New Discovery May End Transplant Rejection 201
mmmscience writes with this excerpt from the Examiner:
"Big news in the medical world: scientists in Australia have found a way to stop the body from attacking organ transplants, greatly decreasing the possibility of organ rejection. ... When a new tissue is introduced, one's immune system kicks into overdrive, sending out cells known as killer T cells to attack and destroy the unknown tissue. ... Professor Jonathan Sprent and Dr. Kylie Webster from Sydney's Garvan Institute of Medical Research focused on a different type of T cells — known as regulatory T cells (Treg) — in this study. Tregs are capable of quieting the immune system, stopping the killer T cells from seeking out and attacking foreign objects."
So they're doing another type of immunosupression? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, what does that do for fighting off infection then?
It's not like there's a magical component to this that identifies the transplanted material as "good" and infectious agents as "bad".
Use a Vat Instead (Score:0, Insightful)
We need to stop pushing money into immune-suppressing options for transplants. Put the funding into the regeneration/growth of replacement organs instead.
Grow a new liver from your own cells & DNA, voila, no problems with rejection.
...if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes this could be a big deal, someday, if the finding holds up for other mammals (a big one), if it works for different kinds of transplants, if it's repeatable, if there are no other major consequences, if human trials are successful, if if if.
Failure to include the "if"s is misleading at best and irresponsible at worst, for giving possibly false hope to those dealing with transplant rejection.
Re:Organlegging (Score:1, Insightful)
why limit it to replacing failing ones? Mine are fairly old and looking pretty beat up, I'd like some new ones. Hell while we're at it why not put 4 in there, just in case.
Re:has its drawbacks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically life is a terminal condition, resulting in death in every verifyable recorded sample.
I guess it's a matter of magnitude. I.e. whether you die now or then.
Re:Wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Being able to put something into a system does not mean you're able to take it out of the system again. A good example would probably be rabbits in Australia.
Re:Use a Vat Instead (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't we do both? You know, eggs and baskets and all that.
Re:More complex transplants will be routine? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:has its drawbacks? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, not even close--well over 5% of all people who have ever lived have never died. There's no sound basis on which to claim that life is terminal.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:4, Insightful)
And in those 2-3 weeks they keep the person in a steril room devoid of any potential bacteria/virus' that could harm the person.
Depending on the transplant, you're probably not going to want to do anything other than lie in a bed during that time anyway.
Re:So they're doing another type of immunosupressi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tissue Rejection (Score:3, Insightful)
Is caused by the immune system not recognizing a foreign invader, the organ being transplanted.
No?
No. Rejection is the appropriate response by the body. With immunsuppresion, we modulate that response.
Then this guy wants to turn off that ability in the body?
Yes?
No, not quite. Their proposal is to stimulate the immune system, but to add this "complex" that says "It's ok...don't attack"
Historically speaking, whenever doctors have taken that approach it results in massive infection, and usually heart and lung problems.
Well, if that were the case, most of the transplant pt's would be dead. Obviously you have taken this a little to far (reduce ad absurdum). First, keep in mind there are two major (humoral aka antibody mediated and c-mediated) and several minor arms to the immunesystem. The humoral system is relative untouched by immunosuppression while the cell-mediated system is what is modulated, but not turned off. And yes there is a risk of infection with immunosuppresion, but not as much as you might expect. The trick to turn off just enough of the immune system to allow the graft to survive, but not enough to endange the patient.
You would think after so many complications from transplants, they would stop pursuing that direction.
Well there are risks, but quality and quantity of life are better with transplant. Kindey failure itself increases the risk of infection, causes chronic refractory anemia (often requiring frequent transfusions) and increases the risk of heart disease. Hemodialysis (filtering the blood to replace kidney function) requires most people to be hooked to a machine for 3-4 hours three times a week (during business hours!). These patients often undergo numerous surgeries to create or correct the vascular access required to get HD. The HD process itself is very draining.
Liver failure really sucks. You can become encephalopathic (an altered mental state typically confusion and altered sleep cycles), you become coagulopathic (bleed easily), you can develop varices (dilated venin in the esophagus, abdominal wall, rectum, etc) which can bleed and are a bitch to stop when you are coagulopathic. Liver failure is deadly with or without treatment. Kidney failure is also deadly, but with HD you can susrvive.
Adult stem cell research seems to be the best approach to me. Same tissue so no rejection, and they do not have all of the problems fetal cells have. (i.e. Fetal stem cells have a nasty habit of becoming tumors.)
Somehow, Adult stem cells "know" what to do and when to stop growing appropriately much better than fetal stem cells when considering tissue regeneration in heart attack patients for example.
I agree that stem cells and gene therapy are our ideal goals but with the state of the art being the equivalent of trying to park your car by dropping it into the city at 50,000 ft (15240 m) we still have a long way to go. In the mean time, transplants remain a sound medical treatment
Not that doctors understand any of this process, but why they continue to invest so much money in transplant research is baffling. The quality of life for people financially and medically sucks for current transplant recipients.
For the majority, you are quite ill-informed. Most patients are quite happy with their transplants and their quality of life improved markedly. Also, kidney transplants that last 5 years are more economical than being on dialysis for that time period. This is why insurance companies actually pay for transplants.
Re:has its drawbacks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically life is a terminal condition, resulting in death in every verifyable recorded sample.
Not mine. :)