamina (roof) of the vertebrae to create more space for the nerves."
Re:For purposes of consistency... (Score:3, Informative)
Your statement reminds me of a movie "Head of State" where there was a campaign ad from the opponent stating "Mays Gilliam for Cancer!"
A little longer and this news would be a year old (Score:5, Informative)
I used it in a paper I wrote last year.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:3, Informative)
This is utterly and factually incorrect. What would be factually correct to say is that Bush was the first president to address the issue of stem cell research specifically. Stem cell research has been going on for years and years before the Bush administration came into power.
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:3, Informative)
It seems that science poses a threat an administration such as the current one.
I'd hate to destroy your little fantasy but...
NSF budget:
1998: $3.429 billion (clinton)
1999: $3.672 billion (clinton)
2000: $3.912 billion (clinton)
2001: $4.416 billion (clinton)
2002: $4.789 billion (bush)
2003: $5.344 billion (bush)
2004: $5.577 billion (bush)
2005: $5.473 billion (bush)
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Informative)
So, that implies directly that I acknowledged the Bush administration has allowed some stem cell research, but at the same time, has limited the kinds of research than can be accomplished. This has absolutely resulted in some scientific teams leaving the country to perform their work elsewhere.
Why has this become an issue? It was not previously an issue as stem cell research has been going in in federally funded laboratories for at least 20 years. It is an issue because it became a political issue that was religiously motivated.
First Link Not Safe for Work (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Umbilical Cord Stem Cells? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the huge misconception about embryonic stem cells: They are not from aborted fetuses.
Embryonic stem cells from from blastocysts (on the order of 50-100 cells) that are derived from in vitro fertilization attempts where the fertilized eggs are to be discarded. It is one of those issues that has been clouded with talk of abortion (usually by opponents ESC research), and thus reasonable discussion is frequently overwhelmed by hysterical chatter that doesn't even relate to the topic.
If you are cool with IVF, then there is little reason to be upset about ESC research. If you aren't cool with ESC research, then it seems illogical to be ok with IVF. Abortion really does not enter into the discussion.
-Ted
Full Text (Score:1, Informative)
------------------
A 37-year-old spinal cord-injured female patient, transplanted of multipotent stem cells from human UC blood, with improved sensory perception and mobility, both functionally and morphologically: a case study
K-S Kanga, SW Kimb, YH Ohc, JW Yud, K-Y Kimd, HK Parke, C-H Songd and H Han MD, PhDb,*
aLaboratory of Stem Cell and Tumor Biology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea; bSeoul Cord Blood Bank, Histostem Co., Seoul, Korea; cNew Life Clinic, Seoul, Korea; dChosun University Hospital, Kwang-ju, Korea; eDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.
*Correspondence to: Seoul Life Foundation, Bldg. 518-4 Dunchon-Dong Kang Dong Ku, Seoul 134-060, Korea.
HLA-matched UC blood-derived multipotent stem cells were directly transplanted into the injured spinal cord site of a 37-year-old female patient suffering from spinal cord injury (SPI). In this case, human cord blood (UCB)-derived multipotent stem cells improved sensory perception and movement in the SPI patient's hips and thighs within 41 days of cell transplantation. CT and MRI results also showed regeneration of the spinal cord at the injured site and some of the cauda equina below it. Therefore, it is suggested that UCB multipotent stem cell transplantation could be a good treatment method for SPI patients.
Keywords: clinical trial, multipotent stem cells, spinal cord injury, UC blood.
Introduction
Spinal cord injury (SPI) is a major medical problem world-wide. Great efforts have been made to improve the condition of SPI patients, not only regarding sensory perception but also functional ability [1]. There are some recent reports related to animal model experiments that indicate some hope for SPI patients [2,3].
The blood remaining in the UC following birth contains hematopoietic precursors, which represent an important alternative source for transplantation for hematopoietic diseases [4-6]. However, controversy exists as to whether such blood also contains multipotent stem cells (MSC) that are capable of differentiating into cells of different connective tissue lineages, such as bone, cartilage and adipose tissues. Stem cells are the best candidates for tissue engineering of musculoskeletal tissues [7-9]. To date, the most common source of MSC has been BM, but aspirating BM from a patient is an invasive procedure. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the number and differentiating potential of BM-derived MSC decrease with age [10]. Therefore, the search for alternative sources of MSC is of significant value. So far, little success has been reported regarding the isolation, characterization and differentiation of MSC from umbilical cord blood (UCB). Erices et al. [11] reported that UCB-derived mononuclear cells gave rise to two adherent cell types, one of which expressed MSC related to surface Ag. Mareschi et al. [12] reported that, in given conditions, it was possible to isolate MSC from BM but not from UCB. However, Goodwin et al. and our laboratory [13,14] have recently reported cells that have multilineage differentiation activity, isolated from UCB, and express bone, fat and neural markers. Kakinuma et al. [15] reported that UCB-derived MSC could differentiate into hepatic progenitor cells. However, none of these reports provided sufficient evidence to fulfill the qualifying criteria for MSC, because relatively heterogeneous cells were reported by the groups. It has been reported that MSC from BM can improve SPI functional models in the laboratory [3]. However, there has been no report of cord blood MSC related to SPI. This study is the first report regarding a clinical trial for a chronic SPI patient using MSC derived from UCB. In this study, we report that MSC from UCB can show functional and morphologic improvement in a chronic SPI patient.
Methods
Human UCB harvest and preparation of MSC
Human U
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly because this news is old hat.
Here is an article and a nice pic of the lady from 2004.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/200411/kt20041126
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:5, Informative)
Links are fine. (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you have a rootkit installed.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhhhh... (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhhh.... let's see... WorldNetDaily reports on this supposedly important scientific research that "like most breakthroughs using adult stem cells, this one has been completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media." Who do they interview about the research? The authors of the paper? No, someone from the (intelligent design proponents) Discovery Institute!
They don't even give the title, author or volume for the journal article. So how do we assess the veracity of this claim that adult stem cells can save paraplegics. I'll join the original poster in calling BULLSHIT until real scientists test and backup the claims.
WorldNetDaily, by the way, makes FOX News and CNN look like paragons of journalism. For them to report on anything scientific is laughable. For Slashdot to advertise it, doubly so.
Re:Extremely sceptical (Score:5, Informative)
See http://www.teleemg.com/new/back_and_leg2.htm [teleemg.com] for one reference. (Second question on the page.)
Re:Benefit of the doubt (Score:4, Informative)
There is a picture of her doing just that here [stemcellresearch.org] (sorry it's 3MB PDF file, pic is on page 30).
Re:Extremely sceptical (Score:3, Informative)
1. peripheral nerves regenerate at the rate of about 1mm per day after an acute injury (assuming no other medical comorbidities that impair healing, inflammation, etc). that's about an inch a month. this article deals with central nervous system repair/regeneration so that information is not applicable.
2. are you arguing that all umbilical stem cells will ultimately return to the bone marrow regardless of which nerve growth factors they are given and irrespective of their site of implantation? you're assuming a lot about the technique used here and i don't think you can be so dismissive of the paper without reading it (my institution doesn't have access to that particular journal).
this is promising research, but i too am troubled by the fact that it was published in a relatively minor journal. animal models suggest that stem cells can be used to facilitate central nervous system (CNS_ regrowth. i'd like to know more about the woman's initial injury and resulting defecits. was it a cord transection or just a bad contusion? i'll also point out that the lower thoracic cord and cauda equina tolerate injury better than any other part of the CNS.
Re:Extremely sceptical (Score:1, Informative)
Sadly, it would seem from this that a great way to get modded up to +5 (interesting/informative) on slashdot is to title your post "Extremely skeptical" and then proceed to write something so incredibly and obviously wrong that if anyone actually thought about it for more than two seconds they would realise it must be wrong. I can understand one bad mod, but three? Seems like cynicism and skepticism are easily mistaken for intelligence on slashdot, no wonder there are so many clamouring to post their knee-jerk "THIS WON'T WORK" comments in every story :/
Re:Question for bio-geeks (Score:3, Informative)
Er, they cut the spinal cord in half. They don't sever the rest of the mouse....
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)