Regenerating Muscle Cells With Newt-Inspired Tech

gmp writes "The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal are reporting on a new paper, published in the science journal Cell Stem Cell, where scientists, inspired by the ability of newts and other lower organisms to regrow lost limbs, have demonstrated that adult mammalian cells can be made to regenerate by suppressing a pair of anti-cancer genes. 'Interfering with tumor suppressor genes is a dangerous game, but Dr. Pomerantz said the genes could be inhibited for just a short period by applying the right dose of drug. When the drug has dissipated, the antitumor function of the gene would be restored. Finding the right combination of genes to suppress was a critical step in the new research. One of the two tumor suppressor genes is an ancient gene, known as Rb, which is naturally inactivated in newts and fish when they start regenerating tissue. Mammals possess both the Rb gene and a backup, called the Arf gene, which will close down a cancer-prone cell if Rb fails to do so.' Is regeneration nature's default, only turned off by our evolved defenses against cancer?"

We're men....we're men in tights

[Pojut]

"Testicles from a newt...I bet he's a transsexual now!"

Re:We're men....we're men in tights

[Pojut]

I take it you've never heard of Mel Brooks...

Re:

[oldspewey]

Well, when you're scrambling to type something fast and get that elusive first post, you can't be too worried about the quality of the material.

Re:We're men....we're men in tights

[Pojut]

Or, if you want me to stay on topic, how's this:

Regrowing lost limbs would be a huge shift...true, an entire industry would grow (haha) out of this technology, but a whole other industry would be put out of business: prosthetics. Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)

Re:

[Rennt]

I don't see how limb regrowth would harm the prosthetic industry.

Just look at the species that do have re-generation abilities. A leg doesn't just spring fully formed from the knee/groin. It would take decades for a human with the same abilities to re-grow an leg. Plenty of room for rehabilitative prosthetics.

Re:

[Kell Bengal]

If you have the technology to grow a leg from the groin, you'll put another industry out of business: porn.

Re:

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

The dangers of leaving your anti-cancer genes in the "off" state for a decade aside; I'm trying to imagine how that would even work. You couldn't obstruct the stump or you would hinder growth. Instead of a rod, the limb would have to be some kind of open cage/exo-skeleton that left plenty of room for the real limb to grow and breathe inside it; or you would have to be constantly having it resized and adjusted.

I am visualizing something cool and cyborgy; the science fiction effect is enhanced if you pic

Re:

[Rennt]

...or you would have to be constantly having it resized and adjusted.

Exactly my point. A re-growing leg would be worth far more to the prosthetics industry then a stable stump.

It would be a (wait for it) growth industry!

Re:

[ultranova]

Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)

We'll become technology. In the long run we'll go far beyond mere cyborgs into full mind uploading. There's far too many advantages to separating your mind from a particular body, the least not being that your intelligence is no longer bound by the amount of brain matter

Re:

[Raenex]

Assuming you could "upload" your mind, what makes you think "you" would no longer have emotions?

Re:

[ultranova]

But do we really want that? I'm quite a modern thinking person, but I just feel that stops us being human.

Could be, at least for some purely biological species definition, but what does that matter if I'm still me?

What is the point in achieving greatness if you no longer have the emotions to feel it?

Why wouldn't I feel it? Emotions are part of a mind, so an uploaded mind would certainly still have them, assuming the upload process works at all of course.

The friends to celebrate it with?

Why wouldn't I hav

Re:

[yndrd1984]

My point was that its a moral/philosophical debate, not a logical one

The fact that you differentiate between the two is the root cause of the problem.

If you upload your mental state to a computer, are you still human?

If you were asking honestly, then I'd just reply "That's the whole point - if you 'aren't you' anymore, then the upload wasn't successful."

The problem is that, for many of us who are used to the concept, it sounds like "if man was meant to fly he would have been born with wings, you

Re:

[ultranova]

My point was that its a moral/philosophical debate, not a logical one, so you really need to just take your feelings on the issue and go with that. Also, I wasn't so much suggesting there aren't potential solutions to those problems, I was simply posing the question: If you upload your mental state to a computer, are you still human?

The question you actually posed was: "If uploading your mind goes horribly wrong, stripping you of emotions in the process, are you still human?" That you didn't notice the dif

Re:

[geekoid]

Robotic research will continue to push that area. regrowing parts is the preferred solution. Sure, your thinking a bad ass robot arm, but they would never be that way, and this research might lead to regrown organs.

Re:

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Not to mention that if prosthetics are knocked out, we may miss out on things like fully-controllable mechanical limbs, which could change the direction the human race goes (do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)

I've actually done extensive research on this subject, and I'll be siding with the Krogoths. Arm doesn't have shit on them.

I hope I don't have to explain that reference. [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[TerranFury]

Arm has Flash tanks in the first 5 minutes? Brawlers afterward? (There is no problem that cannot be solved by a sufficient number of Brawlers!)

Re:

[tibman]

Krogoths or not.. I won't submit to patterning!

Re:

[interkin3tic]

a whole other industry would be put out of business: prosthetics

Sorta like how the glasses industry was put out of business by laser eye surgery advances?

This is muscle cells, many steps away from regrowing full muscles, and even more steps away from regrowing full limbs with bone, ligaments, muscle, tendons, vasculature, skin, and nerves. Even if we do make it the rest of the way, that's going to be a complicated, expensive procedure that's probably going to leave you with a starter limb that will take years of therapy, muscle conditioning, and growth to function as a

Re:

[FlyMysticalDJ]

I have to disagree somewhat. I mean the idea is that we will move in the most powerful appealing direction. If prosthetics have more to offer than just having our own limbs again, it will happen. Of course at that point it makes you wonder if people would be hacking off limbs just to get that sweet tech. What I find a lot more likely is that if we gain the ability to regrow limbs, that prosthetics will move in an enhancement direction instead of a replacement direction. Instead of having a robot arm, maybe

Re:

[mcgrew]

Personally, if I could have had my vision corrected with genetics rather than having a device implanted, I'd have gone with the genetics. Most tools don't need to be actually attched to be part of you (and I can't think of a single tool that you would be better of if it were implanted); ever ridden a bicycle? The bicycle becomes part of you as far as your brain is concerned. I don't need a screwdriver attachment for my arm, I'll jst use a real screwdriver.

I'd be willing to be everyone with an implanted devi

Re:

[BitZtream]

(do we continue to utilize technology, or do we become technology?)

Why does it always get reduced to a one or the other answer?

The two things are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that prosthetics will be the next boob job, and some people will prefer to regrow their own limbs or ... not have a replacement at all.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is this crap?

Classic Slashdot, before the idiots like you arrived.

It's Mel Brooks, who, according to the Slashdot guide may be quoted at any time for any reason, as would Monty Python and Douglas Adams.

He turned me into a newt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I got better.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's supposed to be "she" you idiot.

could be worse

[Lead Butthead]

It could turn you into the lizard [wikimedia.org]

Re:He turned me into a newt!

[__roo]

Meh -- it's only a flesh wound.

Re:

[sconeu]

Dammit, AC, you beat me by 3 minutes, and I didn't see your post because it was too low for me to read.

Turned me into a new

[sconeu]

So first they turn you into a newt, and then you get better?

Re:

[AffidavitDonda]

after you got used to feed on small insects...

Re:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Well disabling anti-cancer genes. Let's have the marketing department "fix" the issue :

"regenerate long lost limbs ! act now and you get 3 kg for free*"

(small print)

(* 3kg free may be either tumor growth or a bowl of sweat collected from our medical department, depending)

--

People who need govt to protect them from religion cannot have much faith in the logic of atheism. And given that government is much more about restricting religion than it ever was about enforcing it, this says a lot more about atheists

Newt

[Tisha_AH]

So, if they can suppress the gene would it be possible for me to grow a tail?

Sure I would need to buy new clothes and chairs would be redesigned but think of how useful a tail would be.

Re:Newt

[Thiez]

I think most slashdotters would like some tail.

Re:

[lorenlal]

Although, you'll have an inclination to chase it if you suppress the backup regenerative gene.

Nature's Default?

[jayme0227]

Is regeneration nature's default, only turned off by our evolved defenses against cancer?

I'm not a biologist, but I'd assume that "nature's default" is simply for a cell to reproduce. . Regeneration is far more complex than that. I would expect a need for a coordinated response by the body to ensure that the *right* cells are reproducing. Without that, we'd just be dealing with the tumors those genes are designed to stop.

Re:

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Given that tumors are basically cell growths that aren't coordinated, you best hope against hope that the response is coordinated if you disable this gene.

And since this gene has been in our dna for a long time, the information coordinating the response is going to be outdated, or simply randomized/erased (genes that are deactivated -for any reason- are randomized by evolution). It seems unlikely in the extreme that the response will be coordinated.

Short-hand

[PIPBoy3000]

I believe this is simply short-hand for "selected by evolutionary processes". Even good science writers like to use "designed" on occasion, just like how physicists talk about electrons "wanting" to find the lowest energy state.

Laziness

[Atmchicago]

It's not short-hand, it's laziness at the least. More likely is that it reveals a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of biology on the part of the author.

You insensitive clod!

[ThatsNotPudding]

Electrons have rights too!

Re:

[maxwell demon]

Without that, we'd just be dealing with the tumors those genes are designed to stop.

What would this imply? (I'll give you a hint, the first word is 'Intelligent')

That our mammal ancestors at one time were so intelligent that they already discovered genetic manipulation, and since they suffered from a high cancer rate, they designed a gene which would suppress that cancer. Somehow that intelligence then got lost however (maybe a case of idiocracy).

SCNR

Re:

[Kell Bengal]

You'd be surprised at how regularly random processes can result in design. There are plenty of systems that, when left to their own devices, converge on specific states ('optimal' stable states within that system). Evolution is precisely a 'design' process in the sense that variations on an apparatus are tested with successes further developed and failures discarded. DNA encodes plans for making such structures - it is the blueprint that is constantly being refined.

The question is not whether design i

Re:

[DragonWriter]

Without that, we'd just be dealing with the tumors those genes are designed to stop.

What would this imply? (I'll give you a hint, the first word is 'Intelligent')

"Intelligent people often anthropomorphize impersonal processes (e.g., evolution) in where this enables them to make more succinct statements that are more focussed on the point they wish to communicate, which often is not about the mechanics of the process."

At least, that's what it implies to me...is that what you were thinking of?

Re:

[Yvanhoe]

If the tissue is correctly located, it "knows" into what it should differentiate thanks to morphogens : https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Morphogen [wikimedia.org] These are substances emitted only in specific parts of the body and their concentration at a given place is the hint a cell use to know which kind of behavior it must adopt.

It's not a tumor!

[shadowrat]

It's not a tumor at all!

But will I crush more with my robot arm or organic

[Orga]

Anyone have any benchmarks? I know Darpa has that new mind controlled robot arm. I'd like to see some performance numbers from that vs. a beefed up regenerating organic arm. I need more crush power to... oh wait.. I control crap with my thoughts don't I... I think preservation of existing tissue is more useful than growing new imo.

Re:

[TheLink]

Uh just have three arms then. Three arms would be more handy in many scenarios...

Re:

[maxwell demon]

Don't forget to grow a second head. It's always good to have a backup.

Re:

[TerranFury]

Depends how much you work out?

Lifespan

[divisionbyzero]

It make sense that newts would have cancer suppressors turned off because they can reproduce and die of other causes before any cancer would kill them and regeneration is likely very handy. Humans on the other hand need to live a fair amount of time to ensure reproductive success and regeneration is likely of less value due to the social supports in human society.

Re:

[ITBurnout]

Right, that was essentially my point in my previous post. Turning off cancer suppressors in order to facilitate regeneration in an organism with a long lifespan, such as a human being, and whose limbs I assume would be more complex to regrow than a newt's, seems like a bad tradeoff. I'd rather have a healthy body that's missing an arm than a cancer-prone or cancer-ridden body that has both limbs. But I guess that's just me...

Re:

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Newts can and do regularly live over 20 years.

Re:

[pnutjam]

Can live 20, if a human only lives 20 it is a tragedy...

Re:

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

So you're comparing newts to humans on a one to one basis are you? Thats... interesting.

Re:

[Gadzeus]

Crocodiles show some ability to regenerate certain tissues:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1563441 [jstor.org]

Teeth regrow in healthy individuals, too. The larger species are thought to live 70 to 100 years, and the animal isn't known to suffer unduly from cancer.

It does have an awful time in the everglades working out what sex it is. (Oestrogenic pollutants)

Re:

[izomiac]

The 5-6 inch long newts live for 20 years, which is pretty good for such a small animal. The 16 inch long salamanders live for 30 years, while the 5-6 foot long salamanders are thought to live about 80 years. If you have a mammal and an amphibian of similar size, the amphibian seems to have a much longer lifespan

In humans, the liver can regenerate quite well, but liver cancer isn't a leading cause of death. Your skin sloughs off every month and regenerates, yet skin cancer risk follows sun exposure ra

I see this hitting the brick wall of regulation

[liquiddark]

Almost by definition, anything regenerated using this technology would have a higher incidence of cancer. One wonders if regulatory bodies can wrap their rules around the notion that the cure is still worth the possible side effects.

Re:

[hypergreatthing]

I guess I'm the only one thinking outside the box when I see that the two anti-cancer genes specified in the article does not say that it's the human body's only defense against cancer?

That and it clearly says to turn it off for a duration of time, not entirely.

Re:

[liquiddark]

Is your theory that there will NOT be an increased rate of occurrence when you turn off two major defense mechanisms? I'd like to hear how you make that case if so.

Re:

[John Whitley]

article does not say that it's the human body's only defense against cancer?

Or perhaps more interestingly: is the Rb gene the newt's only defense against cancer? Specifically, have newts developed alternative cancer defenses that support Rb suppression during regeneration?

git cherry-pick newt/5f5c3c4f

Re:

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Almost by definition, anything regenerated using this technology would have a higher incidence of cancer.

Not at all, by my reading. The tumor suppressors are only turned off to allow the tissue to regenerate, when the drug dissipates, they are turned back on. Anything still acting like a target for the anti-cancer genes would be destroyed like normal.

Re:

[liquiddark]

After the drug dissipates, it will be destroyed, if it hasn't already metastasized or otherwise become a problem that the genes can't fix. In the meantime, two major cancer defenses are inert. I'm not sure how that would somehow not be an obvious window of opportunity for cancer to creep in, particularly when you've got massive tissue generation happening in the area affected

Re:

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

A window of opportunity doesn't guarantee infection. Leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean you'll get robbed; it just elevates the risk. So the question is, what is the baseline risk? At what frequency do our cells normally become become malignant growths, and what percentage of these are prevented by these genes? I don't think we're in a position to know the latter as yet, as the idea of disabling them seems relatively new. Are those genes stopping 10 tumors a week, or less than one a year? If you g

Re:

[liquiddark]

I think you missed my original point. I wasn't saying this is a bad idea, I was saying that there is a strong likelihood that there will be an increased chance of cancer. I would imagine a significantly increased chance, given the combination of fewer defenses and massively increased opportunities, but time may tell. Regardless, my point was that I was hoping that this wouldn't be a case where regulatory caution put walls in the way of near-miraculous medicine.

Re:

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Sorry, after the first round through the argument machine I had forgotten the second half of your initial statement. My apologies.

Re:

[Script Cat]

Sadly, I think your right. I always hear of amazing breakthroughs like this or cancer cures etc.
But how often is it actually applied in medicine.
The real industry will just keep using the stone knives and flint axes they are used to.

Sit! Good boy!

[flahwho]

One problem, the Arf gene tends to make people sniff the ass of people who walk by, leg humping and rawhide chewing.

Cell Stem Cell?

[StikyPad]

See cell.
See cell stem.
Stem, cell, stem!
See cell lose its differentiation markers when induced by inactivation of Rb in conjunction with ARF, re-enter the cell cycle, proliferate, and then recapitulate differentiation in the blastema.
Replicate the robust regenerative response typical of urodeles, cell, replicate the robust regenerative response typical of urodeles!

wait a minute!

[hesaigo999ca]

>adult mammalian cells can be made to regenerate
does he mean that regenerate like the newt and completely regrow a limb, or just regenerate tissue that is there but maybe damaged...?

Re:

[radtea]

does he mean that regenerate like the newt and completely regrow a limb, or just regenerate tissue that is there but maybe damaged...?

This work is all in vito, cell line stuff. The purpose is to understand the underlying mechanisms of regrowth regulation based on some inferences from the evolutionary history of mammals relative to reptiles, which the Bible strangely neglects to mention.

Amazingly, despite the Bible not mentioning this stuff, these scientists have found a gene that is turned off in newts during regeneration which can also result in regeneration when turned off in mammals, almost as if mammals evolved from reptiles by a pro

Re:

[hesaigo999ca]

>does he mean that regenerate like the newt and completely regrow a limb, or just regenerate tissue that is there but maybe damaged...?
Still haven't touched my question, did he mean to regenerate the limb itself fresh like a newt does or does he mean to regenerate tissue that has been damaged, like a cut. This is the question I would like answered, although your mention of the bible does lead me to believe a side line alterior motive to your question, how many times did you read the bible?

Salamanders Do It

[Graphene]

Scientific American did a good piece of limb regeneration back in April 2008(Regrowing Limbs: Can People Regenerate Body Parts? Preview - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=regrowing-human-limbs [scientificamerican.com]) Key points are that salamanders are best at complete limb regeneration but humans (and many other animals) scar instead of regenerating. However, if we turn off the scar system and prime the regeneration system, we may be able to regenerate whole limbs, too. One of the neat points made in the article

Fucking /.

[thomst]

I submitted this story yesterday - but that was before the NY Times picked it up, so my submission "only" pointed to sites like PhysOrg and PubMed. I guess that just wasn't "newsy" enough for /.'s discriminating editorial staff to bother with.

But apparently it is now.

Fucking /. ...

Arf!

[Snaller]

With a name like that - how can it fail!