Sean0michael writes "Australian scientists have restored the sight of three human test subjects using stem cells cultured in contact lenses. All the patients were blind in only one eye. Two were legally blind, but can now read the big letters on an eye chart. The third could read the first few lines, but is now able to pass a driver's test. The University of New South Wales reports that these patients all had damaged corneas, and the stem cells came from each person's good eye. The best part: the procedure is inexpensive, raising hopes for being able to push this to the third world sooner than other, more expensive medications."
In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.
That's due to your own ignorance not any actual facts. I found one example just in 2 seconds of googling. This FDA approved study [cnn.com] was based on a previous trial that was able to successfully restore locomotion to those with spinal cord injuries. It is not even the only example just the first one that I found.
Ah, dude, he said breakthroughs, not research. I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.
I already told you what the breakthrough was. They were able to successfully restore locomotion using embryonic stem cells in people with spinal cord injuries.
I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.
Which are all using as a base the work of those working on embryonic stem cells. Anyone who thinks that none of these breakthroughs were based off of any work done with embryonic stem cells is just plain ignorant.
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
Did you read what I posted? This study was being done based off the work of a previous trial. Here [jneurosci.org] is the trial that was done that precedes the FDA-approved study.
Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cell Transplants Remyelinate and Restore Locomotion after Spinal Cord Injury
Way to fail.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.
I did read the study and did know that. How does that make it any less of a breakthrough? Was the initial polio vaccine not a breakthrough just because it was only initially only worked on monkeys? I never once claimed this was some ready for human therapy but that doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough. In fact, it's because of that trial that the study I linked was approved and the ones running it admit to building upon the work of that previous trial.
No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.
You want to drive people away from atheism and lend credence to GP's "science worshiper" comment? This is how to do it.
I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing... belief down the throats of others".
This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it;)
In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.
Plenty of research is going on in embryonic stem cells, right now. Induced pluripotent stem cells were made using lessons learned from embryonic stem cells. That's a huge one right there. And the discovery of ESC itself was a significant advance.
You might not think of biology as being important beyond what diseases it can cure right now./.ers tend to be annoyed by people who take this approach to computing. Hmm...
The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them.
On the cures thing, I'm going to repeat myself (this makes three by the way.)
"It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses."
I was talking about research. Research is ongoing, that should be an indication that we don't know enough. 10 years is not enough time to learn all we can about how cells turn from "lump of clay" cells into their final form, and for that we need embryonic stem cells.
No one seems to care that there is basic science to be done here,
Well if you threaten to cut federal funding to any university or hospital that does research on embryonic stem cells, surprise surprise, there are going to be more breakthroughs from other cell types.
"some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more," yeah, well I am tired of 'some people' telling me nonsense becasue of there 'beliefs'. Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.
"...used and duplicated forever."
No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.
No fetus has EVER been harmed in ANY stem cell test or experiment. In fact THEY CAN"T BE becasue they weren't fetuses yet. They're not even 200 cells. Hell, more cell dies last time you sneezed.
There have been many, many, many break thoughs from harvested stem cell.
Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They come from in vitro fertilization. ESC are harvested 5 days after fertilization, abortions aren't performed 5 days after fertilization because you wouldn't know.
People had the image of evil scientists watching abortions being performed through a hole in the wall, rubbing their hands together and twirling their mustaches in sadistic anticipation of fresh, fetal stem cells. It worked out well. They had a target (that didn't exist) they could all agree to hate.
Now those people will have to imagine evil test tubes and deal with the fact that many of them have used such services.
It's only a matter of time before we hear them cry out that they were r
abort: the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed
Who is twisting terminology here? It's typical that you went with "abort" rather than "abortion." Abortion of course, to most people, doesn't mean the act of stopping something.
The actual definition of "abortion" from your source "# S: (n) abortion (termination of pregnancy) # S: (n) miscarriage, abortion (failure of a plan) "
That first one is the one the anti-stem cell movement is hoping people will think of, since that's the one they're queasy about. But ESC doesn't involve pregnancy or the termination thereof. It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.
The hypocrisy here is so thick I can't help but think you're trolling.
It's still a human life...
I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know what constitutes human life, but I do believe it's more than just having a set of nucleotide instructions on how to make a human, which is all 5 day old embryos have.
Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead. The embryonic stem cells are harvested from leftover frozen embryos from people doing invitro-fertilization that would normally just be thrown out.
Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.
Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.
I take it you're unfamiliar with embryo adoption [google.com]?
In other words, I'd rather that these extremely immature human being were given the chance to continue maturing toward adulthood, rather than being tossed aside OR killed for parts to help others.
Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.
They're trying to prevent dead fetuses from developing monetary value. Though I agree that they're not listening to reason, I wouldn't quite phrase it the way you did.
OR maybe we think that the embryos shouldn't have been created in the first place.
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
Only take what you need for the in vitro fertilization and no more.
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.
Then you don't have an ethical dilemma about whether to kill them by throwing them in the garbage or kill them to experiment with ESCs.
There is nothing to kill. These are just clumps of undifferentiated cells.
ESC research could actually induce fertilization clinics to make MORE embryos than they need, knowing they'll be used for research as well.
And yet they don't need to since the fertilization clinics already had way more than they can use even before embryonic stem cell research started.
But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument.
I didn't put in words into anyone's mouth. I was just describing the ultimate reality of what happens when the frozen embryos aren't allowed to be used for research. They are incinerated or simply thrown away.
You could call it a strawman.
Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.
Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.
You didn't tear anything down. You just basically repeated the wacko nonsense that comes from the religious right.
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro ferti
But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument. You could call it a strawman. Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.
Yeah, you're right. It was kind of a strawman, largely because it was too specific.
"I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I can't be arsed to find out, and my imagination of what is going on outrages me!"
Too bad the public at large doesn't understand this concept.
Fixed that for you. The anti-ESC crowd is running a very successful misinformation campaign. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. It's all the more astounding because so many scientists who work on this are professors, teachers, yet they have so far been totally unable to get across to most people that these are never from aborted fetuses, they never can be.
Even GP got it wrong
Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead.
Which is to be expected. Controlling the differentiation of a cell is still not completely understood and difficult to do. It is easier with partially differentiated cells, and hence with stem cells from the tissue that we wish to regrow. Therefore, the first practical treatments and applications of stem cell research will be using adult stem cells.
Where embryonic stem cells come into play is by helping understand this differentiation process better. Increasing our knowledge will enable us to develop treatments that aren't possible using adult stem cells, but it will also likely contribute to having safer more effective adult stem cell treatments treatments. It may even shed some light into the entire aging process and cell life-cycle. They are very important things to be studying.
To put it succinctly, adult stem cells are currently at the R&D stage, embryonic at the pure science stage. Both are important.
The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells [wikipedia.org]), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.
The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.M
I don't know what most of those words mean, but judging from TFS where it says that the stem cells came from each subject's good eye, I'd say you're right, they aren't embryonic stem cells;-)
I had Lasik done when I was 20, back in the late 90s. Six good years of eyesight later, I started to develop an abnormality in my right now. Now, in my early thirties, I've been diagnosed with keratoconus in my right eye, and I might possibly have it in my left. While Lasik doesn't explicitly cause keratoconus, we also didn't know back in the 90's that some people might have corneas with hidden defects that might not take too well to a laser shaving off a couple of layers.
So if they can come up with a way to take stem cells and create whole new corneas to replace damaged ones, then I for one will be anxiously awaiting the day when it becomes available in the United States (about ten years from now most likely, given the FDA's restrictions). I'd like to have normal eyes again, and not worry about one day having to undergo a corneal transplant. So this is AWESOME that they can do that. More power to stem cell research!!!!
A bit offtopic, I use glasses right now (myopia, -7 diopters IIRC) and several people have asked me why I haven't had surgery yet.. I don't really think surgery would change my life all that much, do you think your benefits outweighted the (possible, in your case real) dangers?
BTW I do sports with sports glasses - think Kareem, it's annoying at night after I took off my glasses, but not much else.
does that mean I'm producing stem cells right nowProducing them? I have no idea. Do you have them? Yes you do. However, stem cells like these are different than embryonic stem cells in that they are already have a predisposition of turning into cells of a certain type, where embryonic stem cells can be coerced into turning into any type.
Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking?
Perhaps. I can't address the value or therapeutic effectiveness of stem cells based on your liver, but I can tell you a couple of other factors to consider.
Liver biopsies probably don't feel good. Especially that "sticking a long needle into your belly and sucking out a bit of liver." DIY may not be your best approach here.
I think it'd work best if you had some stem cells from before you started to degrade your poor liver (i.e., before you st
Wearing glasses as a fashion statement isn't new at all. It occurred at least as early as the early Renaissance when glasses were considered a sign of wealth (because you could afford them) and education (because you presumably needed them to read).
Didn't predict what was going to happen? That was very short-sighted of you.
It was blindingly obvious, after all.
Yes, yes, I'm an insensitive clod. I understand this, and apologize in advance to my sight-challenged friends who are listening to this via text reader or reading it via braille.
!embroyonic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.
That's due to your own ignorance not any actual facts. I found one example just in 2 seconds of googling. This FDA approved study [cnn.com] was based on a previous trial that was able to successfully restore locomotion to those with spinal cord injuries. It is not even the only example just the first one that I found.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, dude, he said breakthroughs, not research.
I already told you what the breakthrough was. They were able to successfully restore locomotion using embryonic stem cells in people with spinal cord injuries.
I also did a google search and didn't find much that was successful, though there are hundreds of breakthroughs using adult stem cells.
Which are all using as a base the work of those working on embryonic stem cells. Anyone who thinks that none of these breakthroughs were based off of any work done with embryonic stem cells is just plain ignorant.
Parent
reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you failed reading class as well: "The tests could begin by summer, said Dr. Thomas Okarma, president and CEO of the Geron Corporation." You can't restore locomotion in patients from a test that hasn't been done yet.
Did you read what I posted? This study was being done based off the work of a previous trial. Here [jneurosci.org] is the trial that was done that precedes the FDA-approved study.
Human Embryonic Stem Cell-Derived Oligodendrocyte Progenitor Cell Transplants Remyelinate and Restore Locomotion after Spinal Cord Injury
Way to fail.
And you're a real idiot if you think that the base work in embryonic stem cells has led to anything other than cancer.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. That's a good one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you actually READ that study, the study was done on RATS, not on humans.
I did read the study and did know that. How does that make it any less of a breakthrough? Was the initial polio vaccine not a breakthrough just because it was only initially only worked on monkeys? I never once claimed this was some ready for human therapy but that doesn't make it any less of a breakthrough. In fact, it's because of that trial that the study I linked was approved and the ones running it admit to building upon the work of that previous trial.
No wonder you've never heard of Humanae Vitae- you're as illiterate as any science-worshipper I've ever come across.
Science-worshiper? Hahaha that's a funny one.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a fan of religion myself... but posts like this show a level of fanaticism that far outweighs the what average religious folks are willing to do in terms of "forcing ... belief down the throats of others".
This aside from the fact that you read an awful lot into his post. (Then again, reading his web site... I can kinda understand it ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be gall, unless you're implying that the French are sub-human.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, I am not sure that there has been even one single break through that wasn't from adult stem cells.
Plenty of research is going on in embryonic stem cells, right now. Induced pluripotent stem cells were made using lessons learned from embryonic stem cells. That's a huge one right there. And the discovery of ESC itself was a significant advance.
You might not think of biology as being important beyond what diseases it can cure right now. /.ers tend to be annoyed by people who take this approach to computing. Hmm...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of research yes. Plenty of failures yes. Huge amounts of cancer, yes.
Actual cures, no.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them.
On the cures thing, I'm going to repeat myself (this makes three by the way.)
"It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses."
I was talking about research. Research is ongoing, that should be an indication that we don't know enough. 10 years is not enough time to learn all we can about how cells turn from "lump of clay" cells into their final form, and for that we need embryonic stem cells.
No one seems to care that there is basic science to be done here,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if you threaten to cut federal funding to any university or hospital that does research on embryonic stem cells, surprise surprise, there are going to be more breakthroughs from other cell types.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Informative)
"some people feel are highly unethical actions to get more,"
yeah, well I am tired of 'some people' telling me nonsense becasue of there 'beliefs'. Ignoring the fact that they are the scraps of In Vitro and not specifically harvest for research.
"...used and duplicated forever."
No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.
Who the fuck started spreading that lie?
Parent
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Insightful)
No fetus has EVER been harmed in ANY stem cell test or experiment. In fact THEY CAN"T BE becasue they weren't fetuses yet. They're not even 200 cells. Hell, more cell dies last time you sneezed.
There have been many, many, many break thoughs from harvested stem cell.
Dumbass.
Parent
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Informative)
Embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses. They come from in vitro fertilization. ESC are harvested 5 days after fertilization, abortions aren't performed 5 days after fertilization because you wouldn't know.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now you've done it.
People had the image of evil scientists watching abortions being performed through a hole in the wall, rubbing their hands together and twirling their mustaches in sadistic anticipation of fresh, fetal stem cells. It worked out well. They had a target (that didn't exist) they could all agree to hate.
Now those people will have to imagine evil test tubes and deal with the fact that many of them have used such services.
It's only a matter of time before we hear them cry out that they were r
Re:!embroyonic (Score:4, Insightful)
abort: the act of terminating a project or procedure before it is completed
Who is twisting terminology here? It's typical that you went with "abort" rather than "abortion." Abortion of course, to most people, doesn't mean the act of stopping something.
The actual definition of "abortion" from your source
"# S: (n) abortion (termination of pregnancy)
# S: (n) miscarriage, abortion (failure of a plan) "
That first one is the one the anti-stem cell movement is hoping people will think of, since that's the one they're queasy about. But ESC doesn't involve pregnancy or the termination thereof. It's not a miscarriage. This isn't removing an embryo from a woman to kill it. These are embyros that were never on their way to being born, it doesn't even fall into your definition.
The hypocrisy here is so thick I can't help but think you're trolling.
It's still a human life...
I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know what constitutes human life, but I do believe it's more than just having a set of nucleotide instructions on how to make a human, which is all 5 day old embryos have.
Parent
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're unfamiliar with embryo adoption [google.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, it's amusing that they'd rather have the embryos thrown away in the garbage or incinerated rather than be used to actually further medical science.
They're trying to prevent dead fetuses from developing monetary value. Though I agree that they're not listening to reason, I wouldn't quite phrase it the way you did.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Insightful)
OR maybe we think that the embryos shouldn't have been created in the first place.
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
Only take what you need for the in vitro fertilization and no more.
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro fertilization works you'd know that there are usually a very small likelihood of successful implantation which is why they have to create so many.
Then you don't have an ethical dilemma about whether to kill them by throwing them in the garbage or kill them to experiment with ESCs.
There is nothing to kill. These are just clumps of undifferentiated cells.
ESC research could actually induce fertilization clinics to make MORE embryos than they need, knowing they'll be used for research as well.
And yet they don't need to since the fertilization clinics already had way more than they can use even before embryonic stem cell research started.
But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument.
I didn't put in words into anyone's mouth. I was just describing the ultimate reality of what happens when the frozen embryos aren't allowed to be used for research. They are incinerated or simply thrown away.
You could call it a strawman.
Outlining the consequences of what happens when the embryos aren't allowed to be used isn't a strawman.
Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.
You didn't tear anything down. You just basically repeated the wacko nonsense that comes from the religious right.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Well then it's amazing that not a single one of the embryonic stem cell whiners have ever publicly stated this.
I have, hundreds of times. The Roman Catholic Church is probably the biggest "embryonic stem cell whiner" there is, and THEY predicted this development of reproductive research back in 1976 (Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI).
But one doesn't know how many are going to be needed which is why they make and freeze so many. If you knew anything about how in-vitro ferti
Re: (Score:2)
But it's nice of you to put words in the mouths of people like me to tear down to benefit your argument. You could call it a strawman. Congratulations on the insightful mod since that strawman was pretty tough to tear down.
Yeah, you're right. It was kind of a strawman, largely because it was too specific.
"I have no idea of what I'm talking about, I can't be arsed to find out, and my imagination of what is going on outrages me!"
There. That's not a strawman at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the public at large doesn't understand this concept.
Fixed that for you. The anti-ESC crowd is running a very successful misinformation campaign. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. It's all the more astounding because so many scientists who work on this are professors, teachers, yet they have so far been totally unable to get across to most people that these are never from aborted fetuses, they never can be.
Even GP got it wrong
Aborted fetuses aren't used as a source of stem cells since all the cells would be dead.
Not true, plenty of studies are done off of live aborted tissue. For example, studies on human brain development. [nature.com] The reaso
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"The good news is no aborted fetuses were harmed in the course of these tests."
Why is it a good news? I don't care about fetuses or some occult opinions.
Re:!embroyonic (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to be expected. Controlling the differentiation of a cell is still not completely understood and difficult to do. It is easier with partially differentiated cells, and hence with stem cells from the tissue that we wish to regrow. Therefore, the first practical treatments and applications of stem cell research will be using adult stem cells.
Where embryonic stem cells come into play is by helping understand this differentiation process better. Increasing our knowledge will enable us to develop treatments that aren't possible using adult stem cells, but it will also likely contribute to having safer more effective adult stem cell treatments treatments. It may even shed some light into the entire aging process and cell life-cycle. They are very important things to be studying.
To put it succinctly, adult stem cells are currently at the R&D stage, embryonic at the pure science stage. Both are important.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: "To obtain the stem cells, Dr Watson took less than a millimeter of tissue from the side of each patients' cornea. "
Yep, not embryonic. For all the hype of embryonic stem cells, we've yet to see *ANYTHING* good come out of them.
Types of stem cells (Score:5, Interesting)
The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells [wikipedia.org]), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.
Re:Types of stem cells (Score:5, Informative)
The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced,
They weren't produced. They were somatic stem cells that were in the patients good eyes.
so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells [wikipedia.org])
No, you would be wrong. As the summary and the article state these are adult stem cells [wikipedia.org] or somatic stem cells as they are also called.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
1. I would presume they were produced from cells harvested from the good eyes.
2. Adult stem cells are multipotent progenitor cells.
Re: (Score:2)
2. Adult stem cells are multipotent progenitor cells.
Sorry, but no. Progenitor cells are differentiated. Somatic stem cells are undifferentiated.
Re: (Score:2)
The article doesn't go into very much detail on what the stem cells really were or how the were produced, so I assume what they refer to as "stem cells" are really multipotent stem cells (or so-called progenitor cells), rather than the pluripotent stem cells that are obtained from the embryo and that can differentiate into any adult tissue. Multipotent stem cells are found in many regenenerating tissues, such as epithelia and bone marrow, but it should be noted that they are not stem cells in the sense that they would retain the ability to differentiate into any cell type.M
I don't know what most of those words mean, but judging from TFS where it says that the stem cells came from each subject's good eye, I'd say you're right, they aren't embryonic stem cells ;-)
I'm THRILLED by this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit offtopic, I use glasses right now (myopia, -7 diopters IIRC) and several people have asked me why I haven't had surgery yet.. I don't really think surgery would change my life all that much, do you think your benefits outweighted the (possible, in your case real) dangers?
BTW I do sports with sports glasses - think Kareem, it's annoying at night after I took off my glasses, but not much else.
Good luck with the keratoconus.
Any numbers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Inexpensive? That's a very relative term..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why he needs it out, so he can set it to vibrate and put it back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can I harvest it and fix my liver from a night of overdrinking?
Perhaps. I can't address the value or therapeutic effectiveness of stem cells based on your liver, but I can tell you a couple of other factors to consider.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't predict what was going to happen? That was very short-sighted of you.
It was blindingly obvious, after all.
Yes, yes, I'm an insensitive clod. I understand this, and apologize in advance to my sight-challenged friends who are listening to this via text reader or reading it via braille.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched them liquefy the dead and make them into eye drops for the living...
Re:"killing dead babies"? (Score:4, Funny)
How exactly does one kill something that is already dead?
With a wooden stake, garlic, and holy water, under the light of a full moon.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)